They're arguing over whether or not you can impeach a president after he's left office.
44 voted against holding a trial - Thought they had already held that vote
video from today's presentation:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4944591/user-clip-house-impeachment-video-evidence
This is an interesting read, to me: Source:
https://constitution.congress.gov/
The House has impeached twenty individuals: fifteen federal judges, one Senator, one Cabinet member, and three Presidents.17 The consensus reflected in these proceedings is that impeachment may serve as a means to address misconduct that does not necessarily give rise to criminal sanction. The types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment in the House appear to fall into three general categories: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.18 Consistent with scholarship on the scope of impeachable offenses,19 congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment do not all fit neatly and logically into categories because the remedy of impeachment is intended to reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office.20
The Framers purposefully left equal room for interpretation as well as equal vagueness to make proving such infractions as difficult as required. Very wise, in my opinion, to offer the option of other options than impeachment.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The issue here is if "Impeachment" is successive, in that it takes removal "from Office" to then have the power for "disqualification", or if "disqualification" can be exacted separately if "the Party" is no longer in office.
Also being "liable and subject" ... "according to Law" would be the next logical step for proponents of punishment if "Impeachment" is not successful. If said parties fail to proceed in this manner, then I question their motives in pursuing impeachment.
I do think that "the President can do anything" before leaving office is a weak argument for proponents of impeachment, since the "President" is "liable and subject" after leaving office. This, as I interpret that sentence of Clause 7.
