"In the middle of difficulties, lies opportunity", said Albert Einstein.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
Each tragedy leaves the hint of a comedy yet to be unfolded, each misfortune comes seeded in felicity yet to be born. In the same way, the latest action of the opposition parties to impeach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the subsequent developments, no matter how "unfortunate and mischievous" they may be, have the potential to open up and settle many academic debates that would eventually go to strengthen the constitutional jurisprudence in India once the ominous dust kicked up around the matter is settled. The issue, although denting the image of the judiciary in an unfathomable way, is nothing less than a seed falling on the fertile ground. 
&nbsp; 
In the evolutionary process of society, each event has its significance. In the ontological argument, the question whether the opposition should have initiated a motion of impeachment against the CJI, and whether the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha should have shot it down on his own, both carry equal significance.

To the students of constitutional law, the development leads to a rich mine of potentialities where the outcome is likely to put forth a windfall of lessons that would help in setting definite regulations and precedents in areas that hitherto suffer from constitutional uncertainties.

Let’s talk on the motion of removal of the CJI, which is popularly known as 'impeachment motion' in media, though the word 'impeachment' comes with specific reference to President of India under Article 61 of the Constitution for judges of the Supreme Court, Article 124(4) of the Constitution mentions the word 'removal' instead of impeachment.

The motion of removal of the CJI, as submitted to Rajya Sabha by Ghulam Nabi Azad last Friday containing signatures of 71 Members of Parliament of Rajya Sabha (7 have retired now) from the Congress and 6 other parties, contained 5 'grounds of misbehaviour', hence the opposition pitched the case to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha for removal of the CJI. 
&nbsp; 
However, on Monday, Venkaiah Naidu, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, drew the curtain on the motion by rejecting it altogether. While doing so he had observed - "Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case... the phrases used by the Hon'ble MPs themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', which is required to make out a case of 'proved misbehaviour' under Article 124 (4)… I am also aware it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge.” (Italics added) 
&nbsp; 
Though the Congress found the decision "ill-conceived and hasty", the decision of the Chairman stands in complete conformity with the existing law. In a series of cases, the courts have taken this position that the Speaker/Chairman is the final authority to decide whether the accusation against a judge of the Supreme Court requires investigation before consideration of his removal proposal by the Parliament. Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 provides for the admission of such motion by the Speaker or the Chairman and subsequent action on it.

In Sarojini Ramaswami Vs Union of India (1992), the SC had set the guidelines in unambiguous terms: "Every Judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner provided in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India.

The law made by the Parliament under Article 124(5), namely, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 framed thereunder provides that… the Speaker/Chairman is to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to act on the accusation made in the form of the motion by the specified minimum number of Members of Parliament, the matter ends there." This position has been reiterated in a series of judgments, the most recent being Justice PD Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee (July 2011).

Incidentally, Justice S. Ramaswami was the first judge against whom a motion of removal was initiated in the Parliament and during the investigation on the corruption charges against him, 10 out of 14 charges were found to be true by the inquiry committee.

However, despite concrete evidences of corruption and misuse of power against justice Ramaswami, Kapil Sibal, assisted by JS Khehar, who was then an advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and who later became the 44th CJI of India, put up a 5-hour long spirited defence of Ramaswami as his counsel in the Parliament on May 10, 1993 and ensured that the impeachment motion failed in the House.

Whereas the Kapil Sibal of 1993 hated the idea of impeaching a judge with proven misbehavior, the Kapil Sibal of 2018 is hell-bent on impeaching a judge by inventing and imputing misbehavior to him. Chief Justice Dinakaran of Sikkim High Court, on the other hand, saved himself from the ignominy by resigning from his post in 2011.

The present episode leaves open many questions.

The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie. In such a scenario, the first and foremost question is, what constitutes "standard of proof"?

In common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof is nothing but clear and convincing evidence that happen to be beyond reasonable doubt and carry a level of certainty around them. However, the 'preponderance of probabilities' may also constitute a standard of proof.&nbsp;

In various decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in Dr. NG Dastane v. Mrs. S Dastane (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1534), it was held that the Court can "act on the preponderance of probabilities and arrive at a conclusion, and need not expect that all the conditions prescribed are to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt."

So, while Naidu believes 'suspicion, conjecture and assumption'&nbsp;have no role to play in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt, will preponderance of probabilities, if any, play a role in framing a jigsaw fit of charges from the 5 grounds of misbehavior listed against the CJI, once the matter reaches the court? 
&nbsp; 
Secondly, can the Chief Justice of India be considered as an institution of trust himself? 
&nbsp; 
The question was settled by a Supreme Court bench led by the CJI Deepak Mishra himself when it rejected a petition on April 11th this year filed by a Lucknow-based lawyer Ashok Pandey who sought a writ of Mandamus to "evolve a procedure for constituting benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches".

Quoting an earlier judgment of the State of Rajasthan Vs Prakash Chand (1998) and also a recent judgment of a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India (2018), the CJI-led bench affirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the undisputed master of roasters. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud had opined, "as a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution of trust in himself."

The judgment implies there should be no occasion to deny the trust reposed in the CJI and hence he should be constitutionally trusted. However, with the opposition attacking on this very ‘repository of constitutional trust’, the question remains whether the repository of constitutional trust vested in the Chief Justice is absolute or is still open to judicial scrutiny?

The third question is whether this legislative decision of Venkaiah Naidu to reject the motion of removal of the CJI is subject to judicial review?

The settled position of law is that conducting businesses of the House, such as admitting or rejecting a motion, including a removal motion under Art 124(4), which is no different from any other motion under rules and procedures of Rajya Sabha under Art 118, is an exclusive right of the Chairman, and hence the courts can’t interfere in his legislative right. However, after the historic Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala case (1973) decision, where it was famously settled that Parliament can’t interfere with the 'basic structures' of the Constitution, the Congress can cling on to the thin argument that 'independence of judiciary', which certainly is a basic structure of the constitution, stands today in peril hence the Supreme Court must step in and review the decision of the Chairman. 
&nbsp; 
The three important questions raised above can finally and comprehensively be answered once the matter reaches to the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. To the Congress, the battle is electoral, guided by its political insinuations, hence the party is certain to take the issue to the Supreme Court.

However, from a value-neutral perspective, the episode presents an excellent opportunity to the constitutional institutions to fix the matter by plugging those nagging gaps in procedures and set definite precedents to avoid recurrence of similar situations in future. That's why the episode is nothing less than an opportunity in disguise.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie

"In the middle of difficulties, lies opportunity", said Albert Einstein. Each tragedy leaves the hint of a comedy yet to be unfolded, each misfortune comes seeded in felicity yet to be born. In the same way, the latest action of the opposition parties to impeach the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the subsequent developments, no matter how "unfortunate and mischievous" they may be, have the potential to open up and settle many academic debates that would eventually go to strengthen the constitutional jurisprudence in India once the ominous dust kicked up around the matter is settled. The issue, although denting the image of the judiciary in an unfathomable way, is nothing less than a seed falling on the fertile ground. In the evolutionary process of society, each event has its significance. In the ontological argument, the question whether the opposition should have initiated a motion of impeachment against the CJI, and whether the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha should have shot it down on his own, both carry equal significance. To the students of constitutional law, the development leads to a rich mine of potentialities where the outcome is likely to put forth a windfall of lessons that would help in setting definite regulations and precedents in areas that hitherto suffer from constitutional uncertainties. Let’s talk on the motion of removal of the CJI, which is popularly known as 'impeachment motion' in media, though the word 'impeachment' comes with specific reference to President of India under Article 61 of the Constitution for judges of the Supreme Court, Article 124(4) of the Constitution mentions the word 'removal' instead of impeachment. The motion of removal of the CJI, as submitted to Rajya Sabha by Ghulam Nabi Azad last Friday containing signatures of 71 Members of Parliament of Rajya Sabha (7 have retired now) from the Congress and 6 other parties, contained 5 'grounds of misbehaviour', hence the opposition pitched the case to the Chairman of Rajya Sabha for removal of the CJI. However, on Monday, Venkaiah Naidu, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, drew the curtain on the motion by rejecting it altogether. While doing so he had observed - "Members of Parliament who have presented the petition are unsure of their own case... the phrases used by the Hon'ble MPs themselves indicate a mere suspicion, a conjecture or an assumption. The same certainly does not constitute 'proof beyond reasonable doubt', which is required to make out a case of 'proved misbehaviour' under Article 124 (4)… I am also aware it is imperative that we should have extraordinary, important and substantial grounds for the removal of a judge.” (Italics added) Though the Congress found the decision "ill-conceived and hasty", the decision of the Chairman stands in complete conformity with the existing law. In a series of cases, the courts have taken this position that the Speaker/Chairman is the final authority to decide whether the accusation against a judge of the Supreme Court requires investigation before consideration of his removal proposal by the Parliament. Section 3(1) of the Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 provides for the admission of such motion by the Speaker or the Chairman and subsequent action on it. In Sarojini Ramaswami Vs Union of India (1992), the SC had set the guidelines in unambiguous terms: "Every Judge of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on his appointment is irremovable from office during his tenure except in the manner provided in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 124 of the Constitution of India. The law made by the Parliament under Article 124(5), namely, the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 and the Judges (Inquiry) Rules, 1969 framed thereunder provides that… the Speaker/Chairman is to decide whether the accusation requires investigation. If he chooses not to act on the accusation made in the form of the motion by the specified minimum number of Members of Parliament, the matter ends there." This position has been reiterated in a series of judgments, the most recent being Justice PD Dinakaran vs Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee (July 2011). Incidentally, Justice S. Ramaswami was the first judge against whom a motion of removal was initiated in the Parliament and during the investigation on the corruption charges against him, 10 out of 14 charges were found to be true by the inquiry committee. However, despite concrete evidences of corruption and misuse of power against justice Ramaswami, Kapil Sibal, assisted by JS Khehar, who was then an advocate in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and who later became the 44th CJI of India, put up a 5-hour long spirited defence of Ramaswami as his counsel in the Parliament on May 10, 1993 and ensured that the impeachment motion failed in the House. Whereas the Kapil Sibal of 1993 hated the idea of impeaching a judge with proven misbehavior, the Kapil Sibal of 2018 is hell-bent on impeaching a judge by inventing and imputing misbehavior to him. Chief Justice Dinakaran of Sikkim High Court, on the other hand, saved himself from the ignominy by resigning from his post in 2011. The present episode leaves open many questions. The opposition says that the CJI is guilty of misbehavior while the Vice-President says there is no proof prima facie. In such a scenario, the first and foremost question is, what constitutes "standard of proof"? In common law jurisdictions, the standard of proof is nothing but clear and convincing evidence that happen to be beyond reasonable doubt and carry a level of certainty around them. However, the 'preponderance of probabilities' may also constitute a standard of proof. In various decisions of the Supreme Court, such as in Dr. NG Dastane v. Mrs. S Dastane (AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1534), it was held that the Court can "act on the preponderance of probabilities and arrive at a conclusion, and need not expect that all the conditions prescribed are to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt." So, while Naidu believes 'suspicion, conjecture and assumption' have no role to play in establishing proof beyond reasonable doubt, will preponderance of probabilities, if any, play a role in framing a jigsaw fit of charges from the 5 grounds of misbehavior listed against the CJI, once the matter reaches the court? Secondly, can the Chief Justice of India be considered as an institution of trust himself? The question was settled by a Supreme Court bench led by the CJI Deepak Mishra himself when it rejected a petition on April 11th this year filed by a Lucknow-based lawyer Ashok Pandey who sought a writ of Mandamus to "evolve a procedure for constituting benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches". Quoting an earlier judgment of the State of Rajasthan Vs Prakash Chand (1998) and also a recent judgment of a Constitution Bench in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India (2018), the CJI-led bench affirmed that the Chief Justice of India is the undisputed master of roasters. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandrachud had opined, "as a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution of trust in himself." The judgment implies there should be no occasion to deny the trust reposed in the CJI and hence he should be constitutionally trusted. However, with the opposition attacking on this very ‘repository of constitutional trust’, the question remains whether the repository of constitutional trust vested in the Chief Justice is absolute or is still open to judicial scrutiny? The third question is whether this legislative decision of Venkaiah Naidu to reject the motion of removal of the CJI is subject to judicial review? The settled position of law is that conducting businesses of the House, such as admitting or rejecting a motion, including a removal motion under Art 124(4), which is no different from any other motion under rules and procedures of Rajya Sabha under Art 118, is an exclusive right of the Chairman, and hence the courts can’t interfere in his legislative right. However, after the historic Keshvanand Bharti Vs State of Kerala case (1973) decision, where it was famously settled that Parliament can’t interfere with the 'basic structures' of the Constitution, the Congress can cling on to the thin argument that 'independence of judiciary', which certainly is a basic structure of the constitution, stands today in peril hence the Supreme Court must step in and review the decision of the Chairman. The three important questions raised above can finally and comprehensively be answered once the matter reaches to the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. To the Congress, the battle is electoral, guided by its political insinuations, hence the party is certain to take the issue to the Supreme Court. However, from a value-neutral perspective, the episode presents an excellent opportunity to the constitutional institutions to fix the matter by plugging those nagging gaps in procedures and set definite precedents to avoid recurrence of similar situations in future. That's why the episode is nothing less than an opportunity in disguise. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Why is the impeachment saga an opportunity in disguise?

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said on Tuesday that the Congress was wrong in giving an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

The Trinamool Congress did not support the impeachment move, she said.

“The Congress was wrong to give impeachment notice against the CJI. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not,” she told a news channel.

“I told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi not to go for impeachment,” Banerjee said, adding that her party did not want to interfere in the judiciary.

Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the Chief Justice of India on five grounds of “misbehaviour”, saying the allegations were neither “tenable nor admissible”.

Also Read:<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu-132555">&nbsp;Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty — Venkaiah Naidu</a>

Naidu’s order, which came within two days of the notice being submitted to him, was slammed as “hasty, illegal and ill-informed” by the Congress.&nbsp;

Banerjee,&nbsp;who is seen as a key player in a possible grouping of non-BJP political parties ahead of the next Lok Sabha elections, termed the decision of Congress and other opposition parties of impeachment notice against the CJI as "wrong".

A strident critic of the BJP-led central government and its policies, Banerjee had recently called for unity among all the anti-BJP forces to defeat the saffron party in the 2019 Lok Sabha election.

Earlier on Tuesday, Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu said his decision was "<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/decision-to-reject-impeachment-motion-against-cji-was-not-hasty-venkaiah-naidu-132555">timely and not a hasty one</a>" and came after over a month of due diligence.

(With inputs from PTI)

"Congress was wrong to move impeachment notice against CJI Dipak Misra. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not," the TMC chief said.

West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee said on Tuesday that the Congress was wrong in giving an impeachment notice against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The Trinamool Congress did not support the impeachment move, she said. “The Congress was wrong to give impeachment notice against the CJI. The Congress wanted us to support it. But we did not,” she told a news channel. “I told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi not to go for impeachment,” Banerjee said, adding that her party did not want to interfere in the judiciary. Vice President and Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on Monday rejected the notice by seven opposition parties, led by the Congress, to impeach the Chief Justice of India on five grounds of “misbehaviour”, saying the allegations were neither “tenable nor admissible”. Also Read: Decision to reject impeachment motion against CJI was not hasty — Venkaiah Naidu Naidu’s order, which came within two days of the notice being submitted to him, was slammed as “hasty, illegal and ill-informed” by the Congress. Banerjee, who is seen as a key player in a possible grouping of non-BJP political parties ahead of the next Lok Sabha elections, termed the decision of Congress and other opposition parties of impeachment notice against the CJI as "wrong". A strident critic of the BJP-led central government and its policies, Banerjee had recently called for unity among all the anti-BJP forces to defeat the saffron party in the 2019 Lok Sabha election. Earlier on Tuesday, Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu said his decision was "timely and not a hasty one" and came after over a month of due diligence. (With inputs from PTI)

Told Sonia Gandhi, Rahul not to go ahead with impeachment notice against CJI, says Mamata Banerjee

<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/modi-xi-to-chart-a-new-course-for-india-china-ties-at-wuhan-summit--132075">Modi-Xi to chart a new course for India-China ties at Wuhan summit</a>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping will hold a summit in China's Wuhan city from April 27 to 28 for a "heart-to-heart" chat to explore a new paradigm for India-China ties and find ways to address the contentious issues like the border dispute.

<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-election-2018-many-killed-in-a-blast-at-voter-registration-centre-in-kabul-131999">Kabul suicide blast: Death toll reaches 48</a>

The death toll from Sunday's blast in the Afghan capital Kabul rose to 48, with 112 others wounded, a public health officer said. The attack follows several weeks of relative calm in Kabul.&nbsp;

<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/congress-may-move-court-if-impeachment-notice-rejected-132066">Congress may move court if impeachment notice rejected</a>

As the Congress awaits the decision of Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on an impeachment notice moved by it and other parties against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, it is considering moving the Supreme Court if the petition is rejected, party leaders said.

<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/world/israel-hints-it-could-hit-irans-air-force-in-syria-132058">Israel hints it could hit Iran's 'air force' in Syria</a>

Israel released details on Tuesday about what it described as an Iranian "air force" deployed in neighbouring Syria, including civilian planes suspected of transferring arms, a signal that these could be attacked should tensions with Tehran escalate.

<a href="http://cmsuat.wionews.com/india-news/i-am-also-ignored-amit-shah-doesnt-allow-any-of-my-programme-to-happen-subramanian-swamy-on-yashwant-sinha-132030">Subramanian Swamy accuses Amit Shah of ignoring him, but won't quit BJP</a>

Subramanian Swamy on Sunday claimed that he has often been ignored by party chief Amit Shah who, he said, has often did not allow his programmes to take place.

.

Modi-Xi to chart a new course for India-China ties at Wuhan summit Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping will hold a summit in China's Wuhan city from April 27 to 28 for a "heart-to-heart" chat to explore a new paradigm for India-China ties and find ways to address the contentious issues like the border dispute. Kabul suicide blast: Death toll reaches 48 The death toll from Sunday's blast in the Afghan capital Kabul rose to 48, with 112 others wounded, a public health officer said. The attack follows several weeks of relative calm in Kabul. Congress may move court if impeachment notice rejected As the Congress awaits the decision of Rajya Sabha Chairman M Venkaiah Naidu on an impeachment notice moved by it and other parties against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, it is considering moving the Supreme Court if the petition is rejected, party leaders said. Israel hints it could hit Iran's 'air force' in Syria Israel released details on Tuesday about what it described as an Iranian "air force" deployed in neighbouring Syria, including civilian planes suspected of transferring arms, a signal that these could be attacked should tensions with Tehran escalate. Subramanian Swamy accuses Amit Shah of ignoring him, but won't quit BJP Subramanian Swamy on Sunday claimed that he has often been ignored by party chief Amit Shah who, he said, has often did not allow his programmes to take place. .

News brief: Big stories of the day

Congress-led opposition parties today met Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu seeing impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

Nearly 71 lawmakers have signed the petition that alleges the Chief Justice of misconduct and misbehaviour. The motion will be examined by the Vice President.&nbsp;

The request for Misra's impeachment has sparked a political outcry in the country with the BJP lashing out at the Congress for trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary.&nbsp;

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday accused the Congress party of trivialising the power of impeachment and using it as a political tool.

The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case.

An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100.

Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he&nbsp;will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion.

In case he finds merit a committee can be formed to look into the matter, else the motion can be simply rejected.

While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries.

Bangladesh

The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict last year, declared void a 2014 constitutional amendment that empowered its parliament to impeach apex court judges.&nbsp;

Sri Lanka

The ruling coalition in the year 2012 moved a resolution to impeach the country’s chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake.&nbsp;

Early in the year 2013, the Sri Lankan parliament debated the impeachment motion against Bandaranayake removing her from office on 13 January 2013.&nbsp;

She was reinstated into her office by President Maithripala Sirisena.&nbsp;

Nepal

On 30 April, two ruling parties of Nepal -- the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) -- moved an impeachment motion alleging that the Chief Justice had encroached on the prerogatives of the executive branch.&nbsp;

UN rights chief called the impeachment motion "an assault on human rights". “I urge the Nepal authorities to respect the independence of the judiciary, to withdraw what appears to be a politically motivated impeachment motion and to commit to the processes of transitional justice and accountability,” said the top UN human rights official.&nbsp;

If the impeachment motion against Misra is moved it will be the first time ever in the country's history.&nbsp;

While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents and the protocol of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries

Congress-led opposition parties today met Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu seeing impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. Nearly 71 lawmakers have signed the petition that alleges the Chief Justice of misconduct and misbehaviour. The motion will be examined by the Vice President. The request for Misra's impeachment has sparked a political outcry in the country with the BJP lashing out at the Congress for trying to "demean, degrade and denigrate" the judiciary. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on Friday accused the Congress party of trivialising the power of impeachment and using it as a political tool. The impeachment notice comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a bunch of petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of Judge B H Loya, who was hearing the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case. An impeachment motion in the Rajya Sabha has to be supported by at least 50 MPs of the Upper House, while the number of MPs supporting such a motion in the Lok Sabha is 100. Once the notice of impeachment is submitted to the Rajya Sabha chairman, he will ascertain whether there is merit or ground for moving such a motion. In case he finds merit a committee can be formed to look into the matter, else the motion can be simply rejected. While the final word on CJI Misra's impeachment is yet to be pronounced, here is a quick look at the incidents of impeaching Chief Justices in some of the neighbouring South Asian countries. Bangladesh The Supreme Court, in a landmark verdict last year, declared void a 2014 constitutional amendment that empowered its parliament to impeach apex court judges. Sri Lanka The ruling coalition in the year 2012 moved a resolution to impeach the country’s chief justice, Shirani Bandaranayake. Early in the year 2013, the Sri Lankan parliament debated the impeachment motion against Bandaranayake removing her from office on 13 January 2013. She was reinstated into her office by President Maithripala Sirisena. Nepal On 30 April, two ruling parties of Nepal -- the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre) -- moved an impeachment motion alleging that the Chief Justice had encroached on the prerogatives of the executive branch. UN rights chief called the impeachment motion "an assault on human rights". “I urge the Nepal authorities to respect the independence of the judiciary, to withdraw what appears to be a politically motivated impeachment motion and to commit to the processes of transitional justice and accountability,” said the top UN human rights official. If the impeachment motion against Misra is moved it will be the first time ever in the country's history.

Incidents of impeachment: A quick look at some South Asian nations

The opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.

According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI.&nbsp;The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP.

Here's we take a look at the 5-Step procedure to impeach the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/cji-impeachment-row-seven-parties-move-motion-to-sack-dipak-misra-131618"> Chief Justice of India</a>:

Step 1: A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House.

Step 2: The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker/Chairman of the House. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House forms a three-member committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges. This committee would look into the alleged charges levelled against the Chief Justice of India.

Step 3: If the three-member committee decides to support the motion, it is taken up for discussion in the House, where it had been introduced and must be passed by a special majority - which means it has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting.

Step 4: Once it is passed, it is taken up in the next House where again it needs to be passed by a special majority.

Step 5: After the motion is passed through both the Houses with two-third majority, the President of India is approached to remove the Chief Justice of India.

A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House.

The opposition parties led by the Congress on Friday met vice president and Rajya Sabha chairman M Venkaiah Naidu and handed over a notice for the impeachment of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. According to sources, 64 MPs of the Rajya Sabha belonging to seven political parties gave the notice for the impeachment against the CJI. The MPs who signed the notice belong to the Congress, the NCP, the CPI-M and CPI, the SP and the BSP. Here's we take a look at the 5-Step procedure to impeach the Chief Justice of India: Step 1: A notice of motion is issued by 100 MPs from the Lok Sabha or 50 MPs from the Rajya Sabha. This motion for removal can be moved in either House. Step 2: The motion can either be accepted or rejected by the Speaker/Chairman of the House. If the motion is admitted, the Speaker or the Chairman of the House forms a three-member committee comprising a senior judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the High Court and a distinguished jurist to investigate the charges. This committee would look into the alleged charges levelled against the Chief Justice of India. Step 3: If the three-member committee decides to support the motion, it is taken up for discussion in the House, where it had been introduced and must be passed by a special majority - which means it has to be supported by a majority of the total membership of that House not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting. Step 4: Once it is passed, it is taken up in the next House where again it needs to be passed by a special majority. Step 5: After the motion is passed through both the Houses with two-third majority, the President of India is approached to remove the Chief Justice of India.

Here is the 5-step procedure to impeach Chief Justice of India

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system.

Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court.

The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'.

"The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said.

He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily.

Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?"

"The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order."

"Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said.

His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country.

On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true".

"I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said.

Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye.

"None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said.

In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government".

"I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said.

Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure.

When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media.

"Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements.

"I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said.

Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government?

"I am not answering this question," he replied.

He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired.

When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".&nbsp

Gogoi was one of the four Supreme Court judges who held the January 12 press conference. The conference was seen as being an indictment of CJI Dipak Misra

Justice J Chelameswar, who courted controversy by virtually revolting against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, today said that impeachment cannot be an answer to every question and problem and there was need to correct the system. Justice Chelameswar, the senior-most judge after the CJI, said the January 12 press conference he held along with justices Ranjan Gogoi, M B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, was the result of "anguish" and "concern" as their deliberations with the CJI did not achieve the desired results on the issues raised by them regarding the functioning of the top court. The judge, who was holding a talk on the topic 'Role of judiciary in democracy', also answered questions on the priority of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases to different judges as the 'master of roster'. "The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it," he said. He replied in affirmative when asked whether the power of setting up of benches and allocation of cases should be exercised arbitrarily. Asked by eminent journalist Karan Thapar, who was in conversation with the judge, if there is "sufficient ground for seeking impeachment of the Chief Justice of India", Justice Chelameswar said: "Why this question is asked?" "The other day, someone was asking for my impeachment. I don't know why this nation is worried about impeachment so much. In fact we (along with Justice Gogoi) wrote in the judgement of Justice C S Karnan that apart from that there must be mechanisms to put the system in order." "Impeachment can't be the answer for every question or every problem. A few days ago I heard somebody asking for my impeachment. Like the saying goes, I don't agree with you but I shall protect your right to say so," he said. His response came in the backdrop of moves by opposition parties to initiate impeachment proceedings against the CJI. No CJI has ever faced impeachment in the country. On being asked whether he was apprehensive or feared that Justice Gogoi, who was part of the November 2017 letter written to the CJI and the presser, will not be elevated as the next CJI, Justice Chelameswar said he hoped it does not happen and if it happened, it will be proved that what they said in the January 12 press conference was "true". "I am not an astrologer... I am not (worried). I hope that does not happen (Justice Gogoi being denied CJI's position). If it happens, it will only prove what we said in the press conference was true," he said. Regarding the current status of the collegium, whether it's divided 4:1 or dismantled after the discord between the four seniormost judges and the CJI, Justice Chelameswar said the five judges who are part of collegium met last evening as well as last week and even if they have differences, this does not mean they don't see eye to eye. "None of us are fighting for private property. Differences are on institutional issues, that does not mean that we do not see eye to eye," he said. In the programme organised by Harvard Club of India, which consist of people who have studied from the American university and are residing here, the judge made it clear that after his retirement on June 22, he would "not seek any employment from the government". "I am saying it on record that after my retirement on June 22, I will not seek any appointment from the government," he said. Thapar's conversation with Justice Chelameswar which lasted for 70 minutes was focused on all the recent controversies ranging from appointment of judges to higher judiciary to setting up of benches and allocation of cases on preferential basis, hearing on sensitive cases like judge B H Loya's death, turf war between judiciary and executive over the Memorandum of Procedure. When asked his view on the criticism being made for going public with the presser on the functioning of the institution, he said anybody who enters public office cannot avoid criticism and there was no such principle barring judges interacting with the media. "Anybody who enters a public office can never avoid criticism. And I was wondering where this principle come from? What was the context that this principle came from? Judges were not expected to debate in the press about the judgements. "I go somewhere, press would be there, they report something and if I interact with them, is it prohibited? Similarly we were talking about the administrative problems. We were not breaching any of the time-honoured principles that we should not address the press," he said. Justice Chelameswar refused to answer whether preferential benches were chosen to benefit the government? "I am not answering this question," he replied. He also avoided answer to a question that the preferential benches are constituted to get an order or judgement which the chief justice desired. When asked whether the selective allocation of cases is undermining the faith in the institution, he said "I believe so" and "if the process is not transparent, it will lead to suspicion".

If Ranjan Gogoi not made next CJI, will prove what we said was true: Chelameswar

The opposition has begun the process of initiating impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

The development was confirmed by a number of Opposition leaders on Tuesday.&nbsp;

"The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India," NCP leader Majeed Memon said. &nbsp;

Another NCP parliamentarian D P Tripathi said, "I have signed it and others are also signing it and the process is going on."

Tripathi said it is not just corruption, but "the charges are far more serious" and it emanates from the letter that four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court had earlier written stating that there was danger to the independence of judiciary.

Tripathi confirmed that among the signatories to the notice were members of NCP, CPI-M, CPI and others, and indicated that some Congress leaders too had signed it.&nbsp;

The Samajwadi Party too is supporting the move. "The Samajwadi Party stands with the impeachment motion, which is about bringing independence and unquestionable integrity to the judiciary," SP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari told ANI.&nbsp;

As is West Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee, who told reporters: “I can only say that Trinamool Congress will go with whatever decision the other parties take on the impeachment of the CJI. After all, one cannot ignore what the four judges had to say.”

Banerjee's statement came after her meeting — to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI — earlier in the day with senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan.&nbsp;

(With inputs from PTI) 
&nbsp;

'The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India,' NCP leader Majeed Memon said.

The opposition has begun the process of initiating impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra. The development was confirmed by a number of Opposition leaders on Tuesday. "The Congress as the largest opposition party has belatedly initiated the proceedings for impeachment of the Chief Justice of India," NCP leader Majeed Memon said. Another NCP parliamentarian D P Tripathi said, "I have signed it and others are also signing it and the process is going on." Tripathi said it is not just corruption, but "the charges are far more serious" and it emanates from the letter that four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court had earlier written stating that there was danger to the independence of judiciary. Tripathi confirmed that among the signatories to the notice were members of NCP, CPI-M, CPI and others, and indicated that some Congress leaders too had signed it. The Samajwadi Party too is supporting the move. "The Samajwadi Party stands with the impeachment motion, which is about bringing independence and unquestionable integrity to the judiciary," SP leader Ghanshyam Tiwari told ANI. As is West Bengal chief minister and TMC chief Mamata Banerjee, who told reporters: “I can only say that Trinamool Congress will go with whatever decision the other parties take on the impeachment of the CJI. After all, one cannot ignore what the four judges had to say.” Banerjee's statement came after her meeting — to discuss a possible impeachment motion against the CJI — earlier in the day with senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan. (With inputs from PTI)

Opposition begins gathering signatures to impeach Chief Justice of India

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra.&nbsp;

Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable.

He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion.&nbsp;

In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis.

&quot;Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive,&quot; Yechury noted.&nbsp;

He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session.&nbsp;

He urged the judges to sort their &quot;grudges&quot; on their own.&nbsp;

Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a &quot;very dangerous situation&quot; and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities.&nbsp;

&quot;We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward,&quot; he noted.&nbsp;

The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

Yechury also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion

CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury noted on Tuesday that the opposition is considering pressing for the impeachment of CJI Dipak Misra. Yechury called judicial independence and its integrity non-negotiable. He also noted that the only option left to tackle the matter is through an impeachment motion. In a fresh twist to the conflict in the Supreme Court -- where four senior Supreme Court judges accused CJI Dipak Misra of judicial impropriety -- CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury said that the opposition parties have started discussing ways to mitigate the ongoing judicial crisis. "Looks like the crisis is not resolved yet, so need to intervene and its time to play the role of an executive," Yechury noted. He also shared that CPM is in the process of discussing the possibility of an impeachment motion against CJI with other parties -- such as NCP, RJD SP -- during the Budget session. He urged the judges to sort their "grudges" on their own. Yechury called the ongoing Supreme Court tussle a "very dangerous situation" and called out to the Modi government to mediate the matter with the assistance of the parliament and the legislative authorities. "We are trying that in next 2-3 days we take some decision and move forward," he noted. The passing of the impeachment motion will require a majority of two-thirds support -- a task that looks difficult to achieve as the BJP has cornered itself from participating in the move. (With inputs from agencies)

Opposition parties may call for CJI's impeachment: Sitaram Yechury

Zimbabwe&rsquo;s parliament began an impeachment process against President Robert Mugabe on Tuesday that looks set to bring his domination of a country he has ruled since independence nearly four decades ago to an ignominious end.

In the last week, Mugabe has clung on in the face of a collapse of his authority and a Monday deadline to quit.

The army seized power a week ago and there have been mass protests against him and calls to resign from many sides including on Tuesday from the ruling party&rsquo;s favourite to succeed him <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ousted-zimbabwe-deputy-president-asks-mugabe-to-resign-24737" target="_blank">Emmerson Mnangagwa</a>.

Parliament Speaker Jacob Mudenda said he received a motion to impeach and the parliament would adjourn for a hotel to start the proceedings on Tuesday afternoon. Zimbabwean law says a joint sitting can take place anywhere. Thousands of people demonstrated outside parliament urging Mugabe to quit.

Mugabe led Zimbabwe&rsquo;s liberation war and is hailed as one of Africa&rsquo;s founding fathers and a staunch supporter of the drive to free neighbouring South Africa from apartheid in 1994.

But many people in Africa and beyond also say he has damaged Zimbabwe&rsquo;s economy, democracy, and judiciary by staying in power for too long and has used violence to crush perceived political opponents.

Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe since independence from British rule in 1980

Zimbabwe’s parliament began an impeachment process against President Robert Mugabe on Tuesday that looks set to bring his domination of a country he has ruled since independence nearly four decades ago to an ignominious end. In the last week, Mugabe has clung on in the face of a collapse of his authority and a Monday deadline to quit. The army seized power a week ago and there have been mass protests against him and calls to resign from many sides including on Tuesday from the ruling party’s favourite to succeed him Emmerson Mnangagwa. Parliament Speaker Jacob Mudenda said he received a motion to impeach and the parliament would adjourn for a hotel to start the proceedings on Tuesday afternoon. Zimbabwean law says a joint sitting can take place anywhere. Thousands of people demonstrated outside parliament urging Mugabe to quit. Mugabe led Zimbabwe’s liberation war and is hailed as one of Africa’s founding fathers and a staunch supporter of the drive to free neighbouring South Africa from apartheid in 1994. But many people in Africa and beyond also say he has damaged Zimbabwe’s economy, democracy, and judiciary by staying in power for too long and has used violence to crush perceived political opponents.

Zimbabwe's parliament starts impeachment process against Mugabe

Ex-prosecutor Preet Bharara told ABC news that he was fired after refusing to pick up Donald Trump&#39;s&nbsp;phone calls.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Former US Attorney <a href="https://twitter.com/PreetBharara">@PreetBharara</a> recounts &quot;very unusual&quot; calls with Trump: &quot;There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/eviG27YT53">pic.twitter.com/eviG27YT53</a>
&mdash; ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/873893311353823232">June 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Bharara watched the Comey testimony and said&nbsp;he feels &quot;there is absolutely&nbsp;evidence to begin a case&quot; of&nbsp;obstruction of justice against&nbsp;the US president.

&quot;I think it&#39;s very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in the law to be clear that no one knows right now whether there is a&nbsp;provable&nbsp;case for obstruction. It&#39;s also true, I think, from based on what I see as a third party and out of government that there&#39;s no basis to say there&#39;s&nbsp;no&nbsp;obstruction.&quot;

Why Bharara says he&nbsp;was fired

Bharara&nbsp;says that President Trump&nbsp;tried to &quot;cultivate a relationship&quot; with him.&nbsp;Trump had asked him to stay on as&nbsp;the chief federal law enforcement officer, where Bharara&nbsp;had&nbsp;jurisdiction to investigate business interests in New York. Trump&#39;s business empire is based in New York.&nbsp;

Trump made&nbsp;two phone calls to Bharara while president-elect, &quot;sensibly, just to shoot the breeze&quot;, Bharara says,&nbsp;then a final call after he became president. Bharara says he didn&#39;t return this call, then he was fired.&nbsp;

Watch the above clip and watch Bharara&nbsp;describe how he thought the president&#39;s conduct was inappropriate.

Bharara&#39;s statement comes days after ex-FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he told lawmakers that he believed Trump was trying to pressure him to drop the investigation into the former head of national security Michael&nbsp;Flynn, which was a part of&nbsp;the probe into Russia&#39;s efforts to interfere in the 2016 US election.

Comey says Trump asked for &quot;loyalty&quot;, and instead Comey said he would give the president&nbsp;&quot;honest loyalty&quot;. Trump later fired Comey.

&nbsp;

Preet Bharara wouldn't take the president's phone call, trying to keep an 'arms-length' relationship, then Trump fired him

Ex-prosecutor Preet Bharara told ABC news that he was fired after refusing to pick up Donald Trump's phone calls. Former US Attorney @PreetBharara recounts "very unusual" calls with Trump: "There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship." pic.twitter.com/eviG27YT53 — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) June 11, 2017 × Bharara watched the Comey testimony and said he feels "there is absolutely evidence to begin a case" of obstruction of justice against the US president. "I think it's very important for all sorts of armchair speculators in the law to be clear that no one knows right now whether there is a provable case for obstruction. It's also true, I think, from based on what I see as a third party and out of government that there's no basis to say there's no obstruction." Why Bharara says he was fired Bharara says that President Trump tried to "cultivate a relationship" with him. Trump had asked him to stay on as the chief federal law enforcement officer, where Bharara had jurisdiction to investigate business interests in New York. Trump's business empire is based in New York. Trump made two phone calls to Bharara while president-elect, "sensibly, just to shoot the breeze", Bharara says, then a final call after he became president. Bharara says he didn't return this call, then he was fired. Watch the above clip and watch Bharara describe how he thought the president's conduct was inappropriate. Bharara's statement comes days after ex-FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he told lawmakers that he believed Trump was trying to pressure him to drop the investigation into the former head of national security Michael Flynn, which was a part of the probe into Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 US election. Comey says Trump asked for "loyalty", and instead Comey said he would give the president "honest loyalty". Trump later fired Comey.

'Absolute evidence' to start obstruction of justice case against Trump: Ex-prosecutor Preet Bharara

Ex-prosecutor Preet Bharara told ABC News today that he was fired after refusing to pick up Donald Trump&#39;s&nbsp;phone calls.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Former US Attorney <a href="https://twitter.com/PreetBharara">@PreetBharara</a> recounts &quot;very unusual&quot; calls with Trump: &quot;There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/eviG27YT53">pic.twitter.com/eviG27YT53</a>
&mdash; ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/873893311353823232">June 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Bharara&nbsp;says that President Trump&nbsp;tried to &quot;cultivate a relationship&quot; with him.&nbsp;Trump had asked him to stay on as&nbsp;the chief federal law enforcement officer, where Bharara&nbsp;had&nbsp;jurisdiction to investigate business interests in New York. Trump&#39;s business empire is based in New York.&nbsp;

Trump made&nbsp;two phone calls to Bharara while president-elect, &quot;sensibly, just to shoot the breeze&quot;, Bharara says,&nbsp;then a final call after he became president. Bharara says he didn&#39;t return this call, then he was fired.&nbsp;

Watch the above clip and watch Bharara&nbsp;describe how he thought the president&#39;s conduct was inappropriate.

Bharara&#39;s statement comes days after ex-FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he told lawmakers that he believed Trump was trying to pressure him to drop the investigation into the former head of national security Michael&nbsp;Flynn, which was a part of&nbsp;the probe into Russia&#39;s efforts to interfere in the 2016 US election.

Comey says Trump asked for &quot;loyalty&quot;, and instead Comey said he would give the president&nbsp;&quot;honest loyalty&quot;.&nbsp;

Trump fired Comey.

Preet Bharara wanted to keep an 'arms-length relationship' with the President. Then, apparently for this, he got sacked

Ex-prosecutor Preet Bharara told ABC News today that he was fired after refusing to pick up Donald Trump's phone calls. Former US Attorney @PreetBharara recounts "very unusual" calls with Trump: "There has to be some kind of arms-length relationship." pic.twitter.com/eviG27YT53 — ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) June 11, 2017 × Bharara says that President Trump tried to "cultivate a relationship" with him. Trump had asked him to stay on as the chief federal law enforcement officer, where Bharara had jurisdiction to investigate business interests in New York. Trump's business empire is based in New York. Trump made two phone calls to Bharara while president-elect, "sensibly, just to shoot the breeze", Bharara says, then a final call after he became president. Bharara says he didn't return this call, then he was fired. Watch the above clip and watch Bharara describe how he thought the president's conduct was inappropriate. Bharara's statement comes days after ex-FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee, where he told lawmakers that he believed Trump was trying to pressure him to drop the investigation into the former head of national security Michael Flynn, which was a part of the probe into Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 US election. Comey says Trump asked for "loyalty", and instead Comey said he would give the president "honest loyalty". Trump fired Comey.

Ex-prosecutor wouldn't take Trump's phone call, fired next day

Brazil&#39;s Senate is to vote on Wednesday on stripping Dilma Rousseff of the presidency in a traumatic impeachment trial set to end 13 years of leftist rule over Latin America&#39;s biggest country. 
 
Senators loyal to Brazil&#39;s first female president debated throughout Tuesday night in a final attempt to halt the apparently unstoppable momentum toward her dismissal. 
 
Despite the impassioned speeches, which followed 14 hours of testimony by 68-year-old Rousseff herself on Monday, her fate was apparently sealed. 
 
Rousseff, from the leftist Workers&#39; Party, is accused of taking illegal state loans to patch budget holes in 2014, masking the country&#39;s problems as it slid into its deepest recession in decades. 
 
She told the Senate that she is innocent, saying the impeachment trial amounts to a right-wing coup d&#39;etat. 
 
However, huge street demonstrations over the last year have reflected nationwide anger at her management of a country suffering double-digit unemployment and inflation. 
 
Two thirds of the Senate -- 54 of 81 senators -- must vote in favor of impeachment to convict her. 
 
&quot;The chances of impeachment not passing and the president being made to step down are virtually nil,&quot; political analyst Adriano Codato of Parana University said. 
 
If Rousseff is forced from office, her former vice president turned bitter foe Michel Temer will be immediately sworn in as president until the next scheduled elections in late 2018. 
 
The seventy-five-year-old took over in an interim role after Rousseff&#39;s initial suspension in May and at once named a new government with an agenda of shifting Brazil to the right. 
 
Tears and shouts 
 
Lawyers presenting closing arguments on Tuesday could not hold back their emotions as the clock wound down on a crisis that has paralyzed Brazilian politics for months, helping deepen national gloom over recession and runaway corruption. 
 
A lead lawyer for the case against Rousseff, Senator Janaina Paschoal, wept as she asked forgiveness for causing the president &quot;suffering,&quot; but insisted it was the right thing to do. 
 
&quot;Impeachment is a constitutional remedy that we need to resort to when the situation gets particularly serious, and that is what has happened,&quot; she said, rejecting Rousseff&#39;s coup claim. 
 
&quot;The Brazilian people must be aware that nothing illegal and illegitimate is being done here.&quot; 
 
Rousseff&#39;s counsel, veteran lawyer Jose Eduardo Cardozo, retorted that the charges were trumped up to punish the president&#39;s support for a huge corruption investigation that has snared many of Brazil&#39;s elite. 
 
&quot;This is a farce,&quot; he said in a speech during which his voice alternated between shouts and near whispers. 
 
&quot;We should ask her forgiveness if she is convicted,&quot; he added. &quot;History will treat her fairly. History will absolve Dilma Rousseff if you convict her.&quot; 
 
Unpopular leaders 
 
Recalling how she was tortured under Brazil&#39;s military dictatorship in the 1970s, Rousseff had urged senators during her testimony on Monday to &quot;vote against impeachment, vote for democracy... Do not accept a coup.&quot; 
 
However, the public reaction to her impeachment trial has been characterized by widespread indifference. 
 
The Workers&#39; Party under Rousseff and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is credited with raising around 29 million Brazilians out of poverty. 
 
But many now blame the party and Rousseff in particular for the country&#39;s multiple ills. 
 
Temer, of the center-right PMDB party, has earned plaudits from investors since taking the interim post. However, it remains uncertain whether he will have voters&#39; support to push through the painful austerity reforms he promises. 
 
Rousseff has barely double-digit approval ratings. But Temer is hardly more popular in opinion polls. 
 
(AFP)

She faces allegations of having taken illegal state loans to hide the country's budget holes in 2014

Brazil's Senate is to vote on Wednesday on stripping Dilma Rousseff of the presidency in a traumatic impeachment trial set to end 13 years of leftist rule over Latin America's biggest country. Senators loyal to Brazil's first female president debated throughout Tuesday night in a final attempt to halt the apparently unstoppable momentum toward her dismissal. Despite the impassioned speeches, which followed 14 hours of testimony by 68-year-old Rousseff herself on Monday, her fate was apparently sealed. Rousseff, from the leftist Workers' Party, is accused of taking illegal state loans to patch budget holes in 2014, masking the country's problems as it slid into its deepest recession in decades. She told the Senate that she is innocent, saying the impeachment trial amounts to a right-wing coup d'etat. However, huge street demonstrations over the last year have reflected nationwide anger at her management of a country suffering double-digit unemployment and inflation. Two thirds of the Senate -- 54 of 81 senators -- must vote in favor of impeachment to convict her. "The chances of impeachment not passing and the president being made to step down are virtually nil," political analyst Adriano Codato of Parana University said. If Rousseff is forced from office, her former vice president turned bitter foe Michel Temer will be immediately sworn in as president until the next scheduled elections in late 2018. The seventy-five-year-old took over in an interim role after Rousseff's initial suspension in May and at once named a new government with an agenda of shifting Brazil to the right. Tears and shouts Lawyers presenting closing arguments on Tuesday could not hold back their emotions as the clock wound down on a crisis that has paralyzed Brazilian politics for months, helping deepen national gloom over recession and runaway corruption. A lead lawyer for the case against Rousseff, Senator Janaina Paschoal, wept as she asked forgiveness for causing the president "suffering," but insisted it was the right thing to do. "Impeachment is a constitutional remedy that we need to resort to when the situation gets particularly serious, and that is what has happened," she said, rejecting Rousseff's coup claim. "The Brazilian people must be aware that nothing illegal and illegitimate is being done here." Rousseff's counsel, veteran lawyer Jose Eduardo Cardozo, retorted that the charges were trumped up to punish the president's support for a huge corruption investigation that has snared many of Brazil's elite. "This is a farce," he said in a speech during which his voice alternated between shouts and near whispers. "We should ask her forgiveness if she is convicted," he added. "History will treat her fairly. History will absolve Dilma Rousseff if you convict her." Unpopular leaders Recalling how she was tortured under Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s, Rousseff had urged senators during her testimony on Monday to "vote against impeachment, vote for democracy... Do not accept a coup." However, the public reaction to her impeachment trial has been characterized by widespread indifference. The Workers' Party under Rousseff and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is credited with raising around 29 million Brazilians out of poverty. But many now blame the party and Rousseff in particular for the country's multiple ills. Temer, of the center-right PMDB party, has earned plaudits from investors since taking the interim post. However, it remains uncertain whether he will have voters' support to push through the painful austerity reforms he promises. Rousseff has barely double-digit approval ratings. But Temer is hardly more popular in opinion polls. (AFP)

Brazilian senate to vote on President Dilma Rousseff impeachment

Brazil&#39;s suspended president Dilma Rousseff enters her final battle to win back power on Thursday, when senators open an impeachment trial expected to remove her from office for good. 
 
That would formally end 13 years of leftist rule in Latin America&#39;s biggest economy. 
 
During a trial expected to last several days, the former Marxist guerrilla, 68, will take the stand to defend herself against charges that she fiddled state accounts. 
 
She denounces the impeachment drive as a &quot;coup&quot; by her rivals, led by her replacement, former vice president Michel Temer. 
 
&quot;In the Senate, I will argue not only for democracy and respect for the direct vote of the Brazilian people, but also for justice,&quot; Rousseff told reporters on Thursday. 
 
But media estimate that most senators will vote to remove her. 
 
&quot;This will be the last chance she has to defend herself. 
 
For our part, we will treat her with respect,&quot; said one of the senators seeking to impeach Rousseff, Cassio Cunha Lima. 
 
&quot;It will also depend on her attitude. If she is aggressive and provocative, there will be a reaction,&quot; he told AFP&nbsp; 
 
The trial opens on Thursday, August 25, four days after the Olympic Games closing ceremony in Rio de Janeiro. 
 
Rousseff is scheduled to appear in person to defend herself on August 29. 
 
Senate president Renan Calheiros said the final vote would likely take place on August 30. 
 
If two thirds of the senators vote against her, she will be out. 
 
&quot;Dilma would need a miracle for that not to happen,&quot; said political analyst Everaldo Moraes from Brasilia University. 
 
&quot;Even her own allies can see that.&quot;&nbsp; 
 
Rousseff survived torture in the 1970s under Brazil&#39;s military regime. She later beat cancer and became the country&#39;s first woman president. 
 
But she was unable to resist the turning of the political tide as she struggled to cope with a recession that hit in 2014 and failed to maintain alliances. 
 
&quot;She made every kind of mistake that a president can make,&quot; said Sergio Praca, an analyst at the Getulio Vargas Foundation. 
 
&quot;She failed to keep her campaign promises, didn&#39;t pay enough attention to her coalition, ignored her own party and didn&#39;t listen to anyone.&quot;&nbsp; 
 
Political chaos and scandal have compounded Brazil&#39;s recession. 
 
A probe into corruption in the state oil firm Petrobras has implicated Rousseff&#39;s rivals and allies. The impeachment, however, is not linked to the scandal. 
 
(AFP)

During the trial, the former Marxist guerrilla will defend herself against charges that she fiddled state accounts

Brazil's suspended president Dilma Rousseff enters her final battle to win back power on Thursday, when senators open an impeachment trial expected to remove her from office for good. That would formally end 13 years of leftist rule in Latin America's biggest economy. During a trial expected to last several days, the former Marxist guerrilla, 68, will take the stand to defend herself against charges that she fiddled state accounts. She denounces the impeachment drive as a "coup" by her rivals, led by her replacement, former vice president Michel Temer. "In the Senate, I will argue not only for democracy and respect for the direct vote of the Brazilian people, but also for justice," Rousseff told reporters on Thursday. But media estimate that most senators will vote to remove her. "This will be the last chance she has to defend herself. For our part, we will treat her with respect," said one of the senators seeking to impeach Rousseff, Cassio Cunha Lima. "It will also depend on her attitude. If she is aggressive and provocative, there will be a reaction," he told AFP The trial opens on Thursday, August 25, four days after the Olympic Games closing ceremony in Rio de Janeiro. Rousseff is scheduled to appear in person to defend herself on August 29. Senate president Renan Calheiros said the final vote would likely take place on August 30. If two thirds of the senators vote against her, she will be out. "Dilma would need a miracle for that not to happen," said political analyst Everaldo Moraes from Brasilia University. "Even her own allies can see that." Rousseff survived torture in the 1970s under Brazil's military regime. She later beat cancer and became the country's first woman president. But she was unable to resist the turning of the political tide as she struggled to cope with a recession that hit in 2014 and failed to maintain alliances. "She made every kind of mistake that a president can make," said Sergio Praca, an analyst at the Getulio Vargas Foundation. "She failed to keep her campaign promises, didn't pay enough attention to her coalition, ignored her own party and didn't listen to anyone." Political chaos and scandal have compounded Brazil's recession. A probe into corruption in the state oil firm Petrobras has implicated Rousseff's rivals and allies. The impeachment, however, is not linked to the scandal. (AFP)

Brazil's Rousseff faces final impeachment battle

Brazil&#39;s suspended president Dilma Rousseff could still wriggle out of a looming impeachment vote, her ally and predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said today. 
 
Lula, Brazil&#39;s most prominent leftist leader, told Radio Jornal that Rousseff&#39;s case is not hopeless, despite months of mounting pressure on her to be removed from office. 
 
Previous votes in the lower and upper houses easily passed the simple majorities needed to send her to trial for allegedly breaking budgetary laws - a case she claims is a coup d&#39;etat. 
 
However, when the Senate votes again in a final session on August 25-27, it must reach a two-thirds majority and the result is expected to be far closer. 
 
&quot;To defeat the impeachment is easier than before,&quot; said Lula, who was president from 2003-2010 and founded the Workers&#39; Party, which has been in power for 13 years. 
 
Lula said Rousseff, 68, needs to secure support from a handful of extra senators to swing the vote. &quot;Dilma depends on only six votes,&quot; he told the radio station from northeastern Pernambuco state. 
 
The Senate must vote by 54 votes out of 81 for the impeachment to pass. In that case, Rousseff foe Michel Temer, who is currently serving as interim president, would stay as president until the next scheduled elections in 2018. 
 
If the vote fails, Rousseff would return to office. However, she is seen as badly weakened, with rock bottom popularity in a country that blames her for a deep recession, massive corruption and months of political instability. 
 
Temer and Rousseff are both invited to the opening ceremony of the Olympics, which start in Rio on August 5. 
 
(AFP)

The Senate must pass 54 votes out of 81 for Dilma Rousseff's impeachment to pass. If the vote fails, she could return to office

Brazil's suspended president Dilma Rousseff could still wriggle out of a looming impeachment vote, her ally and predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said today. Lula, Brazil's most prominent leftist leader, told Radio Jornal that Rousseff's case is not hopeless, despite months of mounting pressure on her to be removed from office. Previous votes in the lower and upper houses easily passed the simple majorities needed to send her to trial for allegedly breaking budgetary laws - a case she claims is a coup d'etat. However, when the Senate votes again in a final session on August 25-27, it must reach a two-thirds majority and the result is expected to be far closer. "To defeat the impeachment is easier than before," said Lula, who was president from 2003-2010 and founded the Workers' Party, which has been in power for 13 years. Lula said Rousseff, 68, needs to secure support from a handful of extra senators to swing the vote. "Dilma depends on only six votes," he told the radio station from northeastern Pernambuco state. The Senate must vote by 54 votes out of 81 for the impeachment to pass. In that case, Rousseff foe Michel Temer, who is currently serving as interim president, would stay as president until the next scheduled elections in 2018. If the vote fails, Rousseff would return to office. However, she is seen as badly weakened, with rock bottom popularity in a country that blames her for a deep recession, massive corruption and months of political instability. Temer and Rousseff are both invited to the opening ceremony of the Olympics, which start in Rio on August 5. (AFP)

Brazil's suspended president tries to slip impeachment

Brazil&#39;s interim President Michel Temer dismissed graft allegations against him as dishonest and reckless, pledging in a national address on Thursday that his government would not be distracted from fiscal reforms aimed at reviving the economy. 
 
Temer said it was &quot;irresponsible, ridiculous, mendacious and criminal&quot; to suggest, as former Petrobras executive Sergio Machado did in plea bargain testimony, that he had sought campaign funds for his party from a graft scheme at the state-run oil company. 
 
The testimony, made public by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, was the first direct link between Temer and the sweeping corruption probe that has thrown Brazil&#39;s politics into chaos and deepened its worst recession in decades. 
 
&quot;I say it again, when an idea as flippant as this comes out, it embarrasses or can embarrass the government&#39;s activity. But I want to say here, to register, loud and clear, nothing will embarrass our intentions, our mission, our task during the period in which I am in front of the presidency of the republic, with an extraordinary economic team, with a foreign affairs team which is equally as extraordinary, and a very adequate ministry. Nothing will impede us from continuing to work for the good of Brazil and the Brazilian people,&quot; said Temer in Brasilia on Thursday. 
 
The highly charged plea bargain implicating Temer and two dozen other elected officials, many of them senior members of his ruling coalition, stole the thunder from a landmark fiscal reform revealed the same day. 
 
Machado&#39;s plea deal included allegations that Temer had sought campaign funds for his party&#39;s 2012 Sao Paulo mayoral candidate from the graft scheme at Petrobras, the biggest ever uncovered in Brazil. 
 
The accusations provide more fodder for suspended President Dilma Rousseff and her allies, who accuse Temer and his party of&nbsp;&nbsp;mounting the impeachment process against her in order to distract from their own roles in the corruption scandal. Rousseff faces a trial in the Senate on unrelated charges of breaking budget rules. 
 
(Reuters)

The testimony by Petrobras executive Sergio Machado has thrown Brazil's politics into chaos and deepened its worst recession in decades

Brazil's interim President Michel Temer dismissed graft allegations against him as dishonest and reckless, pledging in a national address on Thursday that his government would not be distracted from fiscal reforms aimed at reviving the economy. Temer said it was "irresponsible, ridiculous, mendacious and criminal" to suggest, as former Petrobras executive Sergio Machado did in plea bargain testimony, that he had sought campaign funds for his party from a graft scheme at the state-run oil company. The testimony, made public by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, was the first direct link between Temer and the sweeping corruption probe that has thrown Brazil's politics into chaos and deepened its worst recession in decades. "I say it again, when an idea as flippant as this comes out, it embarrasses or can embarrass the government's activity. But I want to say here, to register, loud and clear, nothing will embarrass our intentions, our mission, our task during the period in which I am in front of the presidency of the republic, with an extraordinary economic team, with a foreign affairs team which is equally as extraordinary, and a very adequate ministry. Nothing will impede us from continuing to work for the good of Brazil and the Brazilian people," said Temer in Brasilia on Thursday. The highly charged plea bargain implicating Temer and two dozen other elected officials, many of them senior members of his ruling coalition, stole the thunder from a landmark fiscal reform revealed the same day. Machado's plea deal included allegations that Temer had sought campaign funds for his party's 2012 Sao Paulo mayoral candidate from the graft scheme at Petrobras, the biggest ever uncovered in Brazil. The accusations provide more fodder for suspended President Dilma Rousseff and her allies, who accuse Temer and his party of mounting the impeachment process against her in order to distract from their own roles in the corruption scandal. Rousseff faces a trial in the Senate on unrelated charges of breaking budget rules. (Reuters)

Brazil's Temer denies alleged link to Petrobras scandal

impeachment

Impeachment, News on Impeachment, stories on Impeachment, articles on Impeachment, Impeachment stories at Wion, Impeachment news, Impeachment latest news