███████████ Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump ███████████

[DeluxAuto]

Impeachment panels demand Rick Perry travel, meeting records

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/impeachment-panels-demand-rick-perry-travel-meeting-records

 

[Aglaopheme]

House panels subpoena Secretary of State Pompeo

 

[Conager]

House panels subpoena Secretary of State Pompeo

According to the three men, the full House doesn't need to vote on the inquiry because they adopted the rules, "which provide the Oversight Committee with its own independent oversight and legislative jurisdiction to investigate these matters – including authority to issue subpoenas to the White House."

They have the authority to override the executive privilege of a co-equal branch of government because they "adopted rukes" that give them the authority.

Sounds legit.

Good that they took the bait.

Now to get the full house on record with an actual vote.

 

[butters]

not all of these attempts at stonewalling NEED to go to court; rather, they can end up listed under the articles of impeachment as, quite simply, obstruction

 

[Conager]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/10/04/watch-biden-snaps-at-reporter-for-asking-a-questioning-about-ukraine-n2554223

YouTube clip uploaded from this local station seems to leave out this bit of footage. Cannot find this clip on YouTube at all

 

[schism666]

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/10/04/watch-biden-snaps-at-reporter-for-asking-a-questioning-about-ukraine-n2554223

YouTube clip uploaded from this local station seems to leave out this bit of footage. Cannot find this clip on YouTube at all

q you need to take a breather
uTube is pretty difficult to use

 

[Conager]

not all of these attempts at stonewalling NEED to go to court; rather, they can end up listed under the articles of impeachment as, quite simply, obstruction

Sure, because the executive branch must accede to the whims of the legislative branch because some co-equal branches of government are more equal than others, right?

You *could* decide that any committee can ask for and get anything they can think of without having a subpoena upheld by SCOTUS, and you could *call* deciding to push back on obvious overreach obstruction, and you *could* draw up articles of impeachment on such a flimsy, obviously partisan basis.

I hope you are right!

 

[butters]

Sure, because the executive branch must accede to the whims of the legislative branch because some co-equal branches of government are more equal than others, right?

You *could* decide that any committee can ask for and get anything they can think of without having a subpoena upheld by SCOTUS, and you could *call* deciding to push back on obvious overreach obstruction, and you *could* draw up articles of impeachment on such a flimsy, obviously partisan basis.

I hope you are right!

you are ennui personified.
*dismissed*

 

[Conager]

That is "re-sign," not "resign."

Finally! I have surpassed Rory in post count in this thread so that Rory can embarrass himself by declaring victory.

I mean, more embarrassed than he should be by implying an actual impeachment proceeding is already underway, when no such thing has occured.

He should be able to save face here though, eventually, because it is unlikely that the Dems are going to back down at this point because they couldn't bear that loss of face any more than Rory can.

Called it:

Let's see who has diversity in their thread, and who has to prop up their own thread, shall we? Thread starters appear in blue.

Thread: "Impeachment Proceedings On Donald Trump"
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1510577&highlight=Impeachment

Who Posted?

User Name / Posts

Conager 27 (Deplorable)
RoryN 16
jaF0 14
Aglaopheme 13
icanhelp 10 (Deplorable)
coati 9

***

Thread: "How's That Impeachment Going?"
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1509329&highlight=Impeachment

Who Posted?

User Name / Posts

Kantarii 105 (Deplorable)
jp55665566 28 (Deplorable)
Klinkster 15 (Deplorable)
beezzz 12 (Deplorable)
HisArpy 10 (Deplorable)
Conager 8 (Deplorable)
SpeareChucker 84 (Deplorable)

Also note # of posts of the first highest poster in mine vs. the second highest poster in the other.

Rory was so proud of his "victory" he started a whole new thread to crow about it.

My work here is done. Off to run-up a weekend post count to give Rory something to do while he hides and counts to "prove" he has a life outside of Lit.

 

[Aglaopheme]

inherent contempt

 

[butters]

inherent contempt

well it goes without saying that's what i have for q-alt, but...

 

[Aglaopheme]

well it goes without saying that's what i have for q-alt, but...

Ha! He’s been rather entertaining lately. Harpy needs to up his squawking and calling everyone dumb game, while constantly being wrong. If only RG was around we’d have a comedy trifecta.

 

[bigsly]

not all of these attempts at stonewalling NEED to go to court; rather, they can end up listed under the articles of impeachment as, quite simply, obstruction

Why no cite for your obvious and pathetic plagiarism?

 

[butters]

Why no cite for your obvious and pathetic plagiarism?

bless y'heart

 

[butters]

Ha! He’s been rather entertaining lately. Harpy needs to up his squawking and calling everyone dumb game, while constantly being wrong. If only RG was around we’d have a comedy trifecta.

not here much and i have the rest of his alts on ignore... amusing? christ, even a stopped clock's right twice a day

 

[DeluxAuto]

 

[Carnal_Flower]

>>Same people who bitched about Obama being an "emporer" for 8 years>>

Now they're all Absolute Right of Kings.

Rory is right. Their hypocrisy totally invalidates them.

Sure, because the executive branch must accede to the whims of the legislative branch because some co-equal branches of government are more equal than others, right?

You *could* decide that any committee can ask for and get anything they can think of without having a subpoena upheld by SCOTUS, and you could *call* deciding to push back on obvious overreach obstruction, and you *could* draw up articles of impeachment on such a flimsy, obviously partisan basis.

I hope you are right!

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Oh Look:

Why Pelosi Doesn't Need a Full House Vote for an Impeachment Inquiry, Despite Trump's Demand

But Pelosi has reiterated she has no intention to hold a floor vote and stated her belief that one is not required to launch an inquiry—a conviction that is backed by legal experts and the Constitution.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall [choose] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." The ambiguous language offers the chamber discretion as to how it conducts impeachment proceedings.

Of course, the resident Blowhard of Lit knows better.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Now it looks as if there is a second whistleblower about to come forth who has even more direct, firsthand knowledge of the con artist's crimes.

(CNN)A second intelligence official with concerns and more direct knowledge regarding President Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine is considering filing a whistleblower complaint, The New York Times reported Friday.
. . .
The second official is one of the people interviewed by Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson in his efforts to confirm the initial complaint, one of the people told the Times. It is unclear whether Atkinson mentioned the second official's potential complaint in his closed-door briefing on Friday with lawmakers explaining how he corroborated the initial whistleblower's complaint, which alleged that Trump had pressured Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden -- Trump's potential Democratic rival -- and Biden's son Hunter. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by Joe or Hunter Biden.​

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/politics/intelligence-official-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

 

[Conager]

>>Same people who bitched about Obama being an "emporer" for 8 years>>

Now they're all Absolute Right of Kings.

Rory is right. Their hypocrisy totally invalidates them.

Points and laughs.

Pointing out that the House does not have unchecked power over the Executive branch is not affording the Executive unlimited power. They absolutely do have the power to have the legislative branches actions reviewed by the Judiciary. That's how it works.

If you can get Scotus to agree with your law professor that because it doesn't SAY a house vote is required, precedent is meaningless, you *might* get a subpoena enforced that breaches longstanding executive privilege without demonstrating to the court that you actually have the support of the House as shown by an actual vote to proceed.

I hope they do continue to try and half-ass it, because reasons. If they have the votes then there's no reason not to hold the vote.

Saw this sign, just now. Sounds like your immediate future at the hands of Doc McConnell:

 

[someoneyouknow]

[Spamming, bumping multiple threads in order to flood the forum, posting same content to multiple locations, or screen-stretching to disrupt the forum is prohibited per our forum guidelines.] - Last Warning

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I see "precedent" is your new talking point now that you lost on the fake "inquiry vs. preceeding" talking point.

Because (cough, Merrick Garland) it was "precedent" to deny a SCOTUS nomination in an election year. And nothing in Congress has changed in hundreds of years because "precedent."

"Precedent" is not going to win over the plain language of the Constitution, but if that's what you need to pretend this isn't legit, good luck with that.

The Executive has the power to challenge Congressional subpoenas. No one said their power was absolute. But when the Executive enacts a total blanket refusal of ALL Congressional demands (without, it must be said, undertaking the process of Judicial referral) because "reasons," that's Obstruction and complete denial of the mere existence of the Legislative Branch = POTUS UBER ALLES.

Points and laughs.

Pointing out that the House does not have unchecked power over the Executive branch is not affording the Executive unlimited power. They absolutely do have the power to have the legislative branches actions reviewed by the Judiciary. That's how it works.

If you can get Scotus to agree with your law professor that because it doesn't SAY a house vote is required, precedent is meaningless, you *might* get a subpoena enforced that breaches longstanding executive privilege without demonstrating to the court that you actually have the support of the House as shown by an actual vote to proceed.

I hope they do continue to try and half-ass it, because reasons. If they have the votes then there's no reason not to hold the vote.

Saw this sign, just now. Sounds like your immediate future at the hands of Doc McConnell:

 

[Adre]

Remember how the right wing whined about an all-powerful executive right up until the Stable Genius was elected? I sure do.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Remember how the right wing whined about an all-powerful executive right up until the Stable Genius was elected? I sure do.

https://media.giphy.com/media/l0HlP2ms0eUc5nlHG/giphy.gif

 

[Carnal_Flower]

That's because it was an uppity Negro.

Remember how the right wing whined about an all-powerful executive right up until the Stable Genius was elected? I sure do.