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

[jp55665566]

Well, to quote your party leader, "So unfair, so unfair."

Meanwhile, as long as information keeps flowing in, Pelosi will call the tune on House rules regarding the inquiry. I can offer you some Kleenex.

It's not an inquiry, it's a TDS circle-jerk.

 

[butters]

Another Que-class word salad.^^^^^

Let me try and lessen your ignorance somewhat.
Think of the House Inquiry as a Grand Jury. They are simply examining evidence. There is NO "cross examination" in a Grand Jury investigation, there is only evidence gathering.

If a Grand Jury returns a "true bill", then and ONLY then does the proceeding move to a court of law. If the House votes to affirm Articles of Impeachment THEN and ONLY THEN can there be "cross examination" and such IN THE SENATE. Here's the kicker: The Senate decides what procedures they want to use, and are NOT subject to Judicial oversight. Blame the founding fathers, that's what they chose to do.

yup

but they believe whatever mistruths he spins, and would happily eat shit-flavoured cotton candy if their great leader told them it was really chocolate but the dems didn't want them to eat it, wanting it all for themselves.

the stats show more and more people are coming onboard the impeachment train: some even believe it may exonerate trump, bless 'em. however, there's now a genuine hunger for the truth to out. we're also seeing more and more reps speaking up publicly against trump's latest actions... too little, too late as far as i'm concerned but it's a growing noise. sooner or later it'll come to a tipping point.
instead of republican senators and house members leading the public interest, serving their people, they've been waiting for enough of the public to 'get on board' so they have an excuse to use to speak up against trump's violations and not be so worried about getting re-elected. life-long politicians are fed up to the back teeth with a 6-times bankruptcied bad reality-star ruining their country.

 

[icanhelp1]

yup

but they believe whatever mistruths he spins, and would happily eat shit-flavoured cotton candy if their great leader told them it was really chocolate but the dems didn't want them to eat it, wanting it all for themselves.

the stats show more and more people are coming onboard the impeachment train: some even believe it may exonerate trump, bless 'em. however, there's now a genuine hunger for the truth to out. we're also seeing more and more reps speaking up publicly against trump's latest actions... too little, too late as far as i'm concerned but it's a growing noise. sooner or later it'll come to a tipping point.
instead of republican senators and house members leading the public interest, serving their people, they've been waiting for enough of the public to 'get on board' so they have an excuse to use to speak up against trump's violations and not be so worried about getting re-elected. life-long politicians are fed up to the back teeth with a 6-times bankruptcied bad reality-star ruining their country.

You hit the problem right on the head, we need to get rid of lifelong politicians, maybe something would get done, you know; legislators legislate and not litigate, maybe the house can morph back into a legislative body and out of a prosecutorial body they don't belong in.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The last time I looked the house is one body and derives its authority from the body itself, not Nancy, not Adam. This impeachment inquiry is nothing like grand jury. A Grand Jury is a legal proceeding to investigate the evidence a crime and is granted that authority by rule 6(e). To use your analogy, the whole house would be the grand jury and would derive its investigative authority and right to subpoena by a majority vote from the total body. One committee does not have authority over the body unless the body as a whole grant's it. The vote has not happened and Adam and Nancy do not have subpoena powers.

Que's wordsalads from yesterday insisted that two votes were necessary too.

He was wrong, as are you.

p.s. A grand jury metaphor is a completely accurate description, your protest to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You hit the problem right on the head, we need to get rid of lifelong politicians, maybe something would get done, you know; legislators legislate and not litigate, maybe the house can morph back into a legislative body and out of a prosecutorial body they don't belong in.

Venice tried getting rid of lifelong politicians during the Renaissance, they ended up with a permanent bureaucracy that left politicians as little more than mouthpieces for their policies. Thus began the long descent into irrelevancy of Venice, which used to be one of the trade capitals of the free world.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You hit the problem right on the head, we need to get rid of lifelong politicians,

We don't have lifelong politicians. We have elections every 2 years. Various offices are up for election every 2-6 years.

I don't think it should be up to anyone to decide that for anyone else. If a district/county/city/state/nation likes their politicritter? They should be able to keep them....if they don't? They're fuckin' fired.

The election is the free societies term limit. We can choose to keep or fire.

If you impose term limits you're taking away peoples choice. This is why I believe term limits to be an un-American idea/practice.

maybe something would get done, you know; legislators legislate

That's a whole different problem....that's ideological not structural.

 

[icanhelp1]

We don't have lifelong politicians. We have elections every 2 years. Various offices are up for election every 2-6 years.

I don't think it should be up to anyone to decide that for anyone else. If a district/county/city/state/nation likes their politicritter? They should be able to keep them....if they don't? They're fuckin' fired.

The election is the free societies term limit.



That's a whole different problem....that's ideological not structural.

I understand the mechanics of our government. My suggestion is term limits not removal.

 

[jaF0]

McConnell: Trump to face Senate trial if impeached
Washington Examiner | Wed Oct 16, 2019 22:10 UTC

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not try to shield President Trump from a trial in the Senate if the House approves articles of impeachment.

 

[bigsly]

Dear Rightguide:

McConnell: Trump to face Senate trial if impeached
Washington Examiner | Wed Oct 16, 2019 22:10 UTC

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not try to shield President Trump from a trial in the Senate if the House approves articles of impeachment.

“Under the impeachment rules of the Senate, we’ll take the matter up, the chief justice will be in the chair, we will have to convene everyday six days out of seven, 12:30 or 1 o’clock in the afternoon,” McConnell said. “Senators will not be allowed to speak, which will be good therapy for a number of them, and we intend to do our constitutional responsibility.”

Have you sought to correct the statist/conservative/Republican/Senate Majority Leader, yet? Be careful: don't casually explain away that he's just following Senate rules, because he states those rules - to try any impeachment the House sends it - is the Senate's "constitutional responsibility". Meaning, if he chose to do what you champion - not trying an impeachment the House sends it - the Senate wouldn't be doing its "constitutional responsibility."

 

[Rightguide]

Have you sought to correct the statist/conservative/Republican/Senate Majority Leader, yet? Be careful: don't casually explain away that he's just following Senate rules, because he states those rules - to try any impeachment the House sends it - is the Senate's "constitutional responsibility". Meaning, if he chose to do what you champion - not trying an impeachment the House sends it - the Senate wouldn't be doing its "constitutional responsibility."

Unlike the House, he is following Senate rules and precedence.

If the language of the Constitution gives the House a choice to impeach or not impeach, the very same language, "sole power," cannot logically be construed to mean anything else when applied to the Senate. The House and Senate can, however, make their own rules, which history proves can be changed.

BTW, this is all probably a moot point as we speak. It doesn't look like there's going to be an impeachment.

 

[jaF0]

BTW, this is all probably a mute point as we speak. It doesn't look like there's going to be an impeachment.

Would Trump quit? One Wall Street analyst looks at the potential and its ramifications
CNBC | Thu Oct 17, 2019 14:06 UTC

As Donald Trump faces the toughest political test of his presidency, he essentially has two options: Dig in and fight, or walk away before he faces an almost certain impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Mitch McConnell warns Republicans in private meeting that Trump's impeachment trial could start as soon as November
Business Insider | Thu Oct 17, 2019 14:09 UTC

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his fellow Republicans that a Senate impeachment trial could begin as early as Thanksgiving, The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening. McConnell explained how the impeachment process would work during a pr ...

Who ya' gonna believe? ReichTard or Moscow Mitch and Wall Street?

 

[Rightguide]

Would Trump quit? One Wall Street analyst looks at the potential and its ramifications
CNBC | Thu Oct 17, 2019 14:06 UTC

As Donald Trump faces the toughest political test of his presidency, he essentially has two options: Dig in and fight, or walk away before he faces an almost certain impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Mitch McConnell warns Republicans in private meeting that Trump's impeachment trial could start as soon as November
Business Insider | Thu Oct 17, 2019 14:09 UTC

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told his fellow Republicans that a Senate impeachment trial could begin as early as Thanksgiving, The Washington Post reported Wednesday evening. McConnell explained how the impeachment process would work during a pr ...

Who ya' gonna believe? ReichTard or Moscow Mitch and Wall Street?

I believe Nancy, who said yesterday she wasn't going to take a vote for Impeachment in the whole House. That means she doesn't have the votes, so as we speak, that means no impeachment.

 

[coati]

BTW, this is all probably a mute point as we speak. It doesn't look like there's going to be an impeachment.

^^^Yet another moot point from an intellectual mute. Rightguide rarely has anything factual to say, and this is just another example.

Lost in the deplorable world where people who deny reality just create a substitute fantasy in their minds, and then are foolish enough to think that saying it out loud will make it so.

But, the big tragedy is that one of the Deplorables is our President, and he is actually making consequential decisions based on his inner fantasy world.

Trump will likely be impeached, and the Senate will do whatever two-thirds of the Senators decide to do.

 

[heathergives]

https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/gv101219dapr.jpg?resize=807x807

 

[Rightguide]

https://images.theweek.com/sites/default/files/gv101219dapr.jpg?resize=807x807

This seems to be the mindset of the radical left behind the House impeachment efforts.

 

[contrifan32]

Another Que-class word salad.^^^^^

Let me try and lessen your ignorance somewhat.
Think of the House Inquiry as a Grand Jury. They are simply examining evidence. There is NO "cross examination" in a Grand Jury investigation, there is only evidence gathering.

If a Grand Jury returns a "true bill", then and ONLY then does the proceeding move to a court of law. If the House votes to affirm Articles of Impeachment THEN and ONLY THEN can there be "cross examination" and such IN THE SENATE. Here's the kicker: The Senate decides what procedures they want to use, and are NOT subject to Judicial oversight. Blame the founding fathers, that's what they chose to do.

There is one problem with your explanation Bobby, its is the purview of the House Committee on The Judiciary to hold an impeachment inquiry, not the House Intelligence Committee chaired by a TDS Congressman who was trying to impeach at the swearing in ceremony.

 

[RobDownSouth]

There is one problem with your explanation Bobby, its is the purview of the House Committee on The Judiciary to hold an impeachment inquiry, not the House Intelligence Committee chaired by a TDS Congressman who was trying to impeach at the swearing in ceremony.

Wrong, it is not the "purview" of any committee.

The Constitution specifies only the House of Representatives as a whole has the "purview" to impeach.

 

[Rightguide]

p.s. A grand jury metaphor is a completely accurate description, your protest to the contrary notwithstanding.

No it isn't. The Intel Committee has no "subpoena" power in the Impeachment process without a vote of the whole House. Schiff can leak information on his proceedings, if you try this with Grand Jury information you go to prison. A Grand Jury conducts a criminal investigation, impeachment is a political proceeding in which, in this case, Chairman Schiff wants to act like a criminal proceeding in order to impeach Trump for political offenses regardless of whether or not he committed a real crime.

 

[icanhelp1]

No it isn't. The Intel Committee has no "subpoena" power in the Impeachment process without a vote of the whole House. Schiff can leak information on his proceedings, if you try this with Grand Jury information you go to prison. A Grand Jury conducts a criminal investigation, impeachment is a political proceeding in which, in this case, Chairman Schiff wants to act like a criminal proceeding in order to impeach Trump for political offenses regardless of whether or not he committed a real crime.

I posted the same thing earlier, Robby is no 'F Lee Bailey'

 

[LincolnDuncan]

I just heard the president of the United States say that Russia used to be the Soviet Union but they had to downsize because they lost so much money in Afghanistan.

 

[Rightguide]

I posted the same thing earlier, Robby is no 'F Lee Bailey'

Robby isn't stupid, but he is a provocateur, and as such needs to be opposed from time to time with the truth.

 

[Rightguide]

I just heard the president of the United States say that Russia used to be the Soviet Union but they had to downsize because they lost so much money in Afghanistan.

They did downsize their military, in fact much of it was left to rust away for lack of funds to support it as the Soviet Union began to collapse.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23894...an-abandoned-soviet-air-force-base-in-russia/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-navy-powerful-suffers-2-big-fatal-flaws-19657

 

[RobDownSouth]

No it isn't. The Intel Committee has no "subpoena" power in the Impeachment process without a vote of the whole House.

No subpoena power?
https://i.imgur.com/HYcVleI.jpg

 

[LincolnDuncan]

They did downsize their military, in fact much of it was left to rust away for lack of funds to support it as the Soviet Union began to collapse.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/23894...an-abandoned-soviet-air-force-base-in-russia/

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/05/27/russias-navy-more-rust-than-ready/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-navy-powerful-suffers-2-big-fatal-flaws-19657

Yes an historic adversary with whom we fought a cold war for 50 years was sucking wind. If not for Trump's greed they would be circling the drain right now.

Btw, are you enjoying Turkey punking our troops? Do you have any concern about the 50 nukes on the ground in Turkey.

 

[Rightguide]

No subpoena power?
https://i.imgur.com/HYcVleI.jpg

From my post # 384:

Another thing to remember, a demand letter is not a "subpoena," and any real "subpoena" can be challenged in court. These demand letters in order to have the judicial authority of a subpoena must meet the three following criteria:


1st:“the committee’s investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;

2nd: “the investigation must pursue “a valid legislative purpose” but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress;

3rd: the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

The demand letters do not meet the first criteria, which means it must be approved by its chamber, meaning a vote of the whole House. Without judicial authority, the demand letters can be ignored by the Executive branch.