The Impeachment Thread

#8,651
#8,651
GVF said:
And how would that make a difference. Serious question.
Click to expand...
One is binding on* the entire house and one is binding a different committee than the one that is investigating this matter.

Nadler (Chairman is the Judiciary Committee) opened his own impeachment inquiry after the Mueller report. They debated terms and procedures and voted on it. Then I think they called Lewandowski as their only witness.

Then this whistleblower complaint came up and since the intelligence committee has jurisdiction over matters arising from ICIG, it went to them.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf

Here are the rules of the House, the first part is Jefferson’s Manual, which appears to have been annotated. It contains some background on impeachment. I haven’t read it yet. I don’t see anything in the table of contents that indicates the house rules cover impeachment. It may also have been changed since that pdf was posted? No idea.

There are some academicians who say they don’t necessarily have to hold this vote, but might be better politically if they did. Now that Trump says they have to I’m not sure that it is still better politically since it makes it look like they weren’t following the rules before.

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

I think you’re taking the better approach going back to original source documents, though.

Federalist papers 64-66 also cover impeachment. Hoping to read those this week.

* - actually not sure how “binding” the rules are.
 
#8,653
#8,653
Weezer said:
The left doesn't get to choose who's President. The voters do. The fact the left refused to accept him from the moment he was elected is part of the problem. All the hysteria over Russia trying to undermine our elections served as a distraction for the left trying to undermine the election. Trump is a bad person, a pompous ass, and many other things, BUT he was lawfully elected by the people of the United States. It was a poor choice. I get it. I still believe Hillary was a worse choice. But therein lies the problem, two bad choices and one had to win. I don't like Trump. I've never liked Trump. But he did win the election. And, if you look back, you will see that is why I have continually said the left needs to find a better candidate to beat him in 2020. Instead, they wasted their time trying to undo what was done. If they lose in 2020, that is why. They spent too much time having conniptions over Trump and not enough time trying to repair their disconnect with America.
Click to expand...
Of course the voters choose. I'm still not convinced he was lawfully elected. If he was, it's even more shameful.
A better candidate is not the answer.
The repubs had 16 better candidates in the primaries and are now refusing to put up a better candidate.
The dems had a better candidate in 2016 and every dem that is currently running is a better candidate.
The problem is with the willingness to knowingly elect the worst candidate.
Trump is a once in 300 year anomaly. He should never (and will never) be accepted as a legitimate president by the majority of the American people.
The problem was and is with the people who legitimize, or even worse, support him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and Hunerwadel
#8,654
#8,654
luthervol said:
Of course the voters choose. I'm still not convinced he was lawfully elected. If he was, it's even more shameful.
A better candidate is not the answer.
The repubs had 16 better candidates in the primaries and are now refusing to put up a better candidate.
The dems had a better candidate in 2016 and every dem that is currently running is a better candidate.
The problem is with the willingness to knowingly elect the worst candidate.
Trump is a once in 300 year anomaly. He should never (and will never) be accepted as a legitimate president by the majority of the American people.
The problem was and is with the people who legitimize, or even worse, support him.
Click to expand...
How has your life been negatively affected since Trump has been in office? Do not include your feelings hurt!

Include specific details!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#8,655
#8,655
RockyTop85 said:
One is binding on* the entire house and one is binding a different committee than the one that is investigating this matter.

Nadler (Chairman is the Judiciary Committee) opened his own impeachment inquiry after the Mueller report. They debated terms and procedures and voted on it. Then I think they called Lewandowski as their only witness.

Then this whistleblower complaint came up and since the intelligence committee has jurisdiction over matters arising from ICIG, it went to them.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-116/pdf/HMAN-116.pdf

Here are the rules of the House, the first part is Jefferson’s Manual, which appears to have been annotated. It contains some background on impeachment. I haven’t read it yet. I don’t see anything in the table of contents that indicates the house rules cover impeachment. It may also have been changed since that pdf was posted? No idea.

There are some academicians who say they don’t necessarily have to hold this vote, but might be better politically if they did. Now that Trump says they have to I’m not sure that it is still better politically since it makes it look like they weren’t following the rules before.

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

I think you’re taking the better approach going back to original source documents, though.

Federalist papers 64-66 also cover impeachment. Hoping to read those this week.

* - actually not sure how “binding” the rules are.
Click to expand...

Nadler...Separate inquiry.
I would consider the rules binding, until you vote to change them again. After all, their your rules. Otherwise you have chaos, and a moving bullseye. And no legitimacy at all.

Quickly, as its almost quittin time. And, I may have to double check whose set of rules, but I'm 95% sure it was the House rules...

The requestor can file under oath for an inquiry, or request a referral to the appropriate committee (House JC or House Rules, depending on if you want an inquiry on an individual, or on conduct. Either way it circles back to the JC). The JC is supposed to take it from there and conduct the investigative process, witness calls, etc. OR, appoint someone from the House or an independent to do this. After all this is complete is when it is decided whether or not to take to the floor for a full House vote. Then on to the Senate if the vote passes. {I will concede that all this is IF I was reading the current rules, and I believe the two places I read from both stated as such}

My contention is this.

Did Pelosi/Schiff properly request an inquiry from the JC? If not, I see issues.

Why isn't the JC in the public eye conducting the inquiry? Once requested to initiate an inquiry, the JC has the power to issue the subpoenas and conduct questioning and general investigative duties. Did they appoint a member(s) from the House? If so, why did they appoint the two that were supposed to be the requestors? If they did not appoint Pelosi, she is not authorized to subpoena anyone. I see issues all around this.
 
#8,656
#8,656
UT_VOLS13 said:
How has your life been negatively affected since Trump has been in office? Do not include your feelings hurt!

Include specific details!
Click to expand...
It's ridiculous to try to have a rational conversion with Luther. Note all the comparatives in his statement per better, shameful, etc... go back and replace every one of those with "disagreed with me". This is the person that claims there is no objective moral standard. His entire post is literally more truthfully summed up by stating that he's offended that so many people disagree with him.

That's literally the only argument he has to make; he just doctors it up in moral language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, InVOLuntary and hjeagle1vol
#8,657
#8,657
GVF said:
Nadler...Separate inquiry.
I would consider the rules binding, until you vote to change them again. After all, their your rules. Otherwise you have chaos, and a moving bullseye. And no legitimacy at all.

Quickly, as its almost quittin time. And, I may have to double check whose set of rules, but I'm 95% sure it was the House rules...

The requestor can file under oath for an inquiry, or request a referral to the appropriate committee (House JC or House Rules, depending on if you want an inquiry on an individual, or on conduct. Either way it circles back to the JC). The JC is supposed to take it from there and conduct the investigative process, witness calls, etc. OR, appoint someone from the House or an independent to do this. After all this is complete is when it is decided whether or not to take to the floor for a full House vote. Then on to the Senate if the vote passes. {I will concede that all this is IF I was reading the current rules, and I believe the two places I read from both stated as such}

My contention is this.

Did Pelosi/Schiff properly request an inquiry from the JC? If not, I see issues.

Why isn't the JC in the public eye conducting the inquiry? Once requested to initiate an inquiry, the JC has the power to issue the subpoenas and conduct questioning and general investigative duties. Did they appoint a member(s) from the House? If so, why did they appoint the two that were supposed to be the requestors? If they did not appoint Pelosi, she is not authorized to subpoena anyone. I see issues all around this.
Click to expand...
You know as well as a hundred million taxpayers that the democrats have lost their way and they can never get re-elected running on a platform of division. They hate white people and at least for the next few decades white people are going to be in the majority. The USA is going to be the next South Africa like it or not. You see how that has turned out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,658
#8,658
Democrats falling right into the trap.

EGeAbcHWsAI_p4o
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#8,659
#8,659
Orange_Crush said:
It's ridiculous to try to have a rational conversion with Luther. Note all the comparatives in his statement per better, shameful, etc... go back and replace every one of those with "disagreed with me". This is the person that claims there is no objective moral standard. His entire post is literally more truthfully summed up by stating that he's offended that so many people disagree with him.

That's literally the only argument he has to make; he just doctors it up in moral language.
Click to expand...
What is sad is I believe he and his better half teach kids in the Public Education System!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,663
#8,663
UT_VOLS13 said:
How has your life been negatively affected since Trump has been in office? Do not include your feelings hurt!

Include specific details!
Click to expand...

The country is dumber, angrier, less civil, and more divided.

Luckily for me, I'm basically Trump proof when it comes to the tangible trivialities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hunerwadel
#8,664
#8,664
VolStrom said:
So you're saying there was a conspiracy in the intelligence agency that is responsible for documenting presidential communications to falsify this conversation?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying that the White House did not release the transcript. They released portions of it and likely omitted some important statements.
 
#8,667
#8,667
VolnJC said:
I can't wait till this gets to the Senate no more of this leak and coup garbage
Click to expand...

The "whistleblower's" motive for coming forward and credibility are no longer of any consequence. The 3 central claims made in the complaint have all been verified, either by the transcript itself, or through admissions made by the Trump administration. We no longer have to take the word of this person for anything. You are beating a dead horse with this.
 
#8,669
#8,669
BowlBrother85 said:
The "whistleblower's" motive for coming forward and credibility are no longer of any consequence. The 3 central claims made in the complaint have all been verified, either by the transcript itself, or through admissions made by the Trump administration. We no longer have to take the word of this person for anything. You are beating a dead horse with this.
Click to expand...
IMPEACH, get it over with!!
 
#8,670
#8,670
luthervol said:
Of course the voters choose. I'm still not convinced he was lawfully elected. If he was, it's even more shameful.
A better candidate is not the answer.
The repubs had 16 better candidates in the primaries and are now refusing to put up a better candidate.
The dems had a better candidate in 2016 and every dem that is currently running is a better candidate.
The problem is with the willingness to knowingly elect the worst candidate.
Trump is a once in 300 year anomaly. He should never (and will never) be accepted as a legitimate president by the majority of the American people.
The problem was and is with the people who legitimize, or even worse, support him.
Click to expand...
Luther, you already know how I feel about Hillary. She wasn't a better candidate. The same devotion you claim people give to Trump, Dems give to Hillary. And it's puzzling. The woman is corrupt. She's had her hand in scandal after scandal, but she's obviously Teflon because everyone refuses to hold her accountable. Not sure how you can prop her up while dissing Trump.

And like it or not, Trump won the election. That is a fact. You don't have to like it, but it doesn't change the fact he is currently the legitimate President, and will be until he leaves office, whether forcibly or through election. I don't like him, I don't like most Presidents, but anyone screaming about his legitimacy is a moron. An election is an election. At some point you need to get over it.

You may be of the opinion he was the worst candidate, but enough people in enough places felt differently. That's how our system works. It's not about one side deciding they don't like the outcome and fighting and screaming over it for four years. And while I think Trump continually embarrasses our country, I feel the House Dems are doing the exact same thing with their screeching. Our entire government is currently an embarrassment. I'd like to think some day you'll see that, but I highly doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and 37L1
#8,674
#8,674
BowlBrother85 said:
The "whistleblower's" motive for coming forward and credibility are no longer of any consequence. The 3 central claims made in the complaint have all been verified, either by the transcript itself, or through admissions made by the Trump administration. We no longer have to take the word of this person for anything. You are beating a dead horse with this.
Click to expand...
And I would argue that none of those are impeachable offenses but we really want know anything until it gets to open trial in the Senate because the House refuses to release testimony
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,675
#8,675
UT_VOLS13 said:
How has your life been negatively affected since Trump has been in office? Do not include your feelings hurt!

Include specific details!
Click to expand...
That's easy. Americans are doing well and the country as a whole is in pretty good shape. The left hates when Americans are working and providing for themselves. They want and need a collapse
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top