The Impeachment Thread

#8,626
#8,626
lawgator1 said:
How , exactly, is this being done in an unconstitutional procedure?
Click to expand...

I'm said IF IT WAS, fine. If NOT, recant, reassess, and re-do.

In the media, it has all the appearance of Pelosi and Schiff just initiating the investigative part on their own.

There are two avenues Pelosi, Schiff, or whoever, can initiate an impeachment. Regardless of which route they go, it ends up in the Judiciary Committee of the HoR under current rules (the House and Senate can set their own rules, but these are the ones at hand). The JC holds the hearings, investigations, subpoenas, questionings, etc., which is chaired by Nadler. Now, it is also my understanding that the JC can, if they choose, select someone whether in the House or independent to spearhead all that. So, point being, did Nadler and the JC appoint Pelosi and Schiff to carry out the investigation after they followed the process correctly of initiating the inquiry, which would allow them by process to send out the subpoenas, etc., and also would compel whoever they requested to show up. If not, then they are not following constitutional procedure (in which case the JC should be doing all this and Pelosi takes a back seat), which gives the WH the chance to flip the finger until such time they follow the process correctly. If they have followed this to the letter, then the WH should be compelled to play ball.
 
#8,627
#8,627
BowlBrother85 said:
No, there isn't. Nothing in the Constitution says that the Democrats have to hold a vote prior to the impeachment inquiry. You are talking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

Idiot, I never said the vote comes before the inquiry. The inquiry is where all the investigative work is done, prior to putting before the House for a vote, if they choose to do so. I did say I did not believe the inquiry process is correct and they haven't followed procedure in that portion of an impeachment proceeding. There is a formal process for initiating the inquiry, you know.
 
#8,628
#8,628
evillawyer said:
Good tweet thread on some differences between the latest released memo and the WH summary of the call. And no, this is not THAT Michael Cohen.

Click to expand...


I think our Trumpies will whislte past this one, at least until the finally settle on "traitor", "spy", "treason" and possibly "RINO".

Maybe one will come up with something original, though.
 
#8,629
#8,629
GVF said:
I'm said IF IT WAS, fine. If NOT, recant, reassess, and re-do.

In the media, it has all the appearance of Pelosi and Schiff just initiating the investigative part on their own.

There are two avenues Pelosi, Schiff, or whoever, can initiate an impeachment. Regardless of which route they go, it ends up in the Judiciary Committee of the HoR under current rules (the House and Senate can set their own rules, but these are the ones at hand). The JC holds the hearings, investigations, subpoenas, questionings, etc., which is chaired by Nadler. Now, it is also my understanding that the JC can, if they choose, select someone whether in the House or independent to spearhead all that. So, point being, did Nadler and the JC appoint Pelosi and Schiff to carry out the investigation after they followed the process correctly of initiating the inquiry, which would allow them by process to send out the subpoenas, etc., and also would compel whoever they requested to show up. If not, then they are not following constitutional procedure (in which case the JC should be doing all this and Pelosi takes a back seat), which gives the WH the chance to flip the finger until such time they follow the process correctly. If they have followed this to the letter, then the WH should be compelled to play ball.
Click to expand...


None of that is spelled out in the Constitution, nor in cases interpreting the Constitution. So when you call it an unconstitutional impeachment inquiry, that is just another false label put out by Trump. For example, you will not find in the Constitution anything saying the full House has to vote to start the inquiry. That is just an utterly bullshiite requirement made up by the administration to throw some legal-sounding, but totally incorrect, hurdle in the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill, BowlBrother85 and zeppelin128
#8,630
#8,630
In the House of Representatives

  • The House Judiciary Committee decides whether or not to proceed with impeachment. If they do...
  • The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee will propose a resolution calling for the Judiciary Committee to begin a formal inquiry into the issue of impeachment.
  • Based on their inquiry, the Judiciary Committee will send another resolution composed of one or more "Articles of Impeachment" to the full House stating that impeachment is warranted and why or that impeachment is not called for.
  • The Full House (probably operating under special floor rules set by the House Rules Committee) will debate and vote on each Article of Impeachment.
  • Should any one of the Articles of Impeachment be approved by a simple majority vote, the President will be "impeached." However, being impeached is sort of like being indicted for a crime. The president will remain in office pending the outcome of the Senate impeachment trial.
This is the common procedure based on current rules. Depending on where you do your reading, there may be more specifics regarding each bulleted statement.

Like I said, the appearance in the media is that Pelosi/Schiff initiated this, and did not submit a proper request to the JC. I'm more than sure Nadler approves, but I've seen nothing to indicate they formally asked the JC to initiate impeachment inquiries. And the JC, by all appearances, IS NOT the lead on this. Which it should be to be valid, IMO.
 
#8,631
#8,631
lawgator1 said:
None of that is spelled out in the Constitution, nor in cases interpreting the Constitution. So when you call it an unconstitutional impeachment inquiry, that is just another false label put out by Trump. For example, you will not find in the Constitution anything saying the full House has to vote to start the inquiry. That is just an utterly bullshiite requirement made up by the administration to throw some legal-sounding, but totally incorrect, hurdle in the way.
Click to expand...
So if everything is on the up and up, why change how it was done under Clinton and Nixon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,632
#8,632
lawgator1 said:
None of that is spelled out in the Constitution, nor in cases interpreting the Constitution. So when you call it an unconstitutional impeachment inquiry, that is just another false label put out by Trump. For example, you will not find in the Constitution anything saying the full House has to vote to start the inquiry. That is just an utterly bullshiite requirement made up by the administration to throw some legal-sounding, but totally incorrect, hurdle in the way.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. I have outlined the procedures. Maybe the WH is not aware of that. Point being, it can be unconstitutional prior to getting to the House for a full vote. There is a procedure just to initiate (by the House's own current rules), that has nothing to do with the vote that comes later.
 
#8,633
#8,633
GVF said:
I am aware of that. I have outlined the procedures. Maybe the WH is not aware of that. Point being, it can be unconstitutional prior to getting to the House for a full vote. There is a procedure just to initiate (by the House's own current rules), that has nothing to do with the vote that comes later.
Click to expand...

How would it be unconstitutional prior to a vote on impeachment? Where in the constitution does it describe something that is being handled unconstitutionally in the current situation?
 
#8,635
#8,635
lawgator1 said:
How would it be unconstitutional prior to a vote on impeachment? Where in the constitution does it describe something that is being handled unconstitutionally in the current situation?
Click to expand...

Scroll up above, and a few previous pages. I have three posts outlining the pre-vote procedure, and the appearances that it hasn't been followed. You even replied to one of them, so it appears you are not reading objectively.
 
#8,636
#8,636
Thought this was very interesting and a reflection on just what is needed to "Impeach" a President:

Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency "into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace"

Nancy's got this!

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#8,637
#8,637
GVF said:
Scroll up above, and a few previous pages. I have three posts outlining the pre-vote procedure, and the appearances that it hasn't been followed. You even replied to one of them, so it appears you are not reading objectively.
Click to expand...

None of that is required by or even referenced in the Constitution.

If Trump wants to say that he objects to the procedure used this time, that's fine. Calling it unconstitutional based on that is hilariously wrong, however.
 
#8,638
#8,638
lawgator1 said:
None of that is required by or even referenced in the Constitution.

If Trump wants to say that he objects to the procedure used this time, that's fine. Calling it unconstitutional based on that is hilariously wrong, however.
Click to expand...

It is, ACTUALLY, the House's OWN rules for initiating an impeachment inquiry, and is referenced there. So, if they are not following them, then they are doing it WRONG, by THEIR OWN rules. The constitution does allow each chamber to set their own rules for impeachment proceedings and trials. The rules at hand would be constitutional, as it was constitutional for them to adopt those rules. So, it would be unconstitutional not to follow the rules the constitution allowed for you to make up. If you vote to change them, you need to follow the new rules.

Impeachment inquiries and proceedings are constitutional. The rules to follow that process are set by the House and Senate within that constitutional right.

Shouldn't be that hard for a lawyer to follow the information that is readily available for reading. The only plausible explanation is that you are an injury lawyer.
 
#8,639
#8,639
GVF said:
It is, ACTUALLY, the House's OWN rules for initiating an impeachment inquiry, and is referenced there. So, if they are not following them, then they are doing it WRONG, by THEIR OWN rules. The constitution does allow each chamber to set their own rules for impeachment proceedings and trials. The rules at hand would be constitutional, as it was constitutional for them to adopt those rules. So, it would be unconstitutional not to follow the rules the constitution allowed for you to make up. If you vote to change them, you need to follow the new rules.

Impeachment inquiries and proceedings are constitutional. The rules to follow that process are set by the House and Senate within that constitutional right.

Shouldn't be that hard for a lawyer to follow the information that is readily available for reading. The only plausible explanation is that you are an injury lawyer.
Click to expand...

tumblr_mhf8ftdBgN1rrqglzo1_500.gif
 
#8,640
#8,640
evillawyer said:
Good tweet thread on some differences between the latest released memo and the WH summary of the call. And no, this is not THAT Michael Cohen.

Click to expand...

Of course, there would be differences. The White House put out the bare minimum. I hope the whistleblower does testify soon. It will probably be very enlightening.
 
#8,641
#8,641
GVF said:
It is, ACTUALLY, the House's OWN rules for initiating an impeachment inquiry, and is referenced there. So, if they are not following them, then they are doing it WRONG, by THEIR OWN rules. The constitution does allow each chamber to set their own rules for impeachment proceedings and trials. The rules at hand would be constitutional, as it was constitutional for them to adopt those rules. So, it would be unconstitutional not to follow the rules the constitution allowed for you to make up. If you vote to change them, you need to follow the new rules.

Impeachment inquiries and proceedings are constitutional. The rules to follow that process are set by the House and Senate within that constitutional right.

Shouldn't be that hard for a lawyer to follow the information that is readily available for reading. The only plausible explanation is that you are an injury lawyer.
Click to expand...
Are those the House rules or the House Judiciary Committee rules?
 
#8,647
#8,647
BowlBrother85 said:
Of course, there would be differences. The White House put out the bare minimum. I hope the whistleblower does testify soon. It will probably be very enlightening.
Click to expand...

Yes, it will go either one way or the other. Neither of which will lack in entertainment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top