It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democrats will take House, Republicans will retain the Senate

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think you're wrong

The Senate has to hold a trial, I believe.


Naturally, politics is in the process since a dem or Repub senate will unlikely convict their own president. Also, it has to be two-thirds of the Senate that convicts.

You guys are every uninformed.

No they do not.
The house only gets to recommend
The Senate decides what it will do

Like I posted you should educate yourself on the mechanics of the process




posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The White House, Senate, Supreme Court are important to keep control of. The House? meh..



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

A politicized GOP impeached Clinton and the country was behind Clinton at the time.

He even beat a majority GOP Senate in the trial. It has to be a two-thirds vote in the Senate to impeach.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal

I do. They are JV. The Senate is the Varsity. They can bitch and moan and pontificate but NOTHING gets done without the Senate and POUTS. This is who it is designed.

They will look like sore losers and will be promoting the same thing they have promoted for 2 years...with no success.

It was a win tonight for Trump....



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

The Senate never took up the clinton impeachment man!
Just like they would not take up a trump impeachment.
You are dense.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   
The EO's are gonna fly in 3 months if the newly elected house members do NOT fall in line.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You better look that up...It's NOT conclusive that the Senate can refuse a trail.

Since actually, it's a constitutional requirement. The constitution DOES NOT SAY the Senate can refuse the trial.

Of course, a lawless GOP Senate might try to do that.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   
They did so, it's the Nixon impeachment that didn't have a trial. He resigned before it got that far.

Clinton had a trial in the Senate and beat the charges.

No, it's you who are dense and ignorant of history.
edit on 6-11-2018 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Unlike most of you here, I know this history. Clinton was impeached fully but beat the charge in the Senate trial



The impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was initiated in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power – failed in the House. Bill Clinton.jpg This article is part of a series about Bill Clinton Political positions Electoral history Early life Family Public image Sexual misconduct allegations Governor of Arkansas 1978 election 1980 campaign 1982 reelection 1984 reelection 1986 reelection 1990 reelection 42nd President of the United States Presidency Timeline Policies Economic Gun Control Environmental Foreign Clinton Doctrine International trips Appointments Cabinet Judicial Appointments First term Campaign for the presidency Primaries 1992 election 1st inauguration NAFTA Health Security Act 1994 midterm elections Economic policy Travelgate Whitewater AmeriCorps Dayton Agreement Second term Reelection campaign Primaries 1996 reelection 2nd inauguration Operation Infinite Reach Bombing of Yugoslavia Balanced Budget Clinton–Lewinsky scandal Impeachment One America Initiative Pardon controversy Post-presidency Presidential Library My Life Activities Clinton Foundation Clinton Bush Haiti Fund One America Appeal Bill Clinton's signature Coat of Arms of Bill Clinton.svg vte Leading to the impeachment, Independent Counsel Ken Starr turned over documentation to the House Judiciary Committee. Chief Prosecutor David Schippers and his team reviewed the material and determined there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president. As a result, four charges were considered by the full House of Representatives; two passed, making Clinton the second president to be impeached, after Andrew Johnson in 1868, and only the third against whom articles of impeachment had been brought before the full House for consideration (Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency in 1974, while an impeachment process against him was underway). The trial in the United States Senate began right after the seating of the 106th Congress, in which the Republican Party held 55 Senate seats. A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. 50 senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges.


en.wikipedia.org...




A two-thirds vote (67 senators) was required to remove Clinton from office. 50 senators voted to remove Clinton on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to remove him on the perjury charge; no member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge. Clinton, like Johnson a century earlier, was acquitted on all charges.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Why don’t some of you folks do a little research before you post falsehoods as you do over and over?



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: matafuchs

The Democrats now have supoenia power. This allows them to launch investigations against Trump and demand things like his tax returns. They also have the oversite, judiciary and ethics committees under their control now as well.


For two years I've watched repeated attempts by a Republican house supoenia information from a Republican executive that took forever to fulfill and they still cried they didn't get everything they asked for.

Why would a Democrat house expect to get better cooperation?



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackJackal


The President doesn’t give the House marching orders, it’s mostly the other way around.

Actually, it's neither way around. Co-equal branches of government. The President is severely limited on his powers over the House or Senate, and the House and Senate are severely limited in their powers over the President. They can start an investigation, but Trump is not obligated to comply.

If they can find enough evidence to charge him with impeachable crimes, and if they have the 2/3 supermajority to do it, the House can impeach. That's it. Then it goes to the Senate.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
Why don’t some of you folks do a little research before you post falsehoods as you do over and over?

So the newly fortified GOP Senate will support impeacment?
The newly elected dem house members will vote for it?
For what?
Tweeting?



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:29 PM
link   
less than 70 seats to go in th ehouse. if dems can hold 6 of the 27 they got they will get majority. I called it split houses if nothing changes. The dems better suport pres some or in 2020 they will be in bad shape if they stifle trump.



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell


Since actually, it's a constitutional requirement. The constitution DOES NOT SAY the Senate can refuse the trial.

It also doesn't say they can't refuse to try.

To impeach a sitting President, the house must draw up a list of impeachment charges, which according to the Constitution must be "high crimes and misdemeanors." If there is a question as to whether or not the Articles of Impeachment meet this criteria, it will be decided in the Supreme Court. Then there is a vote on impeachment under those Articles of Impeachment. If 2/3 or more Representatives (that's 290 Representatives; there will only be maybe 230 Democrats at most) vote to impeach, the case is sent to the Senate for trial.

If the Senate decides to try the President for the crimes in the Articles of Impeachment, they have the authority to do so. If the President is found guilty by the Senate, again by a 2/3 majority, or 67 Senators, the President can be removed from office.

If any step along that chain fails, the President is not removed from office. That's what happened with Clinton; the Senate failed to convict him on the perjury charge in the Articles of Impeachment. He retained full executive power despite impeachment.

Thus, Trump will not be removed from power... he won't even be impeached. He has no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to be charged with, and the Democrats do not hold a 2/3 majority to impeach him with. The Senate cannot remove him from office without the House first impeaching him. The House can do nothing... nothing... without cooperation from the other branches and the Senate. That's the whole point to our government. No one branch is superior.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Those who won will work to get things done....bottom line....



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

I hope you're right. As much as I have been anti-Democrat lately, I am not naive enough to believe the Republicans are any better given the same advantages the Democrats once held. We need both sides maintaining a check on the other.

If (and I will admit this is a big if) these new Democrats are what they say, a more moderate-looking group than we have recently been exposed to, perhaps we can get both parties back again. Many of the new crew have said they will not support Pelosi as Speaker; if they prove to be sincere, that's a big start.

If Pelosi gains the gavel, though, I seriously doubt the House will do anything but fall flat on its face. That's my litmus test.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 6 2018 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Some moderate Republicans lost their seats (or retired) and I'm not at all sure how many of the Democrats (or Republicans) that are replacing them fit the bill.

That being the case, as you say, split branches are indeed the best course. Checks. Balances.


Do you feel the same way about the judiciary? Do you think a strongly weighted Court is a good goal to pursue? The Senate can make sure that happens.

edit on 11/6/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Some moderate Republicans lost their seats (or retired) and I'm not at all sure how many of the Democrats (or Republicans) that are replacing them fit the bill.

That being the case, as you say, split branches are indeed the best course. Checks. Balances.


Do you feel the same way about the judiciary? Do you think a strongly weighted Court is a good goal to pursue? The Senate can make sure that happens.


Actually.. im happy with a split. it makes it tough for both sides to screw each other over.



posted on Nov, 7 2018 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa



it makes it tough for both sides to screw each other over.

Ain't it pathetic that we have to look at it that way?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join