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.

 

White House formally tells Democrats it won’t cooperate with impeachment probe

page: 10
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Executive is an equal branch. The only way the House can infringe on Executive privilege is if they have a formal impeachment vote.

But then Republicans can subpoena people too, Democrats don't want that.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: underwerks Please show me where this is a requirement in either the constitution or the house rules. Or even any precedent where this has used before..


Please read this. Especially the part that addresses the House's role including this:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them tothe full House."


After the investigation.

Articles of impeachment aren't voted on until the investigation is complete and Congress has reviewed the results.

Then it goes to the Senate who votes on whether or not to remove the President.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Hahahahahahaha
The ukranians opened an investigation into hunter biden in feb of 19

Hahahahaaha
The whole thing was a honeypot to catch the leakers

Ahahahahahahaaha

Ahahahaahaha
Stupid dems

GAME OVER MAN
GAME OVER



QUID PRO QUO NO 😃



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

As I already showed, investigatory powers do not allow them to compel a President or the Executive branch. That requires an impeachment proceeding, requiring a formal vote.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lumenari

Executive is an equal branch. The only way the House can infringe on Executive privilege is if they have a formal impeachment vote.

But then Republicans can subpoena people too, Democrats don't want that.


And that is the problem right now.

The House is attempting to fool their base into thinking this is an actual impeachment inquiry.

It simply isn't... it is a Democrat fishing expedition and they quite simply do not have the oversight power over the Executive branch until they either call a vote in Committee to investigate, or call a full House vote for forming Articles of Impeachment.

Schiff and Co. are just talking out of their ass...they don't have the power to do what they are attempting to do.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It was done in the bill clinton impeachment inquiry and the richard nixon one. Before a committee has subpoena power they have to vote on what they're investigating. They can only subpoena for legitimate legislative purposes. So if they want their subpoena's upheld in court they need to outline the parameters of what they're investigating and for what legislative purpose.

You should have learned this when they tried to subpoena trumps tax records and lost.
edit on 8-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

It was done in the bill clinton impeachment inquiry and the richard nixon one. Before a committee has subpoena power they have to vote on what they're investigating. They can only subpoena for legitimate legislative purposes. So if they want their subpoena's upheld in court they need to outline the parameters of what they're investigating and for what legislative purpose.


THANK you for understanding!!!

Christ wept... this is a simple concept and the left just can't understand it.

Schiff can generate 3485739857893475 pieces of paper that say "Subpoena" at the top of it and it isn't a legally binding document until they vote on it.




edit on 8-10-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: carewemust

As a co-equal branch of government, the SCOTUS can't tell the House what it can and cannot do. Especially when it comes to impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2, US Constitution:


The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Beyond that, the House can easily provide both Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress as articles of impeachment if the Executive branch doesn't comply with the inquiry.

Great, now show me the vote where the 'formal' inquiry was voted on and started.
What we have now is an informal one, meaning, there isn't one.


A formal vote isn't required to begin an impeachment investigation. The vote is the second step after the investigation concludes. And while under investigation, if you obstruct it, you can be charged with obstruction.


The investigation takes a vote by the committee in question to begin.

Please link to me where the House Intelligence Committee has had such a vote.

Thanks in advance...



Please show me where this is a requirement in either the constitution or the house rules. Or even any precedent where this has used before..


Every time a committee conducts business they have to come to order and vote on any business the Committee has before they proceed with said business.

Do you need to brush up on parlimentarianism or Robert's rules of order?

Jefferson's Manual perhaps?

This is how business is conducted in the House and the Senate and has been since our first Congress convened.

It is not currently being conducted that way.

I'm sorry... is the topic a little too deep for you?


Not at all, its fun talking to someone completely oblivious to what has been taking place.



In the closed-door caucus meeting, Pelosi downplayed the importance of the move in a possible message to centrists.

“It doesn’t change much from what is already going on, but we can call the umbrella of the committee work an impeachment inquiry,” Pelosi told lawmakers in the caucus meeting, tamping down the significance of the day’s events, according to a source in the meeting.

Despite the magnitude of the event, Pelosi’s move on Tuesday does not definitively mean the House will vote on articles of impeachment, and lawmakers leaving the late afternoon caucus meeting expressed some confusion over what would come next.


The decision to launch an impeachment inquiry does not require a vote, and the same six committees that had been investigating Trump will continue to do so


Link

From September 24th.

If this article is wrong, prove it. You have offered no evidence of anything. Just personal attacks. Which shows the shallowness of your entire argument.

This thing about having to vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is a red herring. There is no such requirement anywhere. If there was, you would be able to provide evidence..



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

It was done in the bill clinton impeachment inquiry and the richard nixon one. Before a committee has subpoena power they have to vote on what they're investigating. They can only subpoena for legitimate legislative purposes. So if they want their subpoena's upheld in court they need to outline the parameters of what they're investigating and for what legislative purpose.

You should have learned this when they tried to subpoena trumps tax records and lost.


Prove it. That they did that with Clinton and Nixon doesn't mean it's a requirement.


edit on 8-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Apparently it's hard to understand that congress isn't an investigative body but a legislative one and therefore they can only function in legislative matters. They have no power to investigate anyone, until such a time that they have declared that they're investigating someone for the legislative purpose of impeachment.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: HalWesten

Patience. Today it came out that Pelosi's son made a killing while serving as a gas company exec with a company doing business in Ukraine, including using his own mother in some of their Ukrainian marketing materials... This is serving a higher power presently and the entire process will destroy many career politicians' careers before it is all over. I suspect Congressional Republicans are aware of this and are currently allowing this process, which is causing zero damage to the President, to proceed so long as it continues to bear withered Democratic fruit that can be cast aside to fertilize the fields of freedom in it's wake.




Hopefully its time they became servants of the people instead of manipulators of the masses. how can the left not see the same corruption that they are accusing Trump of is rampant throughout their party as well.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Hahahahahahaha
The ukranians opened an investigation into hunter biden in feb of 19

Hahahahaaha
The whole thing was a honeypot to catch the leakers

Ahahahahahahaaha

Ahahahaahaha
Stupid dems

GAME OVER MAN
GAME OVER



QUID PRO QUO NO 😃



The whole thing was a setup.
Ukraine was ALREADY investigating
Trump asked for something they were already doing
Ahahahahaaha
Aaaahahahahaha
They are reporting it for him
Ahahahaahahaha
Aaaahaahahahaaha



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, that article is over 2 weeks old. They received the transcript of the call they were seeking, and in order to go further with their inquiry now, they need to vote. Everything directly relating to their 2 whistleblowers is in that transcript which was given to them openly as soon as they started complaining about it.

Now they need to vote for more.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
There are big cannons being loaded, and preparing to fire at them, when President Trump gives the order.


If he had something of that magnitude, he would've already used it.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

I did, with my last line. The court determined there was not a legitimate legislative purpose for it and therefore the subpoena was invalid.

Impeachment is a legitimate legislative purpose. So if the congress wants to investigate the president they need to formally start impeachment proceedings. They do that by formally voting on and authorizing an impeachment inquiry.

But here, even wapo admits that it was done in the prior two impeachment proceedings. It's towards the bottom of the article.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, that article is over 2 weeks old. They received the transcript of the call they were seeking, and in order to go further with their inquiry now, they need to vote. Everything directly relating to their 2 whistleblowers is in that transcript which was given to them openly as soon as they started complaining about it.

Now they need to vote for more.



Where is the evidence of that requirement? If you're telling the truth, it should be easy to find that information. I've offered links and evidence..



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: carewemust

As a co-equal branch of government, the SCOTUS can't tell the House what it can and cannot do. Especially when it comes to impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2, US Constitution:


The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Beyond that, the House can easily provide both Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress as articles of impeachment if the Executive branch doesn't comply with the inquiry.

Great, now show me the vote where the 'formal' inquiry was voted on and started.
What we have now is an informal one, meaning, there isn't one.


A formal vote isn't required to begin an impeachment investigation. The vote is the second step after the investigation concludes. And while under investigation, if you obstruct it, you can be charged with obstruction.


The investigation takes a vote by the committee in question to begin.

Please link to me where the House Intelligence Committee has had such a vote.

Thanks in advance...



Please show me where this is a requirement in either the constitution or the house rules. Or even any precedent where this has used before..


Every time a committee conducts business they have to come to order and vote on any business the Committee has before they proceed with said business.

Do you need to brush up on parlimentarianism or Robert's rules of order?

Jefferson's Manual perhaps?

This is how business is conducted in the House and the Senate and has been since our first Congress convened.

It is not currently being conducted that way.

I'm sorry... is the topic a little too deep for you?


Not at all, its fun talking to someone completely oblivious to what has been taking place.



In the closed-door caucus meeting, Pelosi downplayed the importance of the move in a possible message to centrists.

“It doesn’t change much from what is already going on, but we can call the umbrella of the committee work an impeachment inquiry,” Pelosi told lawmakers in the caucus meeting, tamping down the significance of the day’s events, according to a source in the meeting.

Despite the magnitude of the event, Pelosi’s move on Tuesday does not definitively mean the House will vote on articles of impeachment, and lawmakers leaving the late afternoon caucus meeting expressed some confusion over what would come next.


The decision to launch an impeachment inquiry does not require a vote, and the same six committees that had been investigating Trump will continue to do so


Link

From September 24th.

If this article is wrong, prove it. You have offered no evidence of anything. Just personal attacks. Which shows the shallowness of your entire argument.

This thing about having to vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is a red herring. There is no such requirement anywhere. If there was, you would be able to provide evidence..


I haven't personally attacked you at all... I was just observing that you're a partisan hack who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The requirement IS there, you just don't understand how the House and Senate normally conduct business.

It is by parliamentarian rule.

As such, the body cannot conduct any business that they haven't voted on.

Do you understand what a Committee is?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

It was done in the bill clinton impeachment inquiry and the richard nixon one. Before a committee has subpoena power they have to vote on what they're investigating. They can only subpoena for legitimate legislative purposes. So if they want their subpoena's upheld in court they need to outline the parameters of what they're investigating and for what legislative purpose.

You should have learned this when they tried to subpoena trumps tax records and lost.


Prove it. That they did that with Clinton and Nixon doesn't mean it's a requirement.


You should look up precedent

Ask Congressman green about house rules for this session

Also ask about the Ukrainian investigation started in feb of 19
MONTHS before the call

The dems got played



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: carewemust

As a co-equal branch of government, the SCOTUS can't tell the House what it can and cannot do. Especially when it comes to impeachment.

Article 1, Section 2, US Constitution:


The House of Representatives...shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Beyond that, the House can easily provide both Obstruction of Justice and Contempt of Congress as articles of impeachment if the Executive branch doesn't comply with the inquiry.

Great, now show me the vote where the 'formal' inquiry was voted on and started.
What we have now is an informal one, meaning, there isn't one.


A formal vote isn't required to begin an impeachment investigation. The vote is the second step after the investigation concludes. And while under investigation, if you obstruct it, you can be charged with obstruction.


The investigation takes a vote by the committee in question to begin.

Please link to me where the House Intelligence Committee has had such a vote.

Thanks in advance...



Please show me where this is a requirement in either the constitution or the house rules. Or even any precedent where this has used before..


Every time a committee conducts business they have to come to order and vote on any business the Committee has before they proceed with said business.

Do you need to brush up on parlimentarianism or Robert's rules of order?

Jefferson's Manual perhaps?

This is how business is conducted in the House and the Senate and has been since our first Congress convened.

It is not currently being conducted that way.

I'm sorry... is the topic a little too deep for you?


Not at all, its fun talking to someone completely oblivious to what has been taking place.



In the closed-door caucus meeting, Pelosi downplayed the importance of the move in a possible message to centrists.

“It doesn’t change much from what is already going on, but we can call the umbrella of the committee work an impeachment inquiry,” Pelosi told lawmakers in the caucus meeting, tamping down the significance of the day’s events, according to a source in the meeting.

Despite the magnitude of the event, Pelosi’s move on Tuesday does not definitively mean the House will vote on articles of impeachment, and lawmakers leaving the late afternoon caucus meeting expressed some confusion over what would come next.


The decision to launch an impeachment inquiry does not require a vote, and the same six committees that had been investigating Trump will continue to do so


Link

From September 24th.

If this article is wrong, prove it. You have offered no evidence of anything. Just personal attacks. Which shows the shallowness of your entire argument.

This thing about having to vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is a red herring. There is no such requirement anywhere. If there was, you would be able to provide evidence..


I haven't personally attacked you at all... I was just observing that you're a partisan hack who isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

The requirement IS there, you just don't understand how the House and Senate normally conduct business.

It is by parliamentarian rule.

As such, the body cannot conduct any business that they haven't voted on.

Do you understand what a Committee is?



Link to the evidence of what you're talking about. It shouldn't be hard. Your words and opinion hold no weight in this argument.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: underwerks Please show me where this is a requirement in either the constitution or the house rules. Or even any precedent where this has used before..


Please read this. Especially the part that addresses the House's role including this:

"The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them tothe full House."


After the investigation.

Articles of impeachment aren't voted on until the investigation is complete and Congress has reviewed the results.

Then it goes to the Senate who votes on whether or not to remove the President.



Did you bother to read it? Let me help you here:


Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry.


Has the House passed a resolution authorizing an inquiry? No. Nancy won't do it. That was stated on CNN today.


The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813.

The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf.


Once again, the committee must have the votes for an inquiry based on a resolution that has to be introduced on the floor. You can't do that in a committee session. Every single source I read, MSM or not, says the inquiry has to be passed as either a bill by a representative or by the House as a resolution and voted on. I don't know how else to explain it to you. I suppose you can deny it all you want but I would believe the House rules far sooner than I would trust your opinion.
edit on 8-10-2019 by HalWesten because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join