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: 11
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
What we are seeing is a man who is not quilty. He is the president of the United States and has no time for this BS.

Also, he is laying 4-D chess with them all. The House has not done ANYTHING in the new sessions. No legislation at all. Only Russia Russia Russia. Immigrants. Immigrants. Immigrants. Impeach.Impeach. Impeach.

The above is NOT their job. At all. I laugh when I hear or read people still talking about how he won the election because of Russia. He is the LAST person Putin wanted. If HRC was in office we would probably be buying oil from the Russians right now.

Give them the finger Mr. President and make them do their real jobs.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

A congressional subpoena is only legal if it is issued within congressional authority. That is to say, the purpose of said subpoena helps to accomplish a legislative task. They can subpoena mark zuckerberg to come and testify about facebook this or that as long as there is a legislative purpose behind it (election security, censorship, etc). They can't subpoena mark zuckerberg to come talk about walking his dog though, as it doesn't accoplish a legislative purpose.

Until that committee votes on an impeachment inquiry, their subpoena's will be slapped down by the court.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

That article proves it isn't a requirement. I urge everyone to read that.


Pelosi last week fought with the top House Republican, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, over a formal vote. McCarthy wrote to Pelosi last week calling on her to suspend the impeachment inquiry until "equitable rules and procedures are established." He argued the House should vote on authorizing an impeachment inquiry just as it did when Congress opened inquiries with Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and that the House minority should have subpoena power as it had in previous inquiries, too.

Pelosi dismissed McCarthy's letter, responding there was "no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry."


So, I'm just wondering. Say you're right and there has to be a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry (obviously there doesn't have to be, it's nowhere in the constitution or anywhere else) what new powers does voting on an impeachment inquiry afford?
edit on 8-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

What you've highlighted is that for impeachement to continue on to the senate the house has to vote. The inquiry can be voted on by the committee that is inquiring. So there doesn't have to be a whole house floor vote, but traditionally there is. The reason there is a whole house vote is because it's serious business and shouldn't be used to play politics with. but it's not required, just a committee vote. Once the committee is done investigating they write up articles of impeachment and submit them on the house floor.
edit on 8-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman

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.


Investigations take time...

How many mornings did you wake up and turn on MSDNC so you could get a giddy feeling just knowing that ANY TIME NOW Mueller was going to get rid of that guy you were told that you hated so much?

I'm betting about 2 1/2 years of mornings.

Now, THAT particular investigation found nothing, but it took time.

I'm betting THIS particular investigation will bring some rather stunning results for you.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

An impeachment inquiry being authorized makes their subpoena's valid. It makes impeachment an official position of the legislative body and therefore those subpoena's accomplish a legislative purpose.
edit on 8-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: underwerks

A congressional subpoena is only legal if it is issued within congressional authority. That is to say, the purpose of said subpoena helps to accomplish a legislative task. They can subpoena mark zuckerberg to come and testify about facebook this or that as long as there is a legislative purpose behind it (election security, censorship, etc). They can't subpoena mark zuckerberg to come talk about walking his dog though, as it doesn't accoplish a legislative purpose.

Until that committee votes on an impeachment inquiry, their subpoena's will be slapped down by the court.


And that's what we're seeing now. I agree with you on what you said in this post. The thing is, a vote isn't required to start an impeachment inquiry. The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.

That's what this argument is about.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

in your own quote she (Pelosi) said there is "no reason for the whole house to vote" not that was no need for any vote.

and thats from YOUR quote.

did ya read it?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Yes, the dems can write demand letters all day. No one has to listen. Once they authorize an inquiry they can issue subpoena's that will be upheld in court.

That's the power they don't have yet. They will soon. Dems will push forward with impeachment.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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


The Perfect ways of the wicked 😎



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?






Probably to have something to hold against the people who refuse the subpoenas. Because while they can't legally be compelled to appear, they can still be held liable for obstruction if they don't.

As long as there is an investigation going on they can be held liable for obstructing that investigation. Whether a vote has been held or not. It just gives the Trump admin more time to mess up.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?






Probably to have something to hold against the people who refuse the subpoenas. Because while they can't legally be compelled to appear, they can still be held liable for obstruction if they don't.

As long as there is an investigation going on they can be held liable for obstructing that investigation. Whether a vote has been held or not. It just gives the Trump admin more time to mess up.


what court will uphold that?? what if the GOP and Trump Say No

what can the Democrats do?? seriously.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?






The only point is to try to campaign for 2020.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?






Probably to have something to hold against the people who refuse the subpoenas. Because while they can't legally be compelled to appear, they can still be held liable for obstruction if they don't.

As long as there is an investigation going on they can be held liable for obstructing that investigation. Whether a vote has been held or not. It just gives the Trump admin more time to mess up.

There is no obstruction for an unweighted subpoena.

Thats simply incorrect.

There is no formsl inquiry.
There is no obstruction of such.

Im not even going to say nice try.

Its garbage.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: underwerks

The subpoenas hold no weight unless there is a vote taken, but a vote isn't required to begin an investigation.


Then what is the point?
A side show?






The only point is to try to campaign for 2020.



that is what scares the hell out of them

they know they don't stand a chance against President Trump.

they know it......

and because of all the games in his first Term, the Democrats have Given Presidnet Trump carte blanche in his Second Term


the left has blown it's wad all over the first term, Trump's second Term will be an amazing 4 years.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: HalWesten

What you've highlighted is that for impeachement to continue on to the senate the house has to vote. The inquiry can be voted on by the committee that is inquiring. So there doesn't have to be a whole house floor vote, but traditionally there is. The reason there is a whole house vote is because it's serious business and shouldn't be used to play politics with. but it's not required, just a committee vote. Once the committee is done investigating they write up articles of impeachment and submit them on the house floor.


That is part of that explanation, but if that were the only case, why would that document state that as being part of the House's investigatory responsibilities? Maybe I am getting confused by the broad description and trying to connect that with House rules. I do not accept the explanations from partisan MSM sites though, I want actual facts from the source. Honestly, when places like CNN report there's no way there will be a vote it makes you wonder if they are trying to push something through without following their own rules or even the law.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

I think you're conflating articles of impeachment with an impeachment inquiry.

The full House doesn't have to vote on the inquiry, only on the articles of impeachment brought after the inquiry.

Also, every subcommittee has subpoena power that doesn't require a full House vote.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: HalWesten

I think you're conflating articles of impeachment with an impeachment inquiry.

The full House doesn't have to vote on the inquiry, only on the articles of impeachment brought after the inquiry.

Also, every subcommittee has subpoena power that doesn't require a full House vote.


I suppose that could be the case. I'm sure I read it somewhere on a legal site though. I wish I could remember where. I wasn't questioning the subpoena powers, I think that is pretty clear that they have to follow the legal terms.

Hey, I'm not perfect but at least I'm teachable. I won't disregard being corrected as long as the corrections are based on facts.




top topics



 
42
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join