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: 9
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari
Does the constitution say a committee or the speaker has the power to impeach? Or that Congress has the power to impeach?

Its a simple vote.
The dems are cowards.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Doesn't matter.

Nancy Pelosi, Paul Ryan, doesn't matter. That one person, no matter their rank in the House, does not declare impeachment, nor does that person arbitrarily make rules for the body either.

So no, Nancy Pelosi cannot stand there and declare an impeachment inquiry and simply make it so. She is not Jean Luc Picard, Speaker of the USS House of Representatives NCC 1701-D. She is bound to follow the same rules and procedures the Congress agreed to at its opening which means the same rules and procedures established for impeachment that have always been there.

So, yes, the Judicial Committee needs to hold a vote to open an impeachment inquiry. That gets the actual legal ball rolling. Then articles of impeachment are drafted for the full floor vote at which point evidence would be presented and gathered. If the White House resisted that process, I assume that would be considered obstruction, but then you have to ask if that rises to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor same as you did with Bill Clinton lying about his blow job under oath.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:14 PM
link   

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 vote IS required to gain the tools of the impeachment process.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

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 vote IS required to gain the tools of the impeachment process.


I'll post this again. These are the three steps impeachment follows:


First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".

Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.


Link

No vote is required to begin an impeachment investigation, that's where we are now. After the investigation concludes and the members of Congress review the results, they vote on whether or not to impeach. If they choose to do so then Trump is impeached. Then it goes to the Senate to be tried for removal.

As I said on the last page, Nixon was investigated for 3 months. It's only been two weeks for Donald Trump. It makes no sense to vote on an impeachment this early in the investigation. There is no provision anywhere that states there has to be a vote taken to start an impeachment inquiry.
edit on 8-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:19 PM
link   
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



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   

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.

You watch too much CNN



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

You watch too much CNN


I actually just reviewed the constitution and the articles the house must abide by.

But I get that's the same thing as CNN to you guys.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Your post did literally nothing to address what I said. The House has special powers that only take effect upon a formal impeachment. We do not have that. Those powers are not in play.

This is exactly why Democrats won't move forward with the vote. They do not want the Republicans to have those powers .. but they are trying to use them themselves when they can't, and then scream when Trump and others won't comply.
edit on 8-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Your post did literally nothing to address what I said. The House has special powers that only take effect upon a formal impeachment. We do not have that. Those powers are not in play.


Prove it. Point me to the provision in the constitution or the house rules that state this.

There aren't any "special powers" that are gained by a vote on impeachment that pertain to the investigation part.
edit on 8-10-2019 by underwerks because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.

You watch too much CNN


I actually just reviewed the constitution and the articles the house must abide by.

But I get that's the same thing as CNN to you guys.


So does it say a committee has power or the speaker has power or does CONGRESS have the power of impeachment?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:24 PM
link   

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.

You know, so the Committee can investigate.

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

Thanks in advance...




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



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

your desperation is amazing

it's like you already know what the FISA report is gonna say


Must be terrible for this kind of blitz from the left online...



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

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..



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: underwerks

your desperation is amazing

it's like you already know what the FISA report is gonna say


Must be terrible for this kind of blitz from the left online...


You have a weird definition of desperate.




posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: underwerks

Your post did literally nothing to address what I said. The House has special powers that only take effect upon a formal impeachment. We do not have that. Those powers are not in play.


Prove it. Point me to the provision in the constitution or the house rules that state this.

There aren't any "special powers" that are gained by a vote on impeachment that pertain to the investigation part.

Sorry, there is.

the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations

From the beginning of the Federal Government, Presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation

www.nytimes.com...

They won't vote because they don't want the Republicans to have increased subpoena powers.
edit on 8-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:29 PM
link   

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..


This is how it works to ensure that impeachment does not become a purely partisan exercise used to remove a president of another party from office.

I wonder why the Founders ever thought that could occur, and I wonder why that would be a worry right now?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   

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?



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Lmao. That's the text of a subpoena to Richard Nixon, and does nothing to support your assertion.

There is no rule that says a vote has to be held to begin an impeachment investigation.



posted on Oct, 8 2019 @ 08:34 PM
link   

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 to the full House."

It took a while to wade through the BS MSM and Wiki sites, none of which are telling you the truth. At least not all of the truth. I got this source from THE source.
edit on 8-10-2019 by HalWesten because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
42
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join