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.

 

Let's Make Things Clear

page: 12
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

no but the false statement he made just about a week ago does

shows a patteren of deception doesn't it??

so yeah, NEXT.

what Vote was taken to delegate Shiff?

simple question right??




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

You asked about the source of authority for issued subpoenas, and I provided an answer.

That you don't like Schiff is obvious and unsurprising. Do you really think he would issue a illegitimate subpoena claiming it came from the Committee?

A vote to "designate Schiff" is not required if a majority of the Committee authorizes the subpoena, as the link above shows.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Correction



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

sorry I don't read yahoo

I presumed you wanted to know.

I guess you lied, or you already knew and lied.

so, which lie was it?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no authority other than your own. Gotcha.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

LOL ... what does "Yahoo" have to do with anything? Are you okay?

From your article linked from the well-known rag ...



Bates acknowledged there being a "rumor mill" coming from the Right — Republicans and conservative media who allege federal officials misled the FISA court in their use of an unverified dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele about President Trump's alleged ties to Russia to obtain the Page warrants. But Bates also cited a recent hearing on FISA in which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, dismissed allegations of FISA-related wrongdoing, saying, “I’m not aware of any terrible problem with the FISA court and specifically not with the Carter Page application." "I don't have a prediction for whether he is going to find fault and mistakes or worse and at what levels. Because remember that the sign-offs on these applications in the Department of Justice and the FBI were pretty high levels," he said


There's no indication in your "source" to believe that anything controversial will arise from the IG report.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

while you are looking at me, simpleman is tearing you apart.

I'm just a distraction.

no worries.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Any more questions?


Nope. You've shown that you're not able to read sources properly.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Tearing me apart? LOL ... simpleman is at least arguing from evidence. It doesn't say mean what you or others think, but I can't help that.

You're serving as a "distraction"? That sounds a little like forum gang behavior. I'm sure that's not what you mean.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: simpleman9577

Since you're "tearing me apart" according to some ... I thought I'd actually respond to you as a serious poster rather than wasting time on those who are trolling by their own admission.

The source you linked is from the House's own "History" section. I would be the first to admit that it does make a reasonable statement based on historical events regarding past impeachments. However, despite what some here are getting so excited about ... that "historical narrative" intended for general consumption is not an official rules document. It could be compared to the Opinion section of newspapers and their online equivalents.

So, thank you for your integrity, but I don't agree with your conclusion that a vote is necessary for the House to exercise its investigative power. The article I linked from the SCOTUSblog makes that fairly clear.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Jesus here instead of hear... lOl



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: simpleman9577

Since you're "tearing me apart" according to some ... I thought I'd actually respond to you as a serious poster rather than mere trolls.

The source you linked is from the House's own "History" section. I would be the first to admit that it does make a reasonable statement based on historical events regarding past impeachments. However, despite what some hear are getting so excited about ... that "historical narrative" intended for general consumption is not an official rules document.

So, thank you for your integrity, but I don't agree with your conclusion that a vote is necessary for the House to exercise its investigative power. The article I linked from the SCOTUSblog makes that fairly clear.


It is true the house does not have to follow historical precidence for impeachment hearings - but the obvious question is why aren't they?

The obvious answer is they don't want both sides of the story told - they want to ramrod the impeachment story with as little resistance as possible.

To a thinking person it is an obvious sign the case for impeachment is weak. They are betting on the majority of the country being ignorant or not understanding what they are doing.

It is also setting a very bad precedent for the future. Karma says the democrats will get screwed in the future for this, just like they did for going nuclear.

Sadly with the lefts control over the majority of the media - they may get away with this.

But it does support the president calling it a witchhunt.
edit on 10-10-2019 by proximo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Oh ... ABSOLUTELY proximo ... an excellent question! I think Pelosi's approach is absurd, but overall, in perfect alignment with the general Democratic Party tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I can't agree with you that lacking a formal declaration or resolution is going to keep any part of "the story" from being told, as the events of the last few weeks have shown.

Oh, tsk tsk, it's fallacious to argue that any "thinking person" agrees with your interpretation, no?

Who cares if the House impeaches the President? That will make him one of three, which I'm sure he would love... Lindsey and Mitch have already made it clear that regardless of any facts, they will not remove Trump.

It's a dumb play on the part of the House Democrats ... that's sufficient explanation in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: proximo

Oh ... ABSOLUTELY proximo ... an excellent question! I think Pelosi's approach is absurd, but overall, in perfect alignment with the general Democratic Party tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

I can't agree with you that lacking a formal declaration or resolution is going to keep any part of "the story" from being told, as the events of the last few weeks have shown.

Oh, tsk tsk, it's fallacious to argue that any "thinking person" agrees with your interpretation, no?

Who cares if the House impeaches the President? That will make him one of three, which I'm sure he would love... Lindsey and Mitch have already made it clear that regardless of any facts, they will not remove Trump.

It's a dumb play on the part of the House Democrats ... that's sufficient explanation in my opinion.


There are no facts which support impeachment.

As has been pointed out many times by Ukranian government officials, and the US ambassador to Ukrain - they were not even aware at that the time of the call the aid had been stopped.

That is 100% proof there was no quid pro quo. There is no validity to the claim PERIOD.

If you are really going to argue it is a violation of campaign finance - it would first have to be used in the campaign - IT WAS NOT USED. The DOJ argued it would not qualify as a violation also.

There is no legit argument - that is why the Democrats don't have the votes - They have enough honest congressmen that know impeachment is not justified. That does not mean they won't get the votes through bribery and threats eventually - but it does tell you why they don't already have them.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

A good question. Here's an answer:



“Accordingly, due to the urgency of the matter and the unlawful decision by your office to withhold from the Committee an Intelligence Community individual’s credible “urgent concern” whistleblower disclosure, the Committee hereby issues the attached subpoena compelling you to transmit immediately to the Committee the disclosure, in complete and unaltered form, as well as to produce other related materials.”


House Select Committee on Intelligence website

It's a quote from Chairman Schiff published on the official House Select Committee on Intelligence website. Do you have any valid reason to suspect his statement to be non-factual? Hint: your possible dislike of Schiff is not a valid reason.


Yeah and??

I don't see anything that delegates the authority of impeachment??

without the authority, the subpenas mean squat.
you didn't refute or show anything.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I havn't looked at your scotus link yet. I also havn't found anything saying they cant gather info. But the rules page does say for subpoena power a committee has to vote for a subpoena or vote to delegate subpoena power to a chairman. I'm definitely no expert, that how it reads to me. I'll have to find your link and get back to you.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Opinions vary I guess. There has been plenty handed to the Democrats on a silver platter in the past for Impeachment and they were chicken#. Unless there's something huge in the Ukrainian thing that is still hidden, this was not a reasonable choice.

It's irrelevant anyway, the Senate is going to acquit Trump no matter what.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: simpleman9577

You're absolutely right. I'll see if I can find any minutes of the procedings of the Committee ... that would answer one specific question at least.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Note


ADDED IN EDIT: Not the minutes of any meeting, but, here are the Rules adopted by the House Intelligence Committee:

Intelligence Committee Rules

Regarding subpoenas:



10. SUBPOENAS (a) Generally. All subpoenas shall be authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, or by vote of the full Committee. (b) Subpoena Contents. Any subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee or by the full Committee may compel: (1) The attendance of witnesses and testimony before the Committee; or (2) The production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other tangible item.(c) Signing of Subpoena. A subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee or by thefull Committee may be signed by the Chair or by any member of the Committee designated to do so by the full Committee.(d) Subpoena Service. A subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, or by the full Committee, may be served by any person designated to do so by the Chair.(e) Other Requirements. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of these rules.


At least that's answered.
edit on 10-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Oraculi

Then Hillary should be in Irons. If you recall, she conspired with British, Russians and Ukranians to build her dirty dossier, attempted to launder the payments through her lawyer (Perkins Coie) and then lied about it when confronted.

However, Trump's call wasn't to help him with the election. Trump's call was done as the chief law enforcement officer directing his AG to work with a foreign nation. Very usual, common, daily occurrence.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: proximo

Opinions vary I guess. There has been plenty handed to the Democrats on a silver platter in the past for Impeachment and they were chicken#. Unless there's something huge in the Ukrainian thing that is still hidden, this was not a reasonable choice.

It's irrelevant anyway, the Senate is going to acquit Trump no matter what.




I really have no idea what you are talking about. There has been nothing worthy of impeachment.

Russia was a frame job - and it is going to proven to be soon enough - although I'm sure you will just call it a vast right wing conspiracy or something.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no authority other than your own. Gotcha.

??? Not mine, it is right in the Constitution.

Oh, and someone else pointed out that The House's own rules say the same thing.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Any more questions?


Nope. You've shown that you're not able to read sources properly.

And you have yet to refute anything with evidence or any argument of substance.

So, how can you read this, directly from The House Rules:

"The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. 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. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but ..."

As anything other than...

There are two, and only two ways The House can initiate Impeachment proceedings...

1) Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or

2) the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry.

These are the only two options presented in The House Rules.

I will await your argument as to how these are not the only two options.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join