Let's Make Things Clear

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm curious about the term "campaign finance law"..is that what this impeachment is about?

Peace

a reply to: Oraculi

Obama or Trump? Looks like both are in hot water. I would say Obama more due to the number of countries involved.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Oraculi


To be fair, it's kind of weird that it isn't put up for a vote in the house and I would really love to know why that is...

Peace

I would think that there are procedures to follow before any voting is done, that must include a hearing from all the 'interested' parties.

originally posted by: Jubei42
It won't matter, because Trump was investigating a crime on Biden. That's all the supporters need to hear. Just like when Hillary was his opponent. She's probably behind bars now, if it wasn't for that tricky deep state that keeps getting away with everything. Except getting rid of Trump, who will continue to expose all the criminals and traitors, he keeps throwing under the bus.

that is your first Strozk 😈

how many more would work for you??

or did you forget about him???

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm curious about the term "campaign finance law"..is that what this impeachment is about?

Peace

to be honest, the house democrats have not defined what this "impeachment" event is about other than to investigate the president
As the op noted and the doj weighed in on , federal election law has been mentioned.
A federal election campaign law violation usually results in no more than a fine, so imo it would not rise to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" called for in the constitution to impeach a sitting president.
example
www.politico.com...

President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign was fined $375,000 by the Federal Election Commission for campaign reporting violations — one of the largest fees ever levied against a presidential campaign, POLITICO has learned.

a reply to: RickyD

Yeah I read your post...can't really add or dismiss anything because I know too little about the subject. I hope the OP will be back to answer it..

The other day I had a member explain to me that since Joe wasn't officially running as a candidate there wasn't any concern about digging up dirt on a political rival since he was not a rival....has that changed?

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Oraculi

Glad to see you are back...hope your health is okay.

I hope this thread will give us some good discussion from both sides without the usual suspects showing up to derail the thread.

I find it odd that the direction of this whole impeachmemt keeps changing. It started with a simple phonecall and a clear reason to start an impeachmemt procedure..

Now we got everybody pointing fingers in every direction. Pelosi, Hunter, Hillary, Obama, Schiff...I believe they all have skeletons in their closet but somehow it doesn't change what Trump did.

To be fair, it's kind of weird that it isn't put up for a vote in the house and I would really love to know why that is...

Peace

Thank you, sir. Good to be back. Feeling fresh and strong... well, mostly.

Yeah, I agree with your concern as well, why was it done differently this time and a vote was not held in the House? It does not sit well with me either, but in a Washington beset by political games we should expect both sides to play them, shouldn't we?

If the president and his team will feign ignorance of the law and try to circumvent the norms of the law, try to stall at every turn, can we really point fingers at democrats finding a loop hole to protect their more vulnerable caucus?

Is it a political move? Absolutely. But it also seems to be within the law. Further obstruction of the law will only add to the articles of impeachment. Stalling and obstruction will not work, it's time for the president to get a war room started and change tactics.

a reply to: smurfy

You would think wrong then...

The House's Role

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 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. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.

US House of Representatives

The right of the House to investigate the President and the Executive branch in the course of oversight is clear based on legal precedent.

The right of the House to investigate the President in light of Articles of Impeachment being issued is clear based on the US Constitution.

The idea that somehow because the House is controlled by a party that some here don't like that suddenly the Legislative Branch is illegitimate is patently ridiculous.

The President can choose not to cooperate with the Congress in terms of its legal authority, and that adds another to a long list of impeachable offenses. I sincerely believe the House is just getting started with the Ukrainian matter.

a reply to: operation mindcrime

As far as I can tell the investigation had been reopened by Ukrain back in February anyway. I am no expert either which is why I try to lean on authoritative sources to cite for my position. Looking to legal scholarly sources and even as I just did above with using the actual HoR website.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thats a little vague and it skips over some things as you can read above.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No one here is questioning whether or not they can. They can.

But so far, they haven't done the one thing they need to do to make this an actual impeachment proceeding with legal teeth - hold a vote.

Until and unless the House does this, all they have is a lot of screeching designed to trick people into thinking they have more actual legal authority than they really do. Heck, the President even wants them to hold the vote at this point. The expression is sh!t or get off the pot.

a reply to: RickyD

Not really. I'm not responding to logical fallacies and emotional opinion. The facts in this instance are more than clear.

a reply to: ketsuko

Please cite the part of the Constitution that requires that Articles of Impeachment preceed an investigation into whether Articles of Impeachment are necessary.

a reply to: Oraculi

I love these “everyone is ignorant except me” threads.

Second line. That’s all I have to say.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

No one here is questioning whether or not they can. They can.

But so far, they haven't done the one thing they need to do to make this an actual impeachment proceeding with legal teeth - hold a vote.

Until and unless the House does this, all they have is a lot of screeching designed to trick people into thinking they have more actual legal authority than they really do. Heck, the President even wants them to hold the vote at this point. The expression is sh!t or get off the pot.

IMO the speaker has instituted a perpetual impeachment investigation with no scope.
As with other things done in the last few years(nuclear option,thank harry reid, russia investigation, thanks obama) this will bite the dems on the behind when turned the other direction.
They seem too shortsighted to see this.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Thanks for the info..I'll try and follow your info.

Peace

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I'm responding to you with a source citing right off the .gov HoR website. Not sure what logical fallacies or emotion you see but I am citing the HoR directly so if you see any of that emotion and fallacy it would be attributed to the HoR...is that what you are saying?

Let's make things clear, Oraculi. You have a point of view. There is no particular reason we need to take your point of view as gospel. You're coming across as an "argument from authority" while having demonstrated none. Real lawyers will be fighting on both sides of this issue. Your point of view is rather far down the list. Looking down your nose at the rest of us does not help your cause, which is obvious. Just another rather boring and inconsequential partisan rant.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The right of the House to investigate the President and the Executive branch in the course of oversight is clear based on legal precedent.

The right of the House to investigate the President in light of Articles of Impeachment being issued is clear based on the US Constitution.

The idea that somehow because the House is controlled by a party that some here don't like that suddenly the Legislative Branch is illegitimate is patently ridiculous.

The President can choose not to cooperate with the Congress in terms of its legal authority, and that adds another to a long list of impeachable offenses. I sincerely believe the House is just getting started with the Ukrainian matter.

If they want to try and impeach I say go for it. That is not what they are doing - they will not vote yet they spread to the media for months Trump is being impeached. It's propaganda and not a real attempt at impeachment.