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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.


who said this other than you?

this is a strawman, no one said this was the reason

this is your fallacy

this is why you are, sadly incorrect

unles you can show this is what was said.

in other words lke Schiff, you are making it up.🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is exactly what I am saying and I just cited it again. They and honestly any representative of the house may start the proceedings. The House Judiciary investigates though.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Resolutions put forward are not "rules of the House."

Can you cite the "rules of the House" that you claimed above?

whatever you say.....
why would we expect any other process this session than the one followed by congressman Green?


Why would we expect anything from politicians?

Why would we expect the President of the United States to admit in public that he used the power of his office to influence a foreign power to interfere in our politics?

Do you have a reference for these "House rules" you guys keep referring to?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
So no answer to why Congressman Green was held to one set of house rules and Speaker Pelosi to another?
Did the house rules change since earlier this summer?
Congressman Green obviously followed them as he was able to obtain a floor vote, it failed but he got a vote.
Why is this event different?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

May I add emphasis to your quote (the source of which is not "the Rules of the House")?




The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.


Is there a requirement in law restricting one committee or another from investigating matters relevant to their charge?

You folks seem to be confusing "Articles of Impeachment" with "impeachment investigation" honestly.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No answer because it's not a reasonable question.

I'm asking to see "the rules of the House" that require Articles to be voted on before an investigation.

Can you provide that, or not?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Gryphon66

That is exactly what I am saying and I just cited it again. They and honestly any representative of the house may start the proceedings. The House Judiciary investigates though.


You do realize that the document you're quoting from is not "the rules of the House" ... right?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
fas.org...


The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment.
Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

seems a resolution has to be passed

I don't think anyone would have an issue with any investigation if the house were to pass the initiation portion of the process.
I think that is what the letter the attorney from the white house sent out last night says.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   


The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence oversees the nation’s intelligence agencies including components of the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice, State, Treasury and Energy. Schiff also is on leave from the House Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful committees in Washington, which is responsible for setting all funding priorities for the federal government. Schiff sits on the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.


IHouse Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The "whistleblower" is a member of the CIA ... correct? Perhaps that's why Intelligence is involved in the investigation?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The document you are quoting from is not "the rules of the House."

It is an informational document created for members of Congress by the Congressional Research Service.

Now, again, "the rules of the House" that support the claims made here?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

This argument is, ironically, a strawman argument.

Your selected quote from my post doesn't state that anyone here has said what I stated.

I am referring to an idea which is obvious.

Your argument is invalid on its face, and you are making ad hom arguments in this post that have nothing to do with the facts we're discussing.
edit on 9-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



No answer because it's not a reasonable question.

fair enough
I will bear in mind you only answer "reasonable" questions.



I'm asking to see "the rules of the House" that require Articles to be voted on before an investigation.

Perhaps you should look that up
I provided precedent for an impeachment resolution this session of the house.
www.congress.gov...
no listed changes to the house rules for impeachment
seems the process Congressman Green used is still in effect



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Strawman. I didn't make a general statement on what questions I respond to, merely stated the fact of why I didn't respond to your posed muddying of the water.

Is the document you cited in the post that I responded to from the rules of the House or not? (That's a yes or no question.)

You're basically attempting to say "if there's no change the rules are what I say they are."

That's absurd.
edit on 9-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   
For godssakes I will do the work for you guys ...

Rules of the House of Representatives

Kindly give me the citation from this document that backs up the claims being bandied about here.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
not at all
there have been no rule changes since congressman green had a resolution voted upon to impeach the president
if there have been no rule changes then precedent rules the day
no worries
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I've given you the Rules ... quote from them to back up your claim or not.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing


May I say as a sidenote, I find it fascinating that you think you (or any of us) understand the Rules of the House better than Nancy Pelosi.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I still am looking into this and trying to research it a bit more but it does appear that the House may indeed do as they please within their rules to arrive at a vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. The only vote that must be taken is the one sending it to the Senate. I dont yet understand the nuances nor have I actually found a HoR document that plainly lists the current rules...which is disappointing and in itself shady that that wouldn't be more readily and publicly available...not shady on one side or the other either but both.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I suggest you review the link to the House Rules I posted above; it's exhaustive.

The Constitution is clear and was constructed very carefully in regard to Impeachment which is and was the sole power of the House, the chamber most closely aligned to the popular vote alleged "will of the People."

ADDED: ... for that matter, I ABSOLUTELY agree that all politicians great and small are "shady" as $4!&.



edit on 9-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.


Exercising your 5th Amendment rights is not obstructing justice and isn't impeachable.

Demanding information in order to find a crime is a violation of the 4th Amendment. That is what the screaming democrats are doing.

State the exact crime being investigated, and start from there. That is how our country is ran.
edit on 9-10-2019 by SouthernForkway26 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join