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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly...to actually set a trial in motion a vote must be passed with a simple majority. Senate then must have a 2/3rds majority to convict and actually impeach.




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

So what do you think the Judicial Branch would do with this one?

If Nancy and Adam take one of their subpoenas to court and try to compel an official to cooperate by force of law, what do you think a judge would do?

So far, there has been no clearly specified scope of their inquiry, no votes in any committee making this official House business, only Nancy and Adam pulling a Picard.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickyD

Okay, allow me to rephrase.

Should the Republican-controlled Senate act to fairly and reasonably hold a trial regarding proposed Articles or should they merely protect Mr. Trump, since said Articles would only be "partisan" regardless of obvoius facts?


I agree 100%, Under oath and On camera.

Yes they Should put Biden, Pelosi,Schiff and Nadler under oath.

Plus Mueller, Clapper, Strozk,Page,Comey,the Orhs and Brenan under oath.

Also Obama and Mrs Bill Clinton.

"an allegation has been made, it MUST be investigated".

I'm sure this wont upset you at all, right???



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Another big ol' puffed up Strawman from you.

No one here in this thread has claimed that Pelosi and Schiff can impeach the President ... come ON.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

I'm pretty honest with myself Ricky.

I'm on record as stating that all politicians are psychopaths.

The desire to exert power over others is ... repugnant and insane in my opinion.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

He doesn't hold that power unless he can get 1/3rd +1 of the senate to agree. Back to the founding fathers putting in those checks and balances to at least prevent such small factions from that much power.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

If they send this to the senate and its not torpedoed off the bat then you very well might get that wish.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Putting your list of individuals under oath? I have no issue with that. In what context?

As to the rest of your post check your own assumptions and partisan projections; I don't think you have any idea what would upset me (nor is that relevant in this discussion).



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Well again as someone who has as much access to expert opinion as anyone here I dont think the Judical can get involved unless there is a constitutional violation matter. They kind of take a back seat by design. Senate is judge and jury...house is prosecution and trump & co are defendant.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

The Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the powers of the Senate Majority Leader, which are as we have seen, nearly absolute in regard to the Senate.

Again, why should one individual have the power to ignore due process as required in the Constitution?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not a democrat or a republican

I am a certified cold warrior 😀✌👍

I am also old. I remember JFK geting shot, I remember RFK getting shot, I remember MLK geting shot
I remember Malcolm X getting shot.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS presides over the trial in the Senate according to the Constitution, Article I, Section 3.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Nice.

I see no reason for us to be at odds then.




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They dictated the need for a 2/3rd majority to impeach in the Senate yes? Then they did have sonething to do with those powers...because at the end of the day if he doesnt have 1/3rd +1 of the vote then trump is impeached.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then l learned a few new things today... I'm no expert here I'm just using the internet to research rebuttals I want to make to try to make informed arguments. I can tell people how I feel all day but I do try to base my arguments on fact. Tis the whole reason I conceded my argument earlier to you when I was unable to rebut yours factually.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66.
Funny how your impeachment scenario only works if the Republicans are 'partisan'. What about the Democrats? Wouldn't they still have to vote strictly party line to impeach?

If everybody is truely partisan there is no way the senate would impeach. No high crimes or misdemeanors have been presented yet, 2/3 is a pretty high standard.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Another big ol' puffed up Strawman from you.

No one here in this thread has claimed that Pelosi and Schiff can impeach the President ... come ON.


Not really. If there doesn't not have to be an official action or vote of any body in the House, either the House itself or a committee, then anyone or two people can indeed come forward and declare impeachment and investigations and what all else and start trying to dig ... like Pelosi and Schiff are.

You know they haven't even issued actual subpoenas, just letters requesting compliance, right?



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

To be clear though, Pelosi is trying to demand stuff because she thinks she's a queen, but on VERY NICE stationary.

It actually has watermarks so it's classy stuff.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

That's what I aspire to as well, Ricky. To be clear about the difference between fact and opinion, and even when disagreement arises, to be factual rather than emotional.

I have failed at that in the past and will again.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

There has to be a vote on Articles of Impeachment ... there doesn't have to be a vote to investigate ...

Your claim that anyone thinks that Pelosi or Schiff can impeach Trump by themselves is just mistaken at best, pure rhetoric at worst.

No subpoenas eh? What's your source for that claim?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join