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.

 

I think the Impeachment is an attempt to negotiate out of being investigated.

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yep, here you go:


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Time for us both to move on I think. You are repeatedly claiming that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.

1. Your claim is this: The Constitution requires an act of the full House before an impeachment investigation can begin.

2. Your evidence is: The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yep, here you go:


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Time for us both to move on I think. You are repeatedly claiming that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.

1. Your claim is this: The Constitution requires an act of the full House before an impeachment investigation can begin.

2. Your evidence is: The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2.


Not even a good try...

Yes, and I also note that you falsely mis-represent my claim.

My claim has to do with your failure to comprehend the manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, as a body, which I just added to my original reply.

The manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, is by voting, as a body, on bills/resolutions.

The actions of one Committee and/or a few rogue congress critters does not constitute action by 'The House of Representatives'.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yep, here you go:


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Time for us both to move on I think. You are repeatedly claiming that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.

1. Your claim is this: The Constitution requires an act of the full House before an impeachment investigation can begin.

2. Your evidence is: The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2.


Not even a good try...

Yes, and I also note that you falsely mis-represent my claim.

My claim has to do with your failure to comprehend the manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, as a body, which I just added to my original reply.

The manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, is by voting, as a body, on bills/resolutions.

The actions of one Committee and/or a few rogue congress critters does not constitute action by 'The House of Representatives'.


I didn't falsely represent anything. However, cross-posting is frowned on between threads.

Answer this: Does the House have to vote to use the investigative power or not?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

yes, one talks about the Power is given to the House to impeach.

can you define house??

It's like this "the house of windsor", "the house of Saud"

these terms mean something, what does it mean????

"the house of congresss, "the house of senate"

it means everyone in that house, not one, not a commitee, not a chairperson, ALL of them.

I know archaic english is hard, but after reading for a couple years you get used to it.

Gutenberg press has tons of free written material to look at and compare from the same era as the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

that's excluding the Federalist papers.

Sorry I just love to read...



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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I didn't falsely represent anything.

Yes. You did.


However, cross-posting is frowned on between threads.

Cry me a river.


Answer this: Does the House have to vote to use the investigative power or not?

Only with respect to the extraordinary and specific Power of Impeachment, because that is the one Power that the Constitution specifically delegates to the whole House of Representatives.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

More muddying the water, cute, but ...

Here's a summary of my statements: Others here have claimed that House Committees must have vote before investigating a matter (impeachment) within their Constitutional purvue. There is nothing in the Constitution, Rules of the House, or anything else that makes that requirement. If there is a documented source for that requirement, provide it.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

No, I didn't.

LOL, your posts are hardly worth crying over.

Investigation precedes impeachment. There is no Congressional or procedural requirement for a vote prior to investigation.

We're done.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Impeachmenta reply to: Gryphon66

it has already been tried, and denied..

why is that? how was it done? is it being done the same way now??

Ask Al Greene (D TX)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Read your source; still find no Constitutional requirement for a full House vote prior to a committee using it's investigative power.

Maybe you could actually quote what you're referring to?

ETA: From your source:



The vote was forced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who introduced articles of impeachment describing Trump as a bigot who incites hate and has demeaned the presidency.


Do you notice anything? Do you see the words "introduced articles of impeachment"? Do you understand that to be different than House Committees using their investigative powers?

I've said too many times to count that there would have to be a majority vote on the full "Articles of Impeachment" ... and I've asked too many times for any actual evidence that a vote is required to investigate anything.
edit on 11-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
The Dems know they cannot beat Trump in an election so they have to remove him another way.


That is hilarious...


Trump barely won against Hillary Clinton..And Hillary Clinton is hands down the worst candidate in history..

Trump is in no way a sure win..




But we are going to impeach 12 months before a presidential election?

Whos the worst new candidate you are going to blame for losing to Trump?

Hunter Biden?

Lolz🤪
edit on 11-10-2019 by Scepticaldem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: thedigirati

Read your source; still find no Constitutional requirement for a full House vote prior to a committee using it's investigative power.

Maybe you could actually quote what you're referring to?

ETA: From your source:



The vote was forced by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), who introduced articles of impeachment describing Trump as a bigot who incites hate and has demeaned the presidency.


Do you notice anything? Do you see the words "introduced articles of impeachment"? Do you understand that to be different than House Committees using their investigative powers?

I've said too many times to count that there would have to be a majority vote on the full "Articles of Impeachment" ... and I've asked too many times for any actual evidence that a vote is required to investigate anything.


They didnt use the words "introduce the powers of impeachment "? Then why should Trump give 2 F%$#S about it?

Cant have it both ways is the point!

Either you are doing something or you are not doing something. You people want to let people believe that you are "MAYBE" doing something!

Its gross and the world sees right through it

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

The Constitution gives the Congress power to enact legislation, provide oversight, and impeach civic officers.

The Supreme Court (and other courts) have repeatedly found that Congress has the power to investigate and therefore subpoena anyone in the pursuit of those powers.

Mr. Trump's actions and his direction to the Executive Branch have repeatedly sought to deny and divert the duly invested powers of Congress, to wit, investigation for oversight.

It is a good question ... how does the Congress enforce their Constitutional powers beyond a resolution to find an individual in Contempt of Congress?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
The strangest thing is happening too.

They are using debunked fabrications to base an impeachment.

So what happened to all those "provable" obstruction items in the Mueller Report that were such a slam dunk for impeachment ?

😎 😃


When were they debunked?

I just thought they weren't prosecuted. You know, something about not indicting a sitting president?


This has been thoroughly debunked. Mueller even cleared up the confusion and said that was a moot point because there was nothing to indict. I just thought if you’re gonna be wrong you should at least have the facts


Quoting from the Mueller Report




Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Emphasis mine. You will find that quote on page 8 of Volume II of the report.


Prosecutors don’t exonerate. They never have. The fact that that sentence is in the report is a huge red flag to anyone without an agenda.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

Is that your personal definition of exonerate? Because the term is used in different contexts, and in this case Mueller was making clear that while Trump could not be prosecuted under current DOJ policy, the President was not exonerated by the report.

Who do you believe exonerates individuals?
edit on 11-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.
edit on 11-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Removed reference to the deities



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
his testimony is in the congressional record
despite your opinion what he said is true sorry you don't like it



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Turner is as specious as many posters here. What a jack-ass.

what is it you say about those who go to directly to ad hom attacks?
this is why we can't have nice things karen!
edit on 11/10/2019 by shooterbrody because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Guiltyguitarist

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
The strangest thing is happening too.

They are using debunked fabrications to base an impeachment.

So what happened to all those "provable" obstruction items in the Mueller Report that were such a slam dunk for impeachment ?

😎 😃


When were they debunked?

I just thought they weren't prosecuted. You know, something about not indicting a sitting president?


This has been thoroughly debunked. Mueller even cleared up the confusion and said that was a moot point because there was nothing to indict. I just thought if you’re gonna be wrong you should at least have the facts


Then please educate me by providing a link showing that Mueller ever said that.

I thought that he had only ever said the opposite, that what was in the report, stands, and he'd make no further comment.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
However the House Judiciary Committee has already voted: House Judiciary votes to expand impeachment investigation into President Trump - ABC News.

The House Judiciary Committee does not have the Power of Impeachment.

The House of Representatives does. The WHOLE House.

Until the House votes, there is no formal impeachment proceedings, and no subpoena power with regard to impeachment matters, only blathering and yammering.


The House Judiciary Committee has the power to investigate and to issue subpoenas.

The impeachment vote by the house comes at the end, when the evidence is weighed by Congress.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join