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.

 

Where’s the Vote to Impeach Trump?

page: 5
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
Are you one of those biden people?

truth over facts and all?




posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Puppylove

I understand that is your opinion, and I don't disagree in essence. I stated in one of these threads that I thought this was the dumbest thing to try to impeach Trump on ... but the fact remains that the legal requirements for beginning an impeachment inquiry have been met as I've shown repeatedly. There's no need for a House vote to start the process.



So you are saying that the "legal requirements" for impeachment are "feeling" like impeaching someone....

Lol

But then a post earlier you say that this is not politically motivated......

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'll wager that the CRS at the Library of Congress is a more reliable source than Obi Wan.


Captain Negative is back yall!

Can I get a positive out of you?

Whom are you supporting for president in 2020 just so we all know your motivations here?

My guess is Biden, but my prediction is you will say " I want to gather all the information before making my decision "....

BUT DEFINITELY IMPEACH TRUMP instead of voting him out

lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Add another felony to the long list.
A conspiracy forum actively ignoring a corrupt sitting president but, sees trump's deranged supporters meltdown like a snowflake over a cartoon should rethink the whole conspiracy aspect maybes?



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: contextual
from your link,
you left this part out


The judge's ruling does not effect a separate part of the emergency declaration, directing the Pentagon to transfer $2.5 billion in counterdrug money to the border project. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year declined to stop the use of that money for wall construction.

so not really your described "felony"?
as you are not a citizen I understand your confusion



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: contextual
Add another felony to the long list.
A conspiracy forum actively ignoring a corrupt sitting president but, sees trump's deranged supporters meltdown like a snowflake over a cartoon should rethink the whole conspiracy aspect maybes?


MY GOD!

according to you and a small minority we should start another "impeachment inquiry" over something already ruled on by federal judges!

Lllz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


There doesn't have to be any vote of the House for a committee to issue subpoenas. There doesn't have to be a House vote to investigate anything.

True.

However, there does have to be a vote of the House to enforce subpoenas... until that happens, the subpoena is simply a request. Also, as shooterbrody pointed out, any such resolution to formalize the inquiry would likely include Republicans wanting the ability to issue their own subpoenas. As it stands now, ironically thanks to the same Republicans changing the House rules under the Obama administration, only the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee (Adam Schiff) can issue subpoenas, and he can do so without the approval of any Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

That's what one of the arguments is all about: Schiff being able to run roughshod over the Republicans. The rule change was wrong when the Republicans passed it, and it's still wrong. The other argument is that no, the White House does not have to comply with any subpoenas until and unless there is a vote in the House to enforce them.

I have a funny feeling that if the Democrats keep pushing enforcing these subpoenas without a House vote, it will show up in the Supreme Court. If it does, it is quite likely the rule change will be declared unconstitutional due to the fact it violates any checks and balances, leaving one man from one district with too much power over the rest of the country. The Democrats don't want that; they're bluffing on enforcing the subpoenas.

If this were anything more than a fishing expedition, there would be a House vote to allow subpoenas to be enforced. The fact that there is not a House vote, and none planned, is proof that this is not a serious investigation.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


There doesn't have to be any vote of the House for a committee to issue subpoenas. There doesn't have to be a House vote to investigate anything.

True.

However, there does have to be a vote of the House to enforce subpoenas... until that happens, the subpoena is simply a request. Also, as shooterbrody pointed out, any such resolution to formalize the inquiry would likely include Republicans wanting the ability to issue their own subpoenas. As it stands now, ironically thanks to the same Republicans changing the House rules under the Obama administration, only the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee (Adam Schiff) can issue subpoenas, and he can do so without the approval of any Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee.

That's what one of the arguments is all about: Schiff being able to run roughshod over the Republicans. The rule change was wrong when the Republicans passed it, and it's still wrong. The other argument is that no, the White House does not have to comply with any subpoenas until and unless there is a vote in the House to enforce them.

I have a funny feeling that if the Democrats keep pushing enforcing these subpoenas without a House vote, it will show up in the Supreme Court. If it does, it is quite likely the rule change will be declared unconstitutional due to the fact it violates any checks and balances, leaving one man from one district with too much power over the rest of the country. The Democrats don't want that; they're bluffing on enforcing the subpoenas.

If this were anything more than a fishing expedition, there would be a House vote to allow subpoenas to be enforced. The fact that there is not a House vote, and none planned, is proof that this is not a serious investigation.

TheRedneck


See, this is why I come here!


Now this guy will wag the dog and spin city this issue into something else but he certainly cannot argue with fact and law!

"Impeachment inquiry" with no vote is hot garbage and everyone knows it

CNN and MSNBC have moved on to impeach Trump over Syria anyhow so be prepared for that one.....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd be glad to see proof that there has to be a House vote to enforce subpoenas. Or are you referring to a resolution to hold a non-complying person in Contempt?

I linked the rules of the Intelligence Committee elsewhere, the Chair can indeed issue Subpoenas on his own in consultation with the Minority chair, or with a majority vote of the committee.

The rules are the same as they were as far as I know during the Rupublican majority. Elections have consequences and all that rot.

I'm not sure what the SCOTUS would do, the House sets its own rules and like it or not the majority rules.

What makes you think House subpoenas are unenforceable again?
edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

simple question for you

define the "house"

that is all.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'd be glad to see proof that there has to be a House vote to enforce subpoenas. Or are you referring to a resolution to hold a non-complying person in Contempt?

I linked the rules of the Intelligence Committee elsewhere, the Chair can indeed issue Subpoenas on his own in consultation with the Minority chair, or with a majority vote of the committee.

The rules are the same as they were as far as I know during the Rupublican majority. Elections have consequences and all that rot.

I'm not sure what the SCOTUS would do, the House sets its own rules and like it or not the majority rules.

What makes you think House subpoenas are unenforceable again?


Mister high and mighty explaining why and asking why all in the same post?

Stack the intelligence committee with Ds and let shifty Schiff subpoena anyone he wants. No one is buying this scam yall are trying to run on us

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

why do that, when the next majority of Republicans gets in all they have to do is pass a rule that says demcrats never get a voice, for ever, it's the house rules after all....



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

I didn't ask why I asked for proof. Got any?

You just don't seem to understand how Congressional committed work ... The majority party is always, well, in the majority.

Is it "high and mighty" to focus on the facts? Guilty.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I'd be glad to see proof that there has to be a House vote to enforce subpoenas. Or are you referring to a resolution to hold a non-complying person in Contempt?


House rules per clerk.house.gov. See page 19, Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C), third column towards the top.

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.


Holding a non-compyling person in Contempt of Congress is enforcement of the subpoena. There are no other legal remedies Congress can take to enforce a subpoena. What, do you think they spank people who don't comply?


The rules are the same as they were as far as I know during the Rupublican majority.

I cannot tell you the exact rule that changed, but it is my understanding that the part about consultation with the remaining members of the committee was removed. That's what the news reports have indicated; could be fake news of course. I'll be happy to look later, but that's a big file with small print and I'm watching football right now. You have two choices... find the rule that applies yourself, or wait on me.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem


Stack the intelligence committee with Ds and let shifty Schiff subpoena anyone he wants.

Calling things the way they are... having a majority of "D"s on the House Intelligence Committee is a direct result of the election. There's nothing unusual there; the Democrats control the House. Elections do have consequences.

Also, it is my understanding that the rules were changed by the Republican majority during the Obama administration. This was not an underhanded Democrat plot; it was an underhanded Republican plot that the Democrats are taking full advantage of.

I don't see the problems in DC as drawn along party lines. The Democrats as a whole may well have gone off the deep end when it comes to all things Trump, but that doesn't mean the Republicans are all that innocent either. Credit where credit is due.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL @ spanking.

I'll do some work on it and get back to you.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Nope.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you!

It'll be a pleasant change of pace for someone else to do the hard reading for a change. It would be great to know if that rule change happened and exactly what was changed.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It seems to me that you may have snipped a bit too much in your quote from the Rules: Let's go back a few levels to the center column of page 19 at heading "Power to sit and act; subpoena power"



(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))— (A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and (B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary. (2) The chair of the committee, or a member designated by the chair, may administer oaths to witnesses. (3)(A)(i) Except as provided in subdivision (A)(ii), a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities only when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe. Authorized subpoenas shall be signed by the chair of the committee or by a member designated by the committee.


Your quote is embedded in (ii):



(ii) In the case of a subcommittee of the Committee on Ethics, a subpoena may be authorized and issued only by an affirmative vote of a majority of its members. (B) A subpoena duces tecum may specify terms of return other than at a meeting or hearing of the committee or subcommittee authorizing the subpoena. (C) Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.


Your partial quote is a special case regarding a subpoena duces tecum issued from the Committee on Ethics at (1)(B) just above (1)(C) which you quoted.

The more generally-applicable rule is contained in my quote above, which makes it clear that subpoenas can be issued by Committees under the rules of that committee.

Now I'll try to figure out if and when the Rules of the Intelligence Committee were changed by Republicans as you noted. (Coming in next post)
edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: formatting



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Well, no luck on finding the House Rules from anything before the 115th Congress, when Republcians were in the majority and sure enough, the rules are the same: Rules Adopted by the Committees of the House of Representatives: 115th Congress 2017-18

Here's the section on Subpoenas from the Intelligence Commitee:




RULE 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 the full 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


Which is substantially the same verbiage that Schiff is using under the 116th Congress. Your point is well taken, the Republicans were glad to have the Committee Chair issue subpoenas, until they were not in the majority. I'm sure if we looked, we'd find the Democrats complaining about the rules they are now using.

Have I mentioned that I think all politicians are psychopaths?

edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join