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: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Good catch! I was indeed in error... as you point out, Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C) applies to the House Ethics Committee. I will look later on to see if there is something similar for the House Intelligence Committee. Right now, 'Bama has a 7-point lead over the Texas Sissies and they're in the red zone.

OK, they had to settle for a field goal... 14-10.

[New information in the post below... the above is incorrect.]

As to the rule change... I can't dispute you. I only know what has been reported, the narrative, which may or may not be true. I'll try to dig into that later on as well.

And yes, all politicians are psychopaths. I think that's a requirement for the job.

TheRedneck

edit on 10/12/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oops, not so good a catch. Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) seems to have been formatted poorly. Instead of the Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C), the correct designation is Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(C). I am excerpting clause 2(m)(3) in its entirety formatted correctly below:

(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.

      (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.
Note that I have not changed any of the wording; I only added in enough formatting to make the meaning clear. The (ii) clause, which specifies the House Ethics Committee, does not affect clauses (B) and (C), as it is a part of clause (A). Clause (C) is the requirement for a House authorization to enforce a subpoena.

The formatting in that section makes it extremely hard to decipher at first glance; I originally thought you had refuted my assertion successfully. I can see where it would appear confusing to people (and part of me wonders if it wasn't intended to be confusing so no one would ask questions). But after examining the structure, it appears my only mistake was in the clause numbering: clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C) instead of the correct clause 2(m)(3)(C).

I still have to look into the rules change... I'll get to that later.

ETA: For verification, here is the original formatting. All I did here was bold the designators:

(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.

(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.

TheRedneck

edit on 10/12/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Fair enough. I'll keep looking through ... what would it be ... the Rules for the 106th thru 113th Congresses under Obama?

Roll Tide! (Which I can say as a Gawga fan since y'all are playing the Aggies today.)



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I think you replied while I was discovering... read my next post.

I rooted for them Dawgs today, until it started looking kinda hopeless (my son is in a mixed marriage; his wife is a Dawg fan)... did they manage to pull it out?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

LOL ... nope. Georgia went down 20-17.

I see what you're saying about the formatting. Good job on that one. I was incorrect about (C) referring to something out of the Ethics committee. In other words 3(A)ii.

However, what then does (C) refer to specifically as "subparagraph (1)(B)?" To me, it seems to refer to (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.

The subpoena duces tecum simply means that the provider of the materials have to deliver in person. So to me (C) says that such subpoenas demanding an individual's presence must be enforced according to the Rules of the Intelligence Committee which has been accepted by the House.

Right?

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



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

If not ... then I guess we go all the way back to the beginning of Rule XI and pickup:

1. (B) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is subject to the authority and direction of that Committee and to its Rules, so far as applicable.

(which is basically saying that a subcommittee is subject to the given Committee and its establishd Rules.)

SO what I think our (C) is ulimately saying is that the Rules for each Committee as approved by the House at large must be followed, and not that every subpoena from every Committee would have to be approved for enforcement by the whole House every time ... does that seem reasonable?

I've never seen the House taking a total vote on every issued subpoena, have you?
edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


LOL ... nope. Georgia went down 20-17.

Aw, man... damn shame right there. I was kinda hoping we could beat them for the SEC Championship.

'Bama is doing better... 34-13 now. Defense seems to have woken up and settled in (finally).


However, what then does (C) refer to specifically as "subparagraph (1)(B)?"

Clause 2(m)(1) (with formatting added):

(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.

In other words, it just explains duces tecum... which means 'bring items.' A subpoena duces tecum is just a subpoena that requires someone to produce material deemed relevant to the investigation.

None of it specifies enforcement, which is specified in clause 2(m)(3)(C) as requiring a House resolution. 2(m)(1)(A) allows the committee to continue in session without the House being in session, and 2(m)(1)(B) says a committee can make a request for any information or testimony it deems relevant. If 2(m)(3)(C) were not worded the way it is, I could see an argument that "require" would include enforcement; with 2(m)(3)(C) in place, though, it seems the word "enforce" would be in addition to "require" and indicate that "require" does not include enforcement of subpoenas.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


LOL ... nope. Georgia went down 20-17.

Aw, man... damn shame right there. I was kinda hoping we could beat them for the SEC Championship.

'Bama is doing better... 34-13 now. Defense seems to have woken up and settled in (finally).


However, what then does (C) refer to specifically as "subparagraph (1)(B)?"

Clause 2(m)(1) (with formatting added):

(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.

In other words, it just explains duces tecum... which means 'bring items.' A subpoena duces tecum is just a subpoena that requires someone to produce material deemed relevant to the investigation.

None of it specifies enforcement, which is specified in clause 2(m)(3)(C) as requiring a House resolution. 2(m)(1)(A) allows the committee to continue in session without the House being in session, and 2(m)(1)(B) says a committee can make a request for any information or testimony it deems relevant. If 2(m)(3)(C) were not worded the way it is, I could see an argument that "require" would include enforcement; with 2(m)(3)(C) in place, though, it seems the word "enforce" would be in addition to "require" and indicate that "require" does not include enforcement of subpoenas.

TheRedneck


The laws in minnesota say no sodomy or oral sex as well....

So when is the whistleblower going to make a complaint about my relationship?

Arguing with people about the rules, when they clearly didnt follow them in 2015 is ridiculous....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I've never seen the House taking a total vote on every issued subpoena, have you?

No, and I doubt we ever will. It is possible, but it wouldn't make sense to authorize very subpoena one by one. The House does vote to make all subpoenas in a particular investigation subject to enforcement, though... they did it with the Nixon tapes, and they did it with Bill Clinton. They can do it with Trump, but the point is they haven't.

That is why we are questioning why not take a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry. That would typically include authorization to enforce subpoenas relating to the investigation and that would require the White House to produce whatever Schiff asked for and subject everyone except Trump himself to face Contempt of Congress charges for non-compliance (Trump himself is of course immune from imprisonment until/unless impeached and removed from office).

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66


I've never seen the House taking a total vote on every issued subpoena, have you?

No, and I doubt we ever will. It is possible, but it wouldn't make sense to authorize very subpoena one by one. The House does vote to make all subpoenas in a particular investigation subject to enforcement, though... they did it with the Nixon tapes, and they did it with Bill Clinton. They can do it with Trump, but the point is they haven't.


Now you've lost me. It doesn't make sense to you to require a House vote to make Committee subpoenas enforceable, but they have to have a vote to make subpoenas enforceable?

The approval of the Rules for each Committee at the beginning of the Congressional term gives each Committee the power to issue subpoenas, and thereby, makes those subpoenas enforceable. Are you aware of an area of the rules that makes an exception for Impeachment, because I haven't found it.



That is why we are questioning why not take a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry. That would typically include authorization to enforce subpoenas relating to the investigation and that would require the White House to produce whatever Schiff asked for and subject everyone except Trump himself to face Contempt of Congress charges for non-compliance (Trump himself is of course immune from imprisonment until/unless impeached and removed from office).


As far as questioning why? Absolutely. That's a great question. The general dumb# nature of the Democratic leadership maybe? Remember that Pelosi is the source of that all-time example of political BS: "Pass the bill so that we can know what's in it."

Also, why choose Ukraine as the hill to die on, they've had multiple chances to impeach Trump on much better grounds than this. Yeah, I believe that Trump was playing quid pro quo but what of it in light of some of his other acts? Proving it is nigh impossible. The President has BROAD SWEEPING POWERS in dealing with diplomatic matters.

I'm not seeing the questions here from other posters other than you phrased as "why?" I'm seeing statements that say they HAVE to have a resolution to Impeach as they have with Clinton and Nixon (but not Johnson if I remember) and I've given the reasons why I think those claims are in error.

You at least have dug down into factual material to make your position, and even though I disagree with your interpretation, I can appreciate your integrity.

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



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Falling in the polls...lol

Sure didn't look that way at his rally last night..


President Trump is getting 100$ for every dollar the Democrats get since this "impeachment inquiry" has started.

Then FOXNEWS polls get 51% want trump impeached.

weird how the Polls show 51% want impeachment but President Trump is getting 100$ in donations to every dollar the democrats get.

SO would any of the left care to explain this logically??

or is that just beyond their ability to spin????

ETA: my source is Martha Macallum FOXNEWS Oct10 2019 show.


I seem to remember seeing that they oversampled Democrats by something like 8%, and the poll was a small number of poll-ees from only two different area codes. I'd have to look it up. But that's how you end up with stupid poll numbers divorced from reality.

I do think his numbers may be slipping, but that's typical after every "bombshell" report. He generally rebounds well, and he's been polling better than he was when he was elected. The DNC is in bad shape.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Now you've lost me. It doesn't make sense to you to require a House vote to make Committee subpoenas enforceable, but they have to have a vote to make subpoenas enforceable?

No, I'm saying that a vote to cover all subpoenas in a particular investigation would be more efficient. That's the way it has always been done before. There's no reason to hold a House vote on each specific subpoena when a vote on all subpoenas in the investigation would work just as well.


The approval of the Rules for each Committee at the beginning of the Congressional term gives each Committee the power to issue subpoenas, and thereby, makes those subpoenas enforceable.

If that were true, 2(m)(3)(C) would make no sense. Nowhere else do the rules mention enforcement except in it, and it specifically states that only a House approval makes the subpoenas enforceable.


As far as questioning why? Absolutely. That's a great question.

I think so.


Also, why choose Ukraine as the hill to die on, they've had multiple chances to impeach Trump on much better grounds than this.

Personally? I believe it is because there's some serious violations of law associated with the Democrats in Ukraine, and not just Joe Biden. Connections have been discussed leading back to Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.


I'm not seeing the questions here from other posters other than you phrased as "why?" I'm seeing statements that say they HAVE to have a resolution to Impeach as they have with Clinton and Nixon (but not Johnson if I remember) and I've given the reasons why I think those claims are in error.

You at least have dug down into factual material to make your position, and even though I disagree with your interpretation, I can appreciate your integrity.

Oh, Adam Schiff is well within his rights to investigate... Congress is primarily a legislative body, but they do also have power of oversight. The only thing he has to have House backing on is enforcing the subpoenas. Since that is what he is trying to do, and since Pelosi is so adamant that Trump is guilty, why not simply formalize the inquiry and make all associated subpoenas enforceable?

That would be the easy way to do it.

This has been a great conversation. Thank you. This is the way ATS is supposed to be. Hopefully, we can light the way for others to follow. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Addressing your last point first, yes, absolutely. This has reminded me of the good ol' days (at least the 2012 good ol' days).

As to your second point, let's look at 2(m)3(C) again:



(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.


So, the earlier portions of Rule XI have established that Committees can issue subpoenas on any matter within their assigned purview and individual rules. Enforcement is the key issue in 3(C). Since they don't send the Sergeant-At-Arms any more to arrest offenders and lock them in the coat room, I have to assume that the enforcement refers to actions that are taken like declaring the offender in Contempt of Congress (as we touched on earlier). Perhaps the intention of 3(C) is to establish that an individual Committee can't declare Contempt? (or whatever means is necessary to "enforce" a subpoena).

That makes sense.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: TheRedneck

Did I do that right? Been practicing my "Progressive-speak."


Fail.. THat was my conservative-speak.....


It's not real conservative speak. Nothing was misspelled and other than an errant capital H, it was grammatically correct. There was not a single wirtch or confeve or hamberder.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, that's pretty much what I am saying. Contempt of Congress subjects the offender to being arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms; if it didn't, it wouldn't mean anything. That's getting back to an earlier post where I said what did you think they would do? Spank them? The whole point of Contempt of Congress is that offenders may be imprisoned.

Look at it this way: a judge can declare someone in Contempt of Court and they go to jail. Contempt of Congress is the same thing in a different venue.

So yeah, Schiff can issue subpoenas, require documentation, all of that. The one thing he cannot do is declare someone not complying in Contempt of Congress and have them arrested. That takes a vote by the House.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yeah, that's pretty much what I am saying. Contempt of Congress subjects the offender to being arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms; if it didn't, it wouldn't mean anything. That's getting back to an earlier post where I said what did you think they would do? Spank them? The whole point of Contempt of Congress is that offenders may be imprisoned.

Look at it this way: a judge can declare someone in Contempt of Court and they go to jail. Contempt of Congress is the same thing in a different venue.

So yeah, Schiff can issue subpoenas, require documentation, all of that. The one thing he cannot do is declare someone not complying in Contempt of Congress and have them arrested. That takes a vote by the House.

TheRedneck


I think gryphy would prefer the spanking....

Schiff has no power without a vote, those are the facts that it doesnt understand

Lolz🤪

Go Gophers!



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep, not sure who would have thought that Schiff could declare Contempt, but atl least we've done well to establish the point.

Apparently after a Contempt finding, the House would send the matter to the Federal Attorney for the DC circuit to file charges.

That's never happened though ... One side or the other side usually folds.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Better to let your Enemy Slowly Bleed to Death than a Quick Stab in the Heart .




Hillary Clinton , Oct, 2016



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 08:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep, not sure who would have thought that Schiff could declare Contempt, but atl least we've done well to establish the point.

Apparently after a Contempt finding, the House would send the matter to the Federal Attorney for the DC circuit to file charges.

That's never happened though ... One side or the other side usually folds.


Adam "I have proof of Trump doing bad things" Schiff has been a joke for the last 3 years with his lack of any substance.

Now he of all people should be trusted with subpoena power is what you are saying?

Who has subpoena power over Schiffs dealings with the dude that was overdosing those gay black homeless guys? ......

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Actually, Gryphon66 has been quite logical throughout this whole conversation with me. The way the rules were formatted was pretty confusing... enough so I at first was ready to admit reading it in error myself. In the end, though, Gryphon66 admitted error after I explained the error I made in calling out the proper rule.

That's the way it is supposed to work... we figured out what was going on. Even our disagreement turned out to be one of semantics.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join