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.

 

Former ambassador to Ukraine says Trump pushed to oust her

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

You mean why the stonewalling?

Good question.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari




Got a link to where Schiff and Nunes sat down and Nunes decided "Let's Do This!"
It doesn't say "agreement", does it?


Ah... I see.

So to you Schiff can just yell down the hall "Nunes! I'm doing this!" and it would be considered "consulting."

The actual inference is agreement from the ranking minority member, but you know that.

Sad that you have to stoop to intellectual dishonesty to get a partisan point.

Seems to be going around a lot lately on the left though.



ETA... you solved a mystery for me so thank you for that.

I was wondering why this was not being held in the Judiciary committee, as has always been done before.

Now I know why... in the Judiciary committee there is this caveat for their rules on subpoenas...


A subpoena may be authorized in the conduct of an investigation or activity authorized by the committee or a subcommittee, a majority of the committee or subcommittee present and voting.


The Intelligence Committee does not need a majority vote and you can slide around the "consult with the Ranking Minority leader."

So THAT'S why Nancy started this in the Intelligence Committee.

They can be a lot shadier there. They don't have to include the Republicans on the committee at all and can do it all behind closed doors so they can leak and lie about the proceedings and control the narrative.

My apologies for being snide and you did help me figure something out about their strategy going forward.




edit on 11-10-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




So to you Schiff can just yell down the hall "Nunes! I'm doing this!" and it would be considered "consulting."
Pretty much. According to the rules.


The actual inference is agreement from the ranking minority member, but you know that.
No it isn't. That would give the ranking minority member too much power. No, no veto power implied. That's why the rule doesn't say "agreement."

No vote required, no agreement required.

Do you think Shiff agreed with all of Nunes' subpoenas?



Sad that you have to stoop to intellectual dishonesty to get a partisan point.
Sad you think this thread is about me.

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I looked. What crime was he charged with and convicted?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




So THAT'S why Nancy started this in the Intelligence Committee.

The complaint was addressed to the Intelligence Committee.

I'm not sure how it would be relevant to the Judiciary Committee or where you obtained that quote:

(a)A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Membe

judiciary.house.gov...
edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: KnoxMSP

You mean why the stonewalling?

Good question.

Trump can stonewall all he likes, they have no subpoena power over the the executive branch, except in limited circumstances.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari




So THAT'S why Nancy started this in the Intelligence Committee.

The complaint was addressed to the Intelligence Committee.

I'm not sure how it would be relevant to the Judiciary Committee.


That's where it get's weird. The Judiciary Committee is supposed to "oversee the administration of justice within the federal courts, administrative agencies and Federal law enforcement entities."

Who's jurisdiction do impeachment proceedings fall under? House Intel Commit, or House Judic. Commit?

Genuinely asking. Feel I need to specify with all the snarkiness going on round here lately.
edit on 11-10-2019 by KnoxMSP because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It does imply that they will meet and attempt to come to an agreement though. Compromise should be attempted. Neither party is very good at that though.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP

The Judiciary Committee must "approve" the articles of impeachment before they can be voted upon.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari




So THAT'S why Nancy started this in the Intelligence Committee.

The complaint was addressed to the Intelligence Committee.

I'm not sure how it would be relevant to the Judiciary Committee.


An impeachment inquiry has traditionally been handled by the Judicial Committee.

Since one of their specific charges is the overseeing of Presidential succession.

The Intelligence committee, not so much.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

This is the Judiciary rule, btw.


(a)A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Membe

judiciary.house.gov...


edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

This is the Judiciary rule, btw.


(a)A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Membe

judiciary.house.gov...


May be authorized, sure, but it also includes down the paragraph;

"when authorized by a majority of the Members voting, a majority of the Committee or
Subcommittee being present."



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Lumenari

This is the Judiciary rule, btw.


(a)A subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, in accordance with clause 2(m) of rule XI of the House of Representatives, in the conduct of any investigation or activity or series of investigations or activities within the jurisdiction of the Committee, following consultation with the Ranking Minority Membe

judiciary.house.gov...


A Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas

As of 2018, page 8.

Footnote g...


A subpoena may be authorized in the conduct of an investigation or activity authorized by the committee or a subcommittee, a majority of the committee or subcommittee present and voting




edit on 11-10-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

You might want to look at the table on page 11. See "Chair" column. See "Own Initiative" column. Seems to be checked.

Never mind that I quoted you the rule.
edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: KnoxMSP




"when authorized by a majority of the Members voting, a majority of the Committee or
Subcommittee being present."


Yes. But you left out the "In addition" part. That means "or else." A vote is not required but it can be used.

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

The House Intelligence committee does receive referrals from IGs within their purview ... like, ya know, the CIA for instance.

Citations available if needed.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Falsely Accusing Someone Without Substantial Evidence to Back it Up , and Not being Subject to the Legal Consequences of such Action is a Direct Assault on Due Process of the Law . I'am Libel to Think that matters in this case .



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit




Falsely Accusing Someone Without Substantial Evidence to Back it Up
Yeah. The president does that a lot.

Do you know what the word "investigation" means? See, that's what the House is trying to do. Investigate.
But the administration is stonewalling.

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zanti Misfit




Falsely Accusing Someone Without Substantial Evidence to Back it Up
Yeah. The president does that a lot.

Do you know what the word "investigation" means? See, that's what the House is trying to do. Investigate. But the administration is stonewalling.

As is their right. If the city you lived in kept making up lies about you and going after you then you would probably stonewall them the next time they did it too.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




As is their right.
By what authority?

The president cannot be investigated? Not in this country.


If the city you lived in kept making up lies about you and going after you then you would probably stonewall them the next time they did it too
Sure, I'm sure that ignoring subpoenas would work real well for me.

edit on 10/11/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join