Strategy to avoid impeachment .

a reply to: shooterbrody

There is still a process regardless of which party wants to initiate an inquiry and it doesn't involve a vote until the specified time.

if 45 is so bad, and stupid, and such a criminal, why the need to hold secret hearings and not take votes?
unless he really isn't that bad, or stupid or criminal


no more crying wolf

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

There is still a process regardless of which party wants to initiate an inquiry and it doesn't involve a vote until the specified time.

hahaha
yeah sure
this one involved pelosi and the house press corps

nice precedent to set for those with less scruples than pelosi

a reply to: shooterbrody

Huh? Here's the process:

• First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere.
  
  
• Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
  
  
• Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote of those present. The result of conviction is removal from office.

Show votes before the required vote are for show.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
and this process began with pelosi and the house press corps
sorry you missed it
www.speaker.gov...

Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break of a phone call by the President of the United States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election. This is a breach of his constitutional responsibilities.

no investigation
simply a statement of guilt from the speaker

The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution – especially when the President says, ‘Article II says, I can do whatever I want.’

presser and opinion
it will be all the rage with future speakers

For the past several months, we have been investigating in our Committees and litigating in the courts, so the House can gather ‘all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.’

secret investigations into the executive branch, seems legit....

Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.

some process

dont cry when it comes back the other way in the same format

originally posted by: shooterbrody
no investigation

Huh? The impeachment inquiry in the Judiciary Committee started in late September.

dont cry when it comes back the other way in the same format

Why would I cry? I want both parties to tear themselves apart.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
really
before the whistleblower complaint even appeared?
cause pelosis presser was prior to any of that being released?
or are they just "super fast investigators"?
lol

Why would I cry? I want both parties to tear themselves apart.

not at the expense of our nation imo
and imo that is what this unguided process is doing

Hey too bad there's not a defense like, I dunno, the requirement of a trial in the Senate or sumthin.

a reply to: shooterbrody

They can start an inquiry any time they want from the Judiciary Committee.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hey too bad there's not a defense like, I dunno, the requirement of a trial in the Senate or sumthin.

Shhh! I just want a show vote so I can be distracted with bread and circuses.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

They can start an inquiry any time they want from the Judiciary Committee.

can they........
mkay

keep on making it up as you go
works great for our nation


something about the bathwater and the baby
but hey...who is counting

originally posted by: shooterbrody
can they........
mkay

keep on making it up as you go

Yeah, they can. Try reading the Constitution and then getting back to me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
point out that section on committees for me will ya....i missed that part....

a reply to: shooterbrody

Already did, it's above.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

Already did, it's above.

sure you did pal
sure you did

no worries
there is nothing other than a difference of opinion on how diplomacy should be conducted
for which the executive has constitutional power

tho the "we can do what we want for impeachment" will bite the dems in the future
first when the judicial branch smacks their hands
then when they lose the house and it gets turned on them

none of which is good for our nation

originally posted by: shooterbrody
sure you did pal

Not my fault you want to be obtuse.

First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere.

From that piece of paper you refuse to read:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

—Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

Anything about show votes for feelz? Didn't think so.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
interesting how you attempt to skirt the whole "house" thing
there are precedents no matter how you would like to ignore them

also you understand the judiciary voted in procedures and not to actually do anything
nadler wants to ignore the "nomenclature" but the scotus will not

without the full house there is no process
you can pretend a presser with the speaker equals impeachment, legally it does not

no worries
no there there anyway
and the dems will only look more impotent than they already do

2 years of focus on removing the duly elected potus
couldn't even properly do that....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
interesting how you attempt to skirt the whole "house" thing

What's being 'skirted'? I provided you the process. They are still in step one.

there are precedents no matter how you would like to ignore them

Those 'precedents' are not legally required.

without the full house there is no process

If/when they get to that stage the full House would be involved.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
we simply have differing opinions
no worries
the judicial will sort it out

and like the reid incident the dems have stepped in it and tracked it into their residence

bamn has undone them

originally posted by: shooterbrody
the judicial will sort it out

They have no input in the process other than supplying the Chief Justice to preside over a potential trial.