Strategy to avoid impeachment .

a reply to: Oraculi

seriously , when did the democrats ever favor the constitution . The battle over Kavanaugh was all about the constitution, their reason was he would favor it and has to go .

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was not talking about a poll on his approval ratings. ( which I believe are inflated when it comes to his own party) but anyway.... The poll was on whether to impeach and remove him from office and an overwhelming majority are saying to impeach and remove him.
These are recent changes and shifts in sentiment based on this Ukraine thing.

talkingpointsmemo.com...

www.usnews.com...

a reply to: shooterbrody

I dont need luck. None of this is up to me.
Lets see how it goes because right now where I said he would be impeached and you said he would not I am ahead.
I guess I could research abuse of power within the presidency to see what precedent for ethics has been defined.
Maybe I will go and do that.
Nancy is in favor of a narrow focus while others want a broader scope of charges for the senate to consider.

a reply to: shooterbrody

which time?

December 2017
www.congress.gov...

January 2018
www.congress.gov...

July 2019
www.congress.gov...

While rejected by the House, these are the articles of impeachment Mr Green attempted to have the House vote on.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Your last sentence wondered about support among the Republican Senators, I offered a metric.

Impeachment is one thing; removal is quite another.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
prey tell how does the house show action?

On impeachment? However they choose to. The only Constitutional requirement is a simple majority before sending the President over to the Senate for trial.

lol
i would take precedent over your "However they choose to" every day of the week.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

While rejected by the House

not all rejections are equal
I posted info on such

a reply to: shooterbrody

not all rejections are equal

That doesn't matter. What matters is that there were Articles of Impeachment to vote on, and to reject. The House doesn't have any Articles of Impeachment, at the moment, to vote on.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
In my opinion it does
as in the last 2 events

unless this is just a dog and pony show.......
and not really serious

a reply to: shooterbrody

Its an investigation. They do not have to tell the perp anything lol.
When the time comes he will get to see what they have. Then he even gets to defend himself. He is very good at that of course so there is that... But hopefully he wont lie to them. And then they turn it over to the senate.
There is no rule saying they have to vote on investigating. If you want to talk about precedent then it was set in 1866 and the two that followed just had frivolous unnecessary votes to action.
But the rule is "Their house, their rules". The constitution does not require a vote to launch an investigation to see if impeachment is necessary. What was it that Mulvany said?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Since they don't have any Articles of Impeachment, like Mr Green, who's resolution you used as an example, what exactly do you think the House should be voting on right now?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree and I do not think for a minute that he will be removed, not easily, not by this senate, unless Nancy lays out a very compelling case for abuse of power.
I think it may come down to public sentiment and the senators will have to act based on that or risk losing in '20.
That there will be a trial is no longer in doubt. The outcome... is anybody's guess.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Fair enough.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Its an investigation. They do not have to tell the perp anything lol.

it is the president
it is anything but

no modern impeachment event has begun without a house vote
until now

wonder why?
no starr report
no saturday night massacre

just because nancy wanted too

hardly the treason bribery high crimes or misdemeanors called for

a reply to: shooterbrody

wonder why?

Because the Republicans, when they had the House, changed House rules to allow committee subpeona power, without having to get a House vote.

“House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.”
”Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.”

www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Its an investigation. They do not have to tell the perp anything lol.
When the time comes he will get to see what they have. Then he even gets to defend himself. He is very good at that of course so there is that... But hopefully he wont lie to them. And then they turn it over to the senate.
There is no rule saying they have to vote on investigating. If you want to talk about precedent then it was set in 1866 and the two that followed just had frivolous unnecessary votes to action.
But the rule is "Their house, their rules". The constitution does not require a vote to launch an investigation to see if impeachment is necessary. What was it that Mulvany said?

He said "Get over it"

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

wonder why?

Because the Republicans, when they had the House, changed House rules to allow committee subpeona power, without having to get a House vote.

“House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.”
”Now the weapon that the GOP wielded dozens of times against Barack Obama’s agencies could allow Democrats to bombard President Trump’s most controversial appointees with demands for information. And many Democrats are itching to use it.”

www.politico.com...

Another member mentioned that recently! Good find.

a reply to: Sookiechacha
so house rules are greater than the constitution?
i believe it says "the house"
not a committee
not the speaker of the house

a reply to: shooterbrody

"The House" voted on and agreed to the rules that give committees authority to investigate and issue subpoenas, without having to ask the main body for permission.

It's constitutional. If it weren't the Republicans wouldn't have installed those rules.

Once the committees have completed their investigations, they will release reports and Articles of Impeachment based on evidence presented in those reports, that the main body of The House will vote on.

If The Houses passes any of the Articles of Impeachment, they and whatever evidence the committees have presented, will go to the Senate for trial. At that point the President can present his defense. The Senators serve as jurors, and will hear and decided on the impeachment charges.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

"The House" voted on and agreed to the rules that give committees authority to investigate and issue subpoenas, without having to ask the main body for permission.

I do not disagree.
I do disagree that impeaching the president is included in such.
Especially when the event being investigated falls solely within the authority of the executive branch.
Like the diplomacy and foreign policy, or not ,it is at the discrimination of the president. The house has no business questioning such. It is a separation of powers issue imo.
Especially as flimsy as a 2nd hand complaint from an unelected government bureaucrat.