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.

 

So How Goes The Impeachment Inquiry?

page: 4
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You think the DOJ has jurisdiction in the Ukraine? Hoo boy.


Uh, the United States has an agreement with the Ukraine to work together on corruption, which includes the Ukraine using our investigative evidence to act or face monetary cut off.




posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66
Usually when a sane person is proven wrong over and over, and continually loses, they become more humble.

None of the Democrat leaders in the House have shown humbleness, even after failing themselves and the American people, over and over again.


Well, I would accept your theory in most cases, but then there's the glaring examples of Trump and Trump acolytes.

Please. Congress has been failing the American people for decades. Trump is at least fulfilling a cultural purpose.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66


You think the DOJ has jurisdiction in the Ukraine? Hoo boy.


Uh, the United States has an agreement with the Ukraine to work together on corruption, which includes the Ukraine using our investigative evidence to act or face monetary cut off.


Feel free to back all that up with facts if you have any.

Especially the part where the Uktraine has ceeded legal jurisdiction over their own country to the DOJ.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Try to understand this ... due process is a judcial concept that applies in a court of law. The "trial" after impeachment is held in the Senate, and that is where there are applications of the form of due process.


BS. The House Rules on impeachment show that the Judiciary Committee usually allows the President a chance to review their evidence and make a last ditch effort to approach them and defend himself before they make a final determination to file for official impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66


Try to understand this ... due process is a judcial concept that applies in a court of law. The "trial" after impeachment is held in the Senate, and that is where there are applications of the form of due process.


BS. The House Rules on impeachment show that the Judiciary Committee usually allows the President a chance to review their evidence and make a last ditch effort to approach them and defend himself before they make a final determination to file for official impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial.


I'd be glad for you to quote from the Rules and demostrate that. Here, I"ll even give you the link: Rules of the House of Reprentatives

Just a page number will suffice. Maybe a short quote?



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=24724160]Gryphon66 I'm actually kinda busy at the moment.


President Trump is a busy man too, but he always finds time to hang out in your brain
edit on 27-10-2019 by visitedbythem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66


. I'm actually kinda busy at the moment.
President Trump is a busy man too, but he always finds time to hang out in your brain




Oopsie.

Trump is on my mind mostly while I'm reading the chants of his fervent followers and chuckling to myself.
edit on 27-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

NoTrump has zero power over House Ethics Committee. Trump has the ear of many House Republicans that can activate the House Ethic Committee. Consenting adults or molested at gunpoint doesn’t really matter when the issue was House member and subordinate. Thank Bill Clinton for finally getting the government on the same scale as the military and most Fortune 500 companies.

I think there are skeletons out there that I haven’t imagined. With all the proof needed, just like J Edgar’s Naughty List.

I think Trump can throw it out there and force the Democrats have to explain why they don’t want to help the poor illegals...optics. Look bad or not get voted back in, Hobson’s Choice indeed. But that leads back to that other ethical dilemma...using unethical people to lead a hearing on ethics for impeachment.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I think you'd have a point if the Republicans hadn't gutted the ethics watchdog a few years ago.

Oh, I know, I know. Poor Katie must have been listening to Trump's theories on How To Win Over a Woman.

Right right. Democrats are rotten, Repubicans are rotten, etc. etc. etc.

I'm just not sure why you would choose this particular tactic to throw shade on impeachment. I really didn't want to think that YOU intended it to be another slag fest. I was thinking I missed something while I'm in here playing with the gang.

He's already tried to pin the immigration issues on the Dems. It didn't stick. Trump's gone way too far over the line to win any of the Latinos back. They know an autocrat when they see one.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


There is no evidence on public record of President Trump having committed an impeachable offense.


Provide in a description the "crime" you believe
President Trump committed.

Hint: "Collusion" is not a crime.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66


Try to understand this ... due process is a judcial concept that applies in a court of law. The "trial" after impeachment is held in the Senate, and that is where there are applications of the form of due process.


BS. The House Rules on impeachment show that the Judiciary Committee usually allows the President a chance to review their evidence and make a last ditch effort to approach them and defend himself before they make a final determination to file for official impeachment and send it to the Senate for trial.


I'd be glad for you to quote from the Rules and demostrate that. Here, I"ll even give you the link: Rules of the House of Reprentatives

Just a page number will suffice. Maybe a short quote?


Did you even look at this document? It doesn't address the rules for impeachment.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I intended it to be a slag fest just to blow off steam and I really didn’t wan5 to dig up my month old thread about Nancy killing the DNC, hence it was started in the Mudpit... But at this time Trump is still Trumping along unabated and the House has lost two members, has one up for a censure vote (tabled to protect him), a Speaker that could still face a No Confidence vote (which cannot be tabled) and several committee chairs and members that would have to recuse themselves if they were remotely ethical.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66


There is no evidence on public record of President Trump having committed an impeachable offense.


Provide in a description the "crime" you believe
President Trump committed.

Hint: "Collusion" is not a crime.




I've listed a few above. Read back.

Do you think there's an actual list somewhere of "impeachable offenses"? Nah.

Impeachment was given to the House to act on behalf of the People of the United States against those in power who abuse that power. No "crime" is technically required (don't waste time on your personal definition of high crimes and misdemeanors) for impeachment but if it were ... there's about 10 counts of obstruction of justice teed up.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I don't have any issue with Judge Howell's ruling, but I do believe that the real and present danger to our judicial system is exactly the kind of partisan nonsense you've apparently chosen to champion here, all due respect.

Partisan? Really? How exactly is wanting unbiased investigation partisan? If it truly is the definition of partisan to desire that laws and procedures long established are followed every time,regardless of who is involved, then I suppose I am one of the biggest partisans around.

That, however, is not my definition of partisan, nor do I think it is the majority of people's definition.

Show me evidence that my choice of President was wrong. Show me evidence that President Trump has committed any crime or misdemeanor which is possible by virtue of his position... and I'll consider this worthy of investigation. Thus far I have seen nothing of any consequence.


Recusal is certainly underused in our judicial system, I agree. Judge Howell oversaw the grand jury in the Mueller probe. There isn't anyone else who could have heard the case due to secrecy requirements.

I was not aware of that.


Oh my god, are you kidding about the investigations??? You don't remember the ten or twenty investigations of Clinton and Benghazi??? Come on Redneck.

No, you come on. When was there an uproar in the US Congress and the MSM for Clinton's tax returns? When did states try to change their election laws to stop her from being elected? When was the Clinton Foundation investigated? What states even tried to investigate Clinton? How is it that she was exonerated not by the DoJ, but by the FBI, and in the same statement that exonerated her then-Director Comey also stated that anyone else would be prosecuted?

Face it: Hillary was treated with kid gloves, while Trump has received an iron fist. That is the crux of the issue of why I have a problem with the ruling: I do not trust anyone involved with this impeachment inquiry. The unequal application of law has reached the point that there might as well be no law. If one is favored by TPTB, they are not held to any legal standard and are free to do as they wish; those who oppose TPTB are held to account whether they actually violated a law or not.

That is not the country I choose to live in.


No, we're not talking about overturning the will of the electorate, we're talking about the application of Constitutional powers given to the House to provide checks and balances against a President that either believes he's beyond the law or doen't really comprehend what the law says.

Whether or not you think the President is violating laws, whether or not the President is violating laws, is irrelevant to the fact that it is indeed overturning the will of the electorate. There can be no argument about that, at least not one based in anything resembling reality. The purpose of impeachment is to remove a duly-elected public official chosen by the electorate.

Impeachment is a process granted to the Congress in order to prevent a rogue official from working against the people. It was never intended to be a way to get rid of a President for partisan reasons.


The House directly represents the will of the People, and the People's Representatives are about to speak.

I hope they do. If they do, the People will replace their Representatives with those who respect the will of the voters.

However, they are not speaking yet, and I doubt they will any time soon. The House has not even been able to pass a vote to begin impeachment, despite what? Two, three previous tries now? In order to get this impeachment inquiry underway, one lone Representative, Nancy Pelosi, recruited a handful of other Representatives to try and accomplish behind closed doors what the entire House would not approve openly and transparently. Even if somehow, some way, some day, actual Articles of Impeachment are approved and impeachment is exercised by the House, it is dead on arrival in the Senate.

That voice is pretty shrill and feeble to be that of the People.

No, this is nothing more than an attempt to change the outcome of the 2020 elections by acting like those in power are beyond the will of the People. We'll see how well the People agree with that message next year. I think it will be similar to, but in greater magnitude than, the way they felt when Hillary Clinton called them "deplorables."

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   
The Supreme Court will end up ruling on how Due Process applies inside the House.

It's possible (probable) past House impeachments inquiry votes have always allowed full due process in advance because they didn't want a binding SCOTUS ruling 😎 🎱 😎



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, I intended it to be a slag fest just to blow off steam and I really didn’t wan5 to dig up my month old thread about Nancy killing the DNC, hence it was started in the Mudpit... But at this time Trump is still Trumping along unabated and the House has lost two members, has one up for a censure vote (tabled to protect him), a Speaker that could still face a No Confidence vote (which cannot be tabled) and several committee chairs and members that would have to recuse themselves if they were remotely ethical.



Fair enough. Well, I will only say, and I do mean this with respect, that I have been avoiding the Pit mostly, but I did want to come in and see what you had to say. OF course, I get dragged into the tussles all too easily. Mea culpa.

Yeah, the Repubs have a censure motion that they know won't go anywhere. Tabling it was just a "get real" message. Pelosi gets a no confidence vote? Wouldn't that be interesting? You think the Squad would choose this moment to go after her?

That would be fun. LOL. Thanks for a few hours of letting my old self out to play.



edit on 27-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Last thing I want is SCOUS waking up until after RBG is replaced or at least fails to wake up. I don’t trust them anymore as they are all too partisan over constitutionalists.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's partisan when one only wants one "side" to follow procedures. A lot of the crap that's currently being pulled in the Committees Is due to Trey Gowdy and the Neverending Quest to burn Hillary. They're the ones that changed the Rules, remember?

I have little sympathy for them now.

How in the world can I tell you that your choice for Trump is "wrong"? I cannot. You and I have a few things in common, but I would never presume to tell YOU that you made a bad choice, I can only look at Trump through what I see, and what I see is a chaotic force wreaking havoc not only to the socio-cultural infrastructure of the United States but also the World. And I've argued elsewhere that it was probably high time for all that.

You and I see different Donald Trumps, which tells me just how effective the conditioning protocols that we are all subjected to are. I don't know about you, but I have the greatest respect for your intellect and your integrity, but like a few of my very good friends, I am damned if I know how you can look at Mr. Trump and see what you see.

I don't see the exercise of a Constitutional power as an action against the Electorate. We disagree.

The House is respecting the will of the voters Redneck. The people who voted in 2018 spoke loud and clear.

You know I find the Democratic leadership to be stupid, and I thought the Ukraine deal was stupid but in my opinion at least, the Mueller Report was very clear about two things: the Trump campaign worked with the Russians (though there was no "collusion") and the Russians DID interfere in our electoral process... but more importantly, the President of the United States has acted on multiple occasions to obstruct justice. I didnt' give a damn about Clinton's peccadillos, but what I did support was impeachment for obstructing justice ... and I do the same for Trump.

There are deplorables on all sides. Take care, Redneck.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Trump definitely fills a role.

Imagine for a moment a President AOC, yeah not old enough right now but go with it.

You see those crazy eyes? I am not gonna trash talk her. A good chunk of Ohio and Indiana could be vaporized in a mushroom cloud 45 minutes later. Hillary would just send in the hit team, No biggie. AOC means a shortage of bacon, eggs, corn and soybeans for a few half-lives.



posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Don't waste your time citing House "rules". Nancy Pelosi changes them when she wants to. It's apparently not hard to do.




top topics



 
48
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join