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.

 

To Lefties: Why Won't Nancy Vote On A Proper Impeachment Resolution?

page: 2
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




She's not doing it how it's always been done.

And you have a problem with that?

Isn't that why you like Trump?




posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

God damn man, you really have a hard time staying on topic. I'm not saying she's bad or evil, I'm asking WHY!?!?!?

WHY?
WHY?
WHY?
WHY?

It's the first word in the title after the address. WHY!
edit on 29-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Because it's the only way to get people to testify in public.


I think that impeachment is yet to occur but that there is much to be learned in the "process."



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Finally an on topic response! Rejoice one and all!



Because it's the only way to get people to testify in public.


Providing them with an excuse to defy your subpoena is the only way to get people to testify in public? Also who has testified in public?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




Providing them with an excuse to defy your subpoena is the only way to get people to testify in public?
What is it you actually meant to ask? Because that makes no sense.


Also who has testified in public?
No one, other than via opening statements (and the original complaint) which have been made public.

edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

My bad, wasn't really a question, was simply pointing out how asinine your statement was. Which you illustrated nicely here.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burntheships

I think Muellar did a good job, actually.

Don't you?



James Comey said he failed.
I think he was a failure.

Comey knew Mueller was a set up from the start.
I knew Mueller was a set up from the start!

No difference expect Comey was counting
on Mueller to deliver the insurance policy,
and Mueller failed to do so.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


No, it wasn't a stupid statement. You just missed the point.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I guess you're a poor communicator. Care to clear it up?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I'm an excellent communicator. Not many people know that.

But since your cognitive skills don't seem to be up to the task, I'll talk slowly.

The House Committee has been making requests (under their Constitutional oversight authority) for depositions and documentation in regard to the Ukraine and "favors" requested by the Administration. In most cases the subjects have willingly provided those depositions, however there have recently been notable exceptions. In the case of these exceptions, the House Committee has issued subpoenas for testimony (and documentation). Under legal advice (and nonsensical admonition from the White House), some of these have also been denied, pending court decision.

In response to claims of a "violation" of process, the Speaker said, "OK, fine. We will vote on rules. Put up or shut up, or be looking at adding an article of Obstruction to the list." (paraphrasing)

Slow enough for you?
edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



I'm an excellent communicator. Not many people know that.


LOL, that's excellent. Touche sir.

As for the rest of your post, I guess the reason I missed the point was that I wrongly assumed it was on topic. I guess I'll have to redact my earlier praise for you on that front. What you've explained here does not explain WHY nancy won't hold a vote authorizing the judiciary committee (or any other committee) to begin an impeachment inquiry. That was the question I asked. That's the reason I have been puzzled by your (non)answers.

So while what you've posted is fine and dandy and slow enough for my late night brain to comprehend, it still hasn't addressed the question I posed in the OP. Could you maybe address that question?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




What you've explained here does not explain WHY nancy won't hold a vote authorizing the judiciary committee (or any other committee) to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Why would she? None of the Committees require a "vote of authorization" to do what they are mandated to do. Why do you think that committees exist in the first place?



That was the question I asked.
Then it was a question made from ignorance.


edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Why would she?


Well, a number of reasons. First, because it's in the house rules. Second, because it's customary. Third, because any undertaking of impeachment should be a big enough deal that each representative gets to voice their opinion on whether to move forward with such an inquiry. Fourth, beacause it is used to set up a fair process by which the inquiry will be run. Fifth, it authorizes subpoena power as impeachment becomes an official function that the house is proceeding with.

I could go on, but that should be a good start.



Then it was a question made from ignorance.


Time will prove this incorrect.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




First, because it's in the house rules.
Citation required.



Second, because it's customary.
Compared to what?



Third, because any undertaking of impeachment should be a big enough deal that each representative gets to voice their opinion on whether to move forward with such an inquiry.
Yeah. It is a big deal. But I think some sort of investigation is in order before the entire House gets involved. Don't you?


Fourth, beacause it is used to set up a fair process by which the inquiry will be run.
Yeah. That seems to be what Pelosi is doing. Right? Now that things seem to be moving along.


Fifth, it authorizes subpoena power as impeachment becomes an official function that the house is proceeding with.
Can you provide precedent which limits the subpoena power of House committees?





edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Citation required.


It's in the OP.



Compared to what?


all prior impeachments since at least nixon.



Yeah. It is a big deal. But I think some sort of investigation is in order before the entire House gets involved. Don't you?


No, this is simply the house authorizing an inquiry. They've done it every time before. The rules specifically call for the whole floor to vote on whether to investigate.



Yeah. That seems to be what Pelosi is doing. Right? Now that things seem to be moving along.


Yes, on thursday. We'll see.



Can you provide precedent which limits the subpoena power of House committees?


Sure, Watkins vs United States (1957)



The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste. But, broad as is this power of inquiry, it is not unlimited. There is no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of the Congress. … Nor is the Congress a law enforcement or trial agency. … No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress


Emphasis mine.
edit on 29-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 01:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




It's in the OP.

A rule? Where?


all prior impeachments since at least nixon.
Oh, you mean presidential impeachments. Well, if you want to get all technical, Nixon was not impeached.


Emphasis mine.
Your emphasis seems to emphasize "private affairs." It would seem that foreign relations go beyond that.

edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



A rule? Where?


Right at the bottom of the OP I cite the rule.



Oh, you mean presidential impeachments.


No. I mean all. In fact, the OP has links to the inquiry authorizing resolution and vote that was done for the two most recent judges that were impeached.



Your emphasis seems to highlight "private affairs."


Only if you stop reading part way through. The last sentence is pretty big: "No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress."

I bolded the word task. That word was used purposefully by the justices. Impeachment is only a task of the congress if the congress authorizes it. You can't have Devin nunes running an impeachment inquiry on obama just because he hates him and happens to run a committee. Sending out subpoena's right and left, compelling people with the force of law to testify using all of the power of congress. Devin nunes is not the congress. I think we can all agree that's not the best plan of action. If the congress wants to look into it, authorize it and make it an official task of the congress.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite


It's in the OP.
You're not cherry picking, are you?


In the House, various events have been credited with setting an
impeachment in motion, including:

Charges initiated by a petition from one or more citizens and
referred to committee. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2364, 2491, 2494.
Charges transmitted in a message from the President. 3 Hinds
Sec. Sec. 2294, 2319; 6 Cannon Sec. 498.
Charges transmitted from the legislature of a State. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2469.
Charges arising from a grand jury investigation. 3 Hinds
Sec. 2488.
Charges arising from an independent counsel investigation
under section 595(c) of title 28, United States Code. Manual
Sec. 603.

In the 93d Congress, Vice President Agnew used a letter to the
Speaker to attempt to initiate an investigation by the House of
charges against him of possible impeachable offenses, but the House
took no action on the request. Manual Sec. 603.


Seems a whistleblower (a citizen) complaint may be sufficient. Anything from one or more citizens, to an independent counsel, to a letter from a VP seems to be valid, if acted upon.

But then, so far it's been an inquiry. A preliminary investigation into a complaint. To try to find out if there may be a there there. To coin a phrase.

Yeah, I think the probability that the president is self dealing in his interactions with foreign governments to be be something Congress should look into. Don't you?

Now Pelosi is doing what has been asked. What's the problem? Are you afraid she can do 5D chess?


edit on 10/29/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



You're not cherry picking, are you?


No, I'm not cherry picking, download the rules and look for yourself. You're conflating though. Many things can set impeachment in motion, including a whistleblower complaint. However, the inquiry into that complaint still needs to be authorized.



But then, so far it's been an inquiry. A preliminary investigation into a complaint.


Except the complaint was shown to be bogus. The complaint said trump demanded action on biden 8 times in the phone call. Biden gets a small passing mention as something they should look into. Trump blew their sham out of the water before it started by releasing the transcript. They're just trying to salvage it now.

But I've drifted off topic. So let's circle back around to the original question:
Why is nancy not letting the floor vote on starting an impeachment inquiry? It's in the rules. It is customary in impeachments of presidents and judges. Yet she REFUSES to let there be a vote on it. Why? Now she is skipping that step and moving on to setting up rules. Why? What's so terrible about letting members of congress vote on it??? One thing is for certain, there is some sort of damage that could be done by such a vote that she's trying to avoid. I want to know what it is.
edit on 29-10-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 05:09 AM
link   
In your opinion, just what is a "proper" impeachment vote?
What all should it entail?
Yous were complaining that yous didnt like the process by which this was being carried out so now, you will get to have yous say and hash out how it should proceed going forth this Thursday. Yous didnt like the closed door hearings, well now we can hear for ourselves what is said in most of these hearings. Having a couple of dozen Republican representatives able to ask questions was unfair for some reason, so now we can watch the theatrics of all of them while they compete for the best soundbite.
And, yet, there are still a chorus of complaints.
Do yous even know what yous want? Or are yous just overtired babies needing your babas and blankies?

My god, if your divinely appointed, all wise, all knowing, genius of a president and his collection of the bestest people had even used 1 percent of the intelligence they claim to have, we wouldn't be in this god awful position we are in.. but no, genius has to go and do the same danged thing hes been accused of doing during the last campaign!



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join