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.

 

White House response to Impeachment Inquiry Vote

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:15 PM
link   


Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which enshrines the traditional rule of grand jury secrecy, establishes exceptions that allow grand jury materials (such as transcripts of witness testimony) to be disclosed to certain outside parties in limited circumstances. Some of these exceptions allow for automatic disclosure—to necessary government personnel, for example—but many of the exceptions require that disclosure be authorized by the federal district court in the jurisdiction where the jury is convened, as the court ultimately has some degree of “supervisory authority” over the grand jury.

Rule 6(e)(3)(E) provides in relevant part that the court “may authorize disclosure . . . of a grand-jury matter” (1) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; (2) to a defendant who shows grounds may exist to dismiss the indictment because of something that occurred before the grand jury; or (3) at the request of the government, to a foreign court or prosecutor or to an “appropriate” state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, military, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing or investigating a violation of the respective jurisdiction’s criminal law. Persons seeking court authorization under one of these exceptions must make a “strong showing of particularized need” that “outweighs the public interest in secrecy.”


For the third or fourth time ...




posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

What existing law was the AG told to break?

You don't have "origionalists" whatever you think that is, you have a right libertarian and a frat boy punk that can't hold his liquor.


And it seems that all you have is angst, a bad legal background and no idea what words mean.

Care to come back to the topic... the impeachment reply?

What do you think about the White House's response?

Are you OK with the current "vote" in the House for "Peach Mints?"

You know, so you don't derail one of my threads.

Again.




posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Persons seeking court authorization under one of these exceptions must make a “strong showing of particularized need” that “outweighs the public interest in secrecy.”


The current "strong showing of particularized need" appears to be that Democrats in the House need the materials so they can spin it in another attempt to undo the 2016 election.

The (Obama-appointed) judges are aware that if this flies, the SCOTUS is going to finally rule on the standing of lower court judges in regards to the other branches of our government's decisions as outlined in our Constitution.

After all, if the issue is pushed, then Progressives and the left will no longer be able to legislate from the bench.

The only real power the left has in America, since they can't seem to sell their ideology to the actual voting public.

Hope that helped.... want to get back on topic?



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



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Well, well... looks like Pelosi in in full CYA mode.

I want to see a copy of this impeachment inquiry resolution. If it says what the sources in the OP say it says, and if when the American public finds out about it, there will be hell to pay for many Democrat Representatives come next year. They are already having trouble with the walkaway movement, losing the minority voting blocks, and fighting tooth and nail to destroy any economic advantage Trump has caused... I fully expect the Squad to be either completely gone or in shambles come January 2021, and the same fate will befall Representatives from Trump districts should they vote to authorize an unfair resolution.

That said, at least Pelosi is actually putting the inquiry up for a vote. That will take the wind out of Shiff's sails a bit, since he won't be able to hide behind closed doors without the whole country knowing how he is conducting things behind those closed doors. The resolution will spell all that out.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Used to be called The Articles of Confederation.

Then some dude noticed that the government could not impose nor collect taxes. It could ask the states and much like shared NATO military responsibility no one ponied up.

So the Articles finally got the unanimous vote to abandon by adding the Bill of Rights (otherwise we would still be there) and the federal government gained the power to lay and collect taxes. And the greed was placated by tariffs until 1913 when the Progressive movement gained its most solid foothold to date by a guy that thought a League of Nations was a good idea to legitimize theft.

Some hard feelings happened naturally and another war happened and was helmed this time by a progressive socialist. Now that guy was so bad he even socialized individual wealth no matter how small by stealing all your gold and then some select guns ahead of that second war while people suffered in poverty and having their land stolen, government promises of bonuses broken by running over the protester’s encampments full of women and children with tanks. Lots of shady stuff.

Things were so bad it took a General to helm the presidency to get back to American values along with a witch-hunt in both the House and Senate to root out communists. A good President whose brother helped the Senator in charge during the Red Scare, was murdered. And lo and behold, another socialist makes a Great Society, which is an odd name considering that his partymates in Congress didn’t want the Civil Rights Act to go forward.

So maybe Trump’s “major crime” was the tax cuts for everyone versus only the absolute top. Because he “stole” “their money” and only said “tariffs” as a traceable replacement that also cuts the profit margin on foreign investments. Which really is “stealing their money”, I suppose.

But small government with big freedom would technically be covered under Utopia. Which makes sense because having people refusing to grab more power when they can is also called a pipe dream.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

An ATS thread which includes the "possible" thing they are going to try to vote on...

Xuen's Thread

The "possible" resolution...

House Resolution _________




posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

You keep chanting that it's illegal to release grand jury information. It isn't.

The law doesn't care who appointed a judge only partisan nut-jobs.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

You keep chanting that it's illegal to release grand jury information. It isn't.

The law doesn't care who appointed a judge only partisan nut-jobs.



Quoted for a God-like level of irony, considering your Kavenaugh issue.

And since you can't seem to get back to the topic, I'll stop talking to you to prevent thread drift.

I've tried three times, after all.




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



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

There were income taxes during the Civil War.

I enjoyed the story, but if the Constitution had not replaced the Articles (where it does) modern America wouldn't exist.

I'm not a big fan of the growth of the Exectuive either, but if we had not developed a mixed economy as the world evolved we wouldn't exist either.

Aside from that, Cool.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

They were later ruled unconstitutional, twice. Hence the 16th, but notice that they forgot to add one little thing to the 16th “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Because as written it would be up to your local Congress-Critters or a Committee to figure out what you owe in taxes and send you a bill. Ain’t jack in their about making an IRS or drafting your employer as an indentured servant federal tax collector nor the authority to make appropriate legislation to do just that.

So when I say Congress is nuts for hating on Trump it’s because I know I would never face impeachment. Hired assassins, however...



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Have we really forgotten about the midterm last year?

Dems dont need to appease their base. They'll steal it with found ballots and bought off voters.

How they are so confident in their endeavour and completely crapping on us Americans, that they believe no matter what. They WILL hold on to their power by ANY means necessary.

The one thing I am looking forward to, is if they do do the same thing in 2020 as they did in 2018 midterm. We the people will purge the system ourselves.

Or I hope doesn't happen is, what we are doing right now. Letting dem do whatever they want with impunity...

The ladder will most likely happen though. We are getting too lazy to do anything. Screen zombies.



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

They were later ruled unconstitutional, twice. Hence the 16th, but notice that they forgot to add one little thing to the 16th “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Because as written it would be up to your local Congress-Critters or a Committee to figure out what you owe in taxes and send you a bill. Ain’t jack in their about making an IRS or drafting your employer as an indentured servant federal tax collector nor the authority to make appropriate legislation to do just that.

So when I say Congress is nuts for hating on Trump it’s because I know I would never face impeachment. Hired assassins, however...


That's strange because in Springer v. United States the Court upheld the income tax under the Revenue Act of 1864.

Right?



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

They were later ruled unconstitutional, twice. Hence the 16th, but notice that they forgot to add one little thing to the 16th “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Because as written it would be up to your local Congress-Critters or a Committee to figure out what you owe in taxes and send you a bill. Ain’t jack in their about making an IRS or drafting your employer as an indentured servant federal tax collector nor the authority to make appropriate legislation to do just that.

So when I say Congress is nuts for hating on Trump it’s because I know I would never face impeachment. Hired assassins, however...


That's strange because in Springer v. United States the Court upheld the income tax under the Revenue Act of 1864.

Right?


Thanks again for once again completely derailing my OP.

These new rules I am trying to abide by.

But the thread eventually got derailed by you and the Mod who posted the new rules.

~sigh~



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

Thank you. I read over the proposed resolution. I can answer your question now.

The wording is as I would expect such a resolution to be. The White House really has little to complain about if this passes as written. It provides for open and transparent hearings and allows equal consideration in subpoena power and time questioning witnesses.

Now, does this mean Trump should not continue to proclaim his innocence? No. If he is innocent (as I believe) he should take every opportunity to say so. However, the resolution as written provides authorization for enforcement of subpoena power and thus Trump has no legal standing to stonewall the investigation. The one exception is that I do not know if Congress can override Executive Privilege... that is a question that could require Supreme Court review to settle. That means that, until and unless the Supreme Court says different, direct confidential conversations with the President are off limits.

The House Democrats are taking one hell of a chance... this could backfire like a bazooka on steroids if they do not come up with something concrete to not only impeach, but to have that impeachment heard by the Senate after all the drama thus far. I don't think they'll find it, but at least they are following a procedure.

Trump needs to quell the rhetoric, though, at least until we see what the final version says. If it does not provide for full transparency and equal access to the minority party, then he can go off... but so far he has had his bluff called. Time to let the process work and let the House Democrats swim... or sink... on their own.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I just wish that the next time Schiff subpoena's Trump for documents, that Trump replies, "I left the documents on your momma's bed."



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Gryphon66

They were later ruled unconstitutional, twice. Hence the 16th, but notice that they forgot to add one little thing to the 16th “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Because as written it would be up to your local Congress-Critters or a Committee to figure out what you owe in taxes and send you a bill. Ain’t jack in their about making an IRS or drafting your employer as an indentured servant federal tax collector nor the authority to make appropriate legislation to do just that.

So when I say Congress is nuts for hating on Trump it’s because I know I would never face impeachment. Hired assassins, however...


That's strange because in Springer v. United States the Court upheld the income tax under the Revenue Act of 1864.

Right?


Thanks again for once again completely derailing my OP.

These new rules I am trying to abide by.

But the thread eventually got derailed by you and the Mod who posted the new rules.

~sigh~


Sorry to "derail" you made a comment and it was responded to and another comment which was responded to.

Like when you analyze my posting style for the umteenth time, damn another poster's source. Etc. etc.

TL;DR: Sour grapes.

edit on 30-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Deleted by author.
edit on 30-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Deleted by author.
edit on 30-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

The WH Press statements remind me more and more of "Baghdad Bob" the accidental Comedian/Minister of Information for Saddam Hussein.




posted on Oct, 30 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Dems have nothing, they just want to keep it in the limbo forever and hope that it effects the election.

They can't impeach Trump because it would go to the Senate and the Senate can get Schiffs Obama's holdover witnesses to be cross examined and catch them in a perjury, not to mention embarrass them on national TV. they can even subpoena Biden and Hunter and expose them.

Dems are hoping to continue their secret inquiry until the election is over to selectively leak info to benefit their bs and hope that it drag down Trump's poll numbers, because they know they can't beat him so they are just doing anything and everything desperately.

However, this will just backfire, people are not stupid as Dems think. Pulling stunts like this only work short term. The election is too far ahead and would give time for people to research and realize the Dems are crazy and unhinged.
edit on 30-10-2019 by ambassado12 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join