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.

 

What Republicans should do to end the impeachment farce

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The Department of Justice tells Schiff that Trump Admin witnesses must have government counsel present during dispositions.

thehill.com...

This will reduce Adam Schiff's abuse of power during the interviews.




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Your truth is not the same as the Democrats truth and vice versa.

My truth is the truth. Show me the evidence Trump did something wrong that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and I'll add my voice to the chorus calling for his impeachment.


You're all partisans.

Not at all. I've never been a Republican, I'm more libertarian leaning, but far from an anarchist.


"I haven't seen it..."

I don't care, they're there for the non-lazy.

Ok, so, in other words, you got nothing. Thanks for admitting it.


"The Constitution. Checkmate."

The Constitution doesn't say it cannot be delegated.

It doesn't contain those precise words, no, but you need to understand that words have meaning, and mean what they say, and there is no amount of contortion you can engage in that results in "The House of Representatives" means Adam Schiff (or any one or few rogue members).


You're tragically uninformed,

Said the guy who can't read.


the Constitution isn't a list of things you can do, it's a list of things you cannot do.

Wrong, it is a framework for the government, creating branches and delegating powers.

The Bill of Rights are generally a list of prohibitions on the government, not me (the people).


"You're the one who claimed that there were committees already in existence when the Constitution was signed."

The Constitution went into effect in 1789. The first Congress was in 1789. The first committees were in 1789. Seeing a pattern here?

Yes... you're inability to engage in rational thought.

What matters with respect to the meaning of words in the Constitution is when the Constitution was written and signed, not when it was ratified by the States.


"If the Founders had intended 'the sole Power of Impeachment' to be wielded by anyone who feels a little froggy when someone they don't like gets elected, they wouldn't have had such strong debate about it before ratification."

False premise, 'someone' isn't a committee. SomeoneS are.

Yes, but someoneS are not the same as "The House of Representatives", they are merely members of the House, with equal power individually with respect to 'the sole Power of Impeachment'. This means Devin Nunes has as much a Right to call witnesses, issue subpoenas, and cross-examine dem witnesses, as Schiff (or Nadler or Pelosi).
edit on 5-11-2019 by tanstaafl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Show me the evidence Trump did something wrong that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, and I'll add my voice to the chorus calling for his impeachment.


Do I look like the House or Senate? Has the inquiry concluded? Has everything been presented and this sent over to the Senate for trial? Do I have supernumerary power to gather evidence? No on all of those? Then what the hell are you asking?


Not at all. I've never been a Republican, I'm more libertarian leaning, but far from an anarchist.


You're far from a Libertarian, if you were you'd be ambivalent to this dual party kabuki taking place and see it for the farcical, bias-confirming theater that it is.


Ok, so, in other words, you got nothing. Thanks for admitting it.


If you're too lazy to look at Gryphons posts in this thread it's not my problem, it's only your goddamn thread after all, if you don't want to read it we can't prevent your obtuseness.



It doesn't contain those precise words...


Glad you can finally admit that.



...no, but you need to understand that words have meaning, and mean what they say, and there is no amount of contortion you can engage in that results in "The House of Representatives" means Adam Schiff (or any one or few rogue members).


Except there's more than Schiff on that committee, there's some Republicans too.


Said the guy who can't read.


Says the guy who refuses to read.


Wrong, it is a framework for the government, creating branches and delegating powers.


'Delegating powers'. Exactly. Like forming committees. You are starting to emerge from the Tunnel of Ignorance and seeing the Light of Reality. Good on you.


The Bill of Rights are generally a list of prohibitions on the government, not me (the people).


And forming committees isn't prohibited.


Yes... you're inability to engage in rational thought.


Doesn't do anything to disprove that in 1789 the first Congress had committees delegating the powers of each chamber to a select few they agreed upon mutually.


Yes, but someoneS are not the same as "The House of Representatives"...


Yes they are, since it's happening and no one in the Republican Party has taken your unsound and uneducated advice.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Do I look like the House or Senate? Has the inquiry concluded? Has everything been presented and this sent over to the Senate for trial? Do I have supernumerary power to gather evidence? No on all of those? Then what the hell are you asking?

Why you seem to think it is OK to try to impeach the President in secret, based on zero evidence of wrongdoing.

Or, maybe why you seem to hate yourself so much.


You're far from a Libertarian,

I said libertarian leaning, not Libertarian. Big difference (clueless though you may be).


"Ok, so, in other words, you got nothing. Thanks for admitting it."
If you're too lazy to look at Gryphons posts in this thread it's not my problem,

It is if you're claiming they say something that I say they don't yet refuse to linky to it.


it's only your goddamn thread after all,

Tsk tsk, profanity is the resort of a weak mind (or argument - or both).


if you don't want to read it

Waiting for you to linky to it. I have no time to go back and read pages of a thread looking for something I'm 99% sure isn't there.


"It doesn't contain those precise words..."

Glad you can finally admit that.

Never denied it.


...no, but you need to understand that words have meaning, and mean what they say, and there is no amount of contortion you can engage in that results in "The House of Representatives" means Adam Schiff (or any one or few rogue members).


Except there's more than Schiff on that committee, there's some Republicans too.
And there are many many more members of both sides that are not on that committee, each of which are co-equal members of the House of Representatives and should have co-equal 'Power of Impeachment', which they are all being denied.


"Wrong, it is a framework for the government, creating branches and delegating powers."

'Delegating powers'. Exactly. Like forming committees.

They can form committees all day long. What they can't do is change the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

-yawn-

Do you ever get tired of being wrong?



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Why you seem to think it is OK to try to impeach the President in secret, based on zero evidence of wrongdoing.


I don't think the House holding hearings as per their rules is wrong, it's their rules after all.


Or, maybe why you seem to hate yourself so much.


Nope, I love myself because awhile back I stopped caring if both parties tear each other to pieces. Now I'm happy and carefree and can enjoy my popcorn without worry.



I said libertarian leaning, not Libertarian. Big difference (clueless though you may be).


You aren't Libertarian anything.


It is if you're claiming they say something that I say they don't yet refuse to linky to it.


It's your thread chief, not mine. Go back and read it if you want, if you don't I don't really care to do your work for you.


Tsk tsk, profanity is the resort of a weak mind (or argument - or both).


Sorry if I offended your puritanical senses.



Waiting for you to linky to it.


You'll be waiting a long time then.


Never denied it.


Good. We've now established that this is solely your viewpoint based on phraseology not contained within the Constitution. What a really sound foundation for making a legal judgement.



And there are many many more members of both sides that are not on that committee, each of which are co-equal members of the House of Representatives and should have co-equal 'Power of Impeachment', which they are all being denied.


Oh, boo-hoo for those people. Maybe they can try to get on next time. They've got their own committees to run in the meantime.



They can form committees all day long. What they can't do is change the meaning of the words in the Constitution.


But they're doing exactly what you said they can't do since 1789, it must really bust your nuts to see that. Oh, the humanity.



Do you ever get tired of being wrong?


I'm not wrong about what's going on, it's actually going on. You're all triggly over it, which, I have to admit, is kind of fun to watch. You know, being that you have 'Libertarian leanings'.



edit on 5-11-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I don't think the House holding hearings as per their rules is wrong, it's their rules after all.

The House isn't holding hearings. If it was, they would be open to every single member of the House.


You aren't Libertarian anything.

Ok, so maybe now you're gettings it. I'm not Libertarian anything. I am however libertarian leaning.


It's your thread chief, not mine. Go back and read it if you want, if you don't I don't really care to do your work for you.

Ok, thanks for confirming it isn't there.


Tsk tsk, profanity is the resort of a weak mind (or argument - or both).


Sorry if I offended your puritanical senses.
Rotflmao! I was in the Coast Guard, I can cuss with the best of them. I just don't think it belongs in a rational debate - oh, right, now I see - you aren't rational, so there is no rational debate with you.



We've now established that this is solely your viewpoint based on phraseology not contained within the Constitution.

Wrong - do you ever get tired of being wrong???

My viewpoint is based purealy and squarely on the precise words in the Constitution.


What a really sound foundation for making a legal judgement.

Yes, it is. Thanks.


"And there are many many more members of both sides that are not on that committee, each of which are co-equal members of the House of Representatives and should have co-equal 'Power of Impeachment', which they are all being denied."

Oh, boo-hoo for those people.

Yeah, about what I'd expect from a TDS suffering fool.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
The House isn't holding hearings. If it was, they would be open to every single member of the House.


Inquiries then, which they are allowed to do.


Ok, so maybe now you're gettings it. I'm not Libertarian anything. I am however libertarian leaning.


No you aren't. Your posts and politics make that 100% clear.



Ok, thanks for confirming it isn't there.


It's there, what I confirmed is that I'm not going to bother to pull it from this thread or your last one on the same subject.


Rotflmao! I was in the Coast Guard, I can cuss with the best of them. I just don't think it belongs in a rational debate - oh, right, now I see - you aren't rational, so there is no rational debate with you.


Oh, a Puddle Pirate. Thanks for your service. Again, if the word 'goddamn' offended you, I'm truly goddamn sorry.



Wrong - do you ever get tired of being wrong???

My viewpoint is based purealy and squarely on the precise words in the Constitution.


And the ones that aren't there and your viewpoint of those nonexistent words. But, hey, you're 'right' by believing them.


Yes, it is. Thanks.


You're welcome, tell us when someone in Congress utilizes it. Which, if I were to guess, would be in 2000 and never.


Yeah, about what I'd expect from a TDS suffering fool.


I've admitted I don't like Trump. I also didn't like his predecessor, or his or the one before that. I also don't like anyone in Congress. But then again, I'm an actual Libertarian and not some poseur sycophant.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
MOMMY!!...He said bad things about me?...make him stop!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAA!



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Should a Branch retain duties and powers while shirking other duties and powers? Arbitrary power grabs and lackadaisical approaches to responsibilities doesn’t make for a very solid government.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Inquiries then, which they are allowed to do.

Sure - but they don't have the power to compel when in this mode.


"Ok, so maybe now you're gettings it. I'm not Libertarian anything. I am however libertarian leaning."

No you aren't. Your posts and politics make that 100% clear.

Do tell...


what I confirmed is that I'm not going to bother to pull it from this thread

Right - because you can't, because it isn't there. Got it.


"Wrong - do you ever get tired of being wrong???

My viewpoint is based purely and squarely on the precise words in the Constitution."

And the ones that aren't there and your viewpoint of those nonexistent words. But, hey, you're 'right' by believing them.

Ahem - you're the one adding words that aren't there. I'm merely pointing out the obvious meaning of the words that are there.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
MOMMY!!...He said bad things about me?...make him stop!!

WAAAAAAAAAAAA!

I know, annoying isn't it?




posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The GOP.... using a vote by a 'convened' Senate to Qualify or Refuse the House 'Process' of the Impeachment so far.
the Senate would be, in effect Streamlining the Impeachment Process, (for the better)

so the Democrat House of Representatives would not keep wasting the People's money and time with Unacceptable Inquiries
or other forums or panels of secretive hearings, designed to only dig-up-dirt instead of doing the proper Legal processes

which involve 'Open hearings', 'Due Process' & sharing Evidence in open proceedings ->>> All the parts of the 3 historic, previous Constitutional Impeachment Processes



see: allnewspipeline.com...
edit on th30157298288905412019 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Should a Branch retain duties and powers while shirking other duties and powers? Arbitrary power grabs and lackadaisical approaches to responsibilities doesn’t make for a very solid government.


That is for the People to decide but to think we haven't had a dysfunctional government from day one is kidding oneself.



posted on Nov, 5 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Sure - but they don't have the power to compel when in this mode.


A Congressional subpoena carries a great deal of weight when it comes to compulsion.


Do tell...


Nothing to tell, it's obvious from your postings you are not a Libertarian.


Right - because you can't, because it isn't there. Got it.


Oh, it's there, I just looked at it again, still on page seven half way down.


Ahem - you're the one adding words that aren't there. I'm merely pointing out the obvious meaning of the words that are there.


I haven't added anything to the wording, I've merely pointed out that committees are Constitutional, otherwise some halfwit with no legal degree would have been able to challenge that fact based solely on their opinion and none of the halfwits in Congress has done so, have they?
edit on 5-11-2019 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁❤🍕



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Sure - but they don't have the power to compel when in this mode.


A Congressional subpoena carries a great deal of weight when it comes to compulsion.

Only if it is within their delegated authority and jurisdiction.

Congress' ordinary power is limited to legislative oversight. An impeachment inquiry by its nature must involve additional subject matter jurisdiction, but what this might be has never been clearly articulated by the Supreme Court.

In any case, fishing expeditions are simply not allowed, and that is all these people are engaging in.


"Do tell..."

Nothing to tell, it's obvious from your postings you are not a Libertarian.

There you go again, ignoring what is actually said and argue non-existent claims (I never claimed to be a 'Libertarian').

Do you not understand there is a huge difference between being a Libertarian - ie, a card carrying member of the party - and simply being libertarian leaning?


"Right - because you can't, because it isn't there. Got it."

Oh, it's there, I just looked at it again, still on page seven half way down.

Nope... the words 'impeach' or 'impeachment' don't exist anywhere in that post, or the linked article. The rules discussed are just the normal House Rules, applicable to the House's ordinary powers of legislative oversight. There is nothing 'legislative' about the impeachment process, and those rules don't apply.

Do try again, it is a lot of fun making you look foolish.


"Ahem - you're the one adding words that aren't there. I'm merely pointing out the obvious meaning of the words that are there."

I haven't added anything to the wording,

No, you haven't - you are doing something much more insidious. You are trying to alter the meaning of the words that are actually there.


I've merely pointed out that committees are Constitutional,

No one, let alone me, has claimed Congressional Committees are not Constitutional.

You know you are really making a total fool of yourself, don't you?


otherwise some halfwit with no legal degree would have been able to challenge that fact based solely on their opinion and none of the halfwits in Congress has done so, have they?

Wow, you just moved those goalposts from Georgia to Montana... way to go...

Not one single iota of my argument has anything whatsoever to do with Committees.



posted on Nov, 6 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Only if it is within their delegated authority and jurisdiction.
Congress' ordinary power is limited to legislative oversight.


Show me in the Constitution where it differentiates between your invented 'ordinary' and extraordinary' powers.



"Do tell..."here you go again, ignoring what is actually said and argue non-existent claims (I never claimed to be a 'Libertarian').


Nor do you have Libertarian leanings. Whatever the hell that halfassed position would be.


Do you not understand there is a huge difference between being a Libertarian - ie, a card carrying member of the party - and simply being libertarian leaning?


Yeah, one is possible, the other is not when you don't have any Libertarian views.


Nope... the words 'impeach' or 'impeachment' don't exist anywhere in that post, or the linked article. The rules discussed are just the normal House Rules, applicable to the House's ordinary powers of legislative oversight. There is nothing 'legislative' about the impeachment process, and those rules don't apply.


Here you go again. Then Why isn't anyone in Congress following your advice?


No, you haven't - you are doing something much more insidious. You are trying to alter the meaning of the words that are actually there.


Says the guy talking about 'extraordinary' powers for Congress when that word doesn't appear in the Constitution.


No one, let alone me, has claimed Congressional Committees are not Constitutional.


Your implication is that the impeachment inquiry, being conducted by a committee, is not Constitutional because of your personal view that every member of the House needs to participate. You're wrong. As usual.


Wow, you just moved those goalposts from Georgia to Montana... way to go...



Your point is you understand the Constitution better than us and Congress and that what is happening is un-Constitutional, yet no one, except you, seems to be taking this tact. Why is that O Great and Awesome Legal Scholar?


Not one single iota of my argument has anything whatsoever to do with Committees.


You keep telling yourself that, I'm sure you believe that just as much as your dopey argument about extraordinary powers.



posted on Nov, 10 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Show me in the Constitution where it differentiates between your invented 'ordinary' and extraordinary' powers.

You know, it is mildly amusing that you actually can't seem to grasp how 'the sole Power of Impeachment' - the power to remove a sitting and duly elected President, thereby nullifying the results of an American Presidential election - is an extra-ordinary power. I mean, it has only been exercised 3 times in our 240+yr history. Yeah, pretty ordinary.

Anyway - Article I Section II is where the HoR is created. Article I Section VIII sets out the enumerated Powers of Congress. Only a few are specifically for the House - ie, all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House.

Then, in Article I Section II Clause V, you have the very specific delegation of 'the sole Power of Impeachment' delegated to the HoR. Not an individual member or members, the whole House.

Now, go ahead and start dancing again, but I have to tell you, you're really bad at it.


Nor do you have Libertarian leanings. Whatever the hell that halfassed position would be.

Yeah, fascists like yourself cannot comprehend rational, logical thought when it comes to political theory.


Yeah, one is possible, the other is not when you don't have any Libertarian views.

Said the fascist pretending to be a Libertarian.


"Nope... the words 'impeach' or 'impeachment' don't exist anywhere in that post, or the linked article. The rules discussed are just the normal House Rules, applicable to the House's ordinary powers of legislative oversight. There is nothing 'legislative' about the impeachment process, and those rules don't apply."

Here you go again. Then Why isn't anyone in Congress following your advice?

Irrelevant - you claimed that those Rules specified they were applicable to impeachment proceedings. I challenged you. You failed to support your claim. Denied.


Says the guy talking about 'extraordinary' powers for Congress when that word doesn't appear in the Constitution.

It is mildly amusing that you actually can't seem to grasp how 'the sole Power of Impeachment' - the power to remove a sitting and duly elected President, thereby nullifying the results of an American Presidential election - is an extra-ordinary power. I mean, it has only been exercised 3 times in our 240+yr history. Yeah, pretty ordinary.


"No one, let alone me, has claimed Congressional Committees are not Constitutional."

Your implication

There you go again, making stuff up... I can't help it if you infer something that is not contained in the words I write. Maybe you should stop trying to infer, and just read what is written - but be sure to have a dictionary handy, since you seem to have problems with the meanings of certain words.


is that the impeachment inquiry, being conducted by a committee, is not Constitutional because of your personal view that every member of the House needs to participate. You're wrong. As usual.

What is wrong is your inference.

I never claimed that 'every member of the HoR needs to participate'. What I intended to say - if I never actually said it specifically, my apologies - is that every single member of the HoR must be allowed to fully participate if they so desire. Meaning, no member of the HoR can lawfully be denied the ability to fully participate by any other member or group of members.

This means no denying a member - any member - access to any hearing - with the sole exception being whether or not classified information is being discussed, in those cases, only members with the proper clearance would be eligible to participate, and could not lawfully be denied.

A committee can engage in an intitial examination of charge(s) in any way they choose, but this doesn't give them any extra-ordinary powers over and above their normal powers of legislative oversight.



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
You know, it is mildly amusing that you actually can't seem to grasp how 'the sole Power of Impeachment' - the power to remove a sitting and duly elected President, thereby nullifying the results of an American Presidential election - is an extra-ordinary power. I mean, it has only been exercised 3 times in our 240+yr history. Yeah, pretty ordinary.


You know why I can't grasp it? Because the Constitution doesn't say it's extra-ordinary, that's you.


Yeah, fascists like yourself cannot comprehend rational, logical thought when it comes to political theory.


Ohhh, burn, 'fascist'. Wow, you got me. Yeah, me and my fascist views for Libertarianism.



Said the fascist pretending to be a Libertarian.


Oh, burn again. You're on a roll son, you must be butter.


Irrelevant...


No, totally relevant, Junior Constitutional Scholar. If you're right someone would have taken this tact.



It is mildly amusing that you actually can't seem to grasp how 'the sole Power of Impeachment' - the power to remove a sitting and duly elected President, thereby nullifying the results of an American Presidential election - is an extra-ordinary power. I mean, it has only been exercised 3 times in our 240+yr history. Yeah, pretty ordinary.


See above, repeating yourself only makes you look like you have a memory issue.



There you go again, making stuff up...


Like the guy who adds 'extraordinary' into the Constitution?


What is wrong is your inference.

I never claimed that 'every member of the HoR needs to participate'. What I intended to say - if I never actually said it specifically, my apologies - is that every single member of the HoR must be allowed to fully participate if they so desire. Meaning, no member of the HoR can lawfully be denied the ability to fully participate by any other member or group of members.


Your personal view is still wrong. But hey, when someone on the Republican's side takes your strategy let us know.



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlesT

Closed door yes. But both parties are present.
and now they have released the transcripts where you can read the question the GOP members got to ask.

Next week when this is all televised what will the excuse be?



posted on Nov, 11 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You know why I can't grasp it? Because the Constitution doesn't say it's extra-ordinary, that's you.

It also doesn't say you have the right to breathe. I wonder how yoiu have survived all these years without breathing?

Again, anyone who cannot grasp the very simple concept that Impeachment is an extra-ordinary remedy - especially with respect to the removal of the President - by the very nature of what it is intended to accomplish - over-turn the results of a Presidential election, nullifying the votes of the people who voted for said President - well, lets just say they should probably be kept away from sharp objects..


If you're right someone would have taken this tact.

Said the Inquisition to Galileo.


"It is mildly amusing that you actually can't seem to grasp how 'the sole Power of Impeachment' - the power to remove a sitting and duly elected President, thereby nullifying the results of an American Presidential election - is an extra-ordinary power. I mean, it has only been exercised 3 times in our 240+yr history. Yeah, pretty ordinary."

See above, repeating yourself only makes you look like you have a memory issue.

Repetition is apparently necessary in some stubborn cases, but apparently, yours is simply a case of TDS, and nothing has been found that can penetrate that wall of delusion.


"What is wrong is your inference.

I never claimed that 'every member of the HoR needs to participate'. What I intended to say - if I never actually said it specifically, my apologies - is that every single member of the HoR must be allowed to fully participate if they so desire. Meaning, no member of the HoR can lawfully be denied the ability to fully participate by any other member or group of members."

Your personal view is still wrong.

Yeah, the tired old 'liar liar pants on fire' retort, when nothing else avails.




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join