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.

 

Impeachment Vote Begins

page: 17
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
...AND what exactly are we "impeaching" him for again???
edit on 18-12-2019 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:06 PM
link   
www.scotusblog.com... and one more lower ruling

3. Judge John Bates’ ruling in Miers Although district court decisions do not have the same precedential force as rulings by the Supreme Court and courts of appeals, one ruling from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia subsequent to the D.C. Circuit’s Judicial Watch decision may provide further insight into the scope of executive privilege today. In House Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, Judge John Bates held that neither current nor former senior advisers to the president are absolutely immune from compelled congressional process—rejecting a claim that “executive privilege” protected the White House chief of staff or the former White House counsel from compliance with otherwise valid congressional subpoenas. In the process, Bates rejected the White House’s argument that the Supreme Court’s 1974 Nixon decision was limited to criminal subpoenas:

Congress’s power of inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very heart of Congress’s constitutional role. Indeed, the former is necessary to the proper exercise of the latter: according to the Supreme Court, the ability to compel testimony is “necessary to the effective functioning of courts and legislatures.” Thus, Congress’s use of (and need for vindication of) its subpoena power in this case is no less legitimate or important than was the grand jury’s in United States v. Nixon. Both involve core functions of a co-equal branch of the federal government, and for the reasons identified in Nixon, the President may only be entitled to a presumptive, rather than an absolute, privilege here. And it is certainly the case that if the President is entitled only to a presumptive privilege, his close advisors cannot hold the superior card of absolute immunity.

The district court did not reach the merits of the privilege claim in Miers. And the government’s appeal was voluntarily dismissed after the parties settled. But Bates’ ruling stands as the only decision to date that expressly rejects an effort to distinguish the Nixon analysis as not applying to congressional subpoenas, and it rejects the argument that current or former senior White House advisors enjoy absolute testimonial immunity vis-à-vis Congress. If other courts follow Bates’ lead, that would have significant ramifications for executive privilege claims against Congress going forward. Much remains unanswered by the courts, but the guidance from Espy, Judicial Watch and Miers should go a long way toward separating colorable privilege claims from those that are patently meritless. 4. Lessons for the future In its 1977 ruling in United States v. AT&T Co., the D.C. Circuit refused to resolve a dispute between the DOJ and the House of Representatives arising out of a subpoena the House had issued to a private company for records that DOJ claimed were protected by executive privilege. As Judge Harold Leventhal wrote: The framers … relied, we believe, on the expectation that where conflicts in scope of authority arose between the coordinate branches, a spirit of dynamic compromise would promote resolution of the dispute in the manner most likely to result in efficient and effective functioning of our governmental system. Under this view, the coordinate branches do not exist in an exclusively adversary relationship to one another when a conflict in authority arises. Rather, each branch should take cognizance of an implicit constitutional mandate to seek optimal accommodation through a realistic evaluation of the needs of the conflicting branches in the particular fact situation. This aspect of our constitutional scheme avoids the mischief of polarization of disputes.
well we are certianly past the polarization threshold
edit on Wed Dec 18 2019 by DontTreadOnMe because: made paragraphs



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
So what time will they finally vote?

How many hours are we into a 6 hour debate?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
...AND what exactly are we "impeaching" him for again???


Tiny hands.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
...AND what exactly are we "impeaching" him for again???


for being orange



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I think this is hr. 12



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Who cut the cheese?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
...AND what exactly are we "impeaching" him for again???


He ate fast food on an airplane.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
Who cut the cheese?


Guilty.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: HawkeyeNation

nope house can impeach him just like clinton was,then it goes to the senate for trial and likely acquittal with cheif justice roberts acting as a symbolic judge with little to no actual power over the senate impeachment vote/trial . no he does not have to step down unless the senate votes to remove him OR censure him which is basically a slap on the wrist



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
We need more chick in green shirt. Make it so.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
...AND what exactly are we "impeaching" him for again???


...because he won an election and they cannot accept that.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Ugh! 2 1/2 more hours to go with all of these speeches. My hubby is looking at me like I am insane for having this on my phone in the background. Every time he enters, he just hears the same speech from both sides!



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I love how they keep repeating that withholding aid from Ukraine endangered our national security.

who are these clowns fooling?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: toolgal462

The morons that blindly support them...?



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

That's not how it works. The House passes a bill. The Senate then makes changes and passes their version of the bill. It then goes back to the House for approval or further changes.

McConnell is preventing the Constitutionality built in system of compromise by not bringing these bills to the floor.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Oh my! John Lewis ranting speech is making me laugh!
Just cannot help myself at how it is so wrong after listening to his angst the past couple years.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I thought I was in Church. Guy ought to be a preacher.



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I must agree that Trump was not in office when Russia was allowed to annex Crimea from Ukraine. That was the prior administration who refused to assist our ally with weapons.

Edit add: as an aside. Naturally Trump would say the 'Quid Pro quo' phrase to Sondland's after the news used that phrase and Sondland's seen the article and called Trump and asked. It was not cya for Trump but clarification to Sondland's!
edit on 12 18 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I must agree that Trump was not in office when Russia was allowed to annex Crimea from Ukraine. That was the prior administration who refused to assist our ally with weapons.


Oh hush Obama isn't president so this isn't about him. Only Trump can be falsely accused of non crimes and impeached.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join