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.

 

Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Sookiechacha


The United States and Russia will become Strong Allies in the Next Ten Years Out of Necessity . The Future Circumstances of the Geo Politics of Planet Earth Will Request It ..........

That reminds me of a Nostradamus prediction I heard about in the 80’s. One of the quatrains was interpreted by some as possibly alluding to Russia and the US joining forces to fight another common enemy. I remember thinking at the time that was kind of crazy ... but ya never know.
edit on 21-12-2019 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

But, the trial is in the senate. The house took the role of investigator and grand jury.. and we can just let the fact that this isnt a criminal case that could result in incarceration. It's more like someone has been accused of doing something wrong in their job... who knows, maybe they failed their drug test.
How many people would be granted legal representation if the cops suspected them of a crime and decided to investigate them? It's very possible that they wouldn't even know that they are being investigated. They could have cops parked outside their home, their phone calls might be monitored, they might have an undercover cop show up trying to be buddy buddy with them. The same with the grand jury. It's basically a secret, closed door event. The accused doesnt get to know who the witnesses are, or the jurors, the accused lawyers arent allowed to cross examine the witnesses. They arent allowed to give their opinion on weather any of the witnesses are biased.
All that happens after the indictment comes in, at the trial.
And the fact that minorities are so over represented in our jails seem to indicate that their is a bit of bias in our legal system.

Now, if you are an employee, your rights, well let's just say that many employees basically have no rights. They can be fired on a whim.

Dont give me this oh, if this can happen to the president, it can happen to any of us... it is happening to some of us now! Flash grenades going off in baby cribs blowing up in baby's faces, mental health workers gunned down in the street because the cops mistake the toy truck their patient is playing with for a gun, cops storming the wrong house, just how many wild and crazy stories have we ran across in the past few years? The president was granted more priviledge than any of us would be, even if we were just innocent bystanders! And then he gets to have his trial with a jury packed with members of his own party!
Agnew was selling off contracts while he was in state govt and literally had people showing up in is White House office with bagfulls of money. He was pardoned on the federal level and it took the state quite a few years of court fights just to recoup a little bit of the loss his wheeling and dealing caused. And of course no jail time.
Oh if only we peons could recieve the same treatment as the big fishies in the pond. We recently had a suspected murderer roaming around in our neck of the woods. The cops believed he was holed up in a camper that they believed belonged to the guy. They totally destroyed the camper.. now they are saying that they dont believe the guy was ever there. And I kind of think I read that the camper wasn't his... so, assuming that I am right, and it wasn't his camper.... are you willing to bet that the owners will get just compensation for the damages the cops did to their camper and their personal property within it? Or will this just be another oops, we are sorry but it sucks yo be you?? Just what would be enough just compensation even when you throw a flash grenade through a window and it lands in a crib next to a sleeping baby because you thought someone was in that house. Oh, so soory, we were wrong, guess he wasn't here after all...
Screw you and your look how badly they are treating our president! Has that president said anything on behalf of those innocent people who were gunned down in the shootout with the hijackers of the ups truck or any of the others who end up being harmed by over zealous, negligent, under trained cops?
Oh, look how poorly the treated roger stone!! If he was any of us, they would have probably stormed the house, shot his terrified dog for whimpering in the corner, strip searched his wife and had her standing out in the cold in her nightgown, sliced up all their furniture, put holes in the walls, threw everything in every cupboards and drawer onto the floor, and left them with a few hundred thousand in damages! But, at least they can say they got the right house!!



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sorry. Neither the Constitution nor applicable law say anything about a requirement for "articles" to be transferred from House to Senate. If you think there is such a requirement then please quote it here. It is sufficient that the vote in the House has taken place and the result is in the congressional record.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Detergent
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sorry. Neither the Constitution nor applicable law say anything about a requirement for "articles" to be transferred from House to Senate. If you think there is such a requirement then please quote it here. It is sufficient that the vote in the House has taken place and the result is in the congressional record.


Problem is this will be an impeachment with an asterisk since it was not sent to the senate. So it will go down in history books as a fake impeachment. Basically turns impeachment into censure its on congressional record with no ramifications.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Detergent
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sorry. Neither the Constitution nor applicable law say anything about a requirement for "articles" to be transferred from House to Senate. If you think there is such a requirement then please quote it here. It is sufficient that the vote in the House has taken place and the result is in the congressional record.


I have shared this precedence earlier, but perhaps it was missed.


On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached (the first being Andrew Johnson, who was impeached in 1868) when the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate for adjudication.


The House has formally adopted the articles of Impeachment...Impeachment is not formalized until they are actually forwarded to the Senate for adjudication. The word phrasing 'and forward them', means to physically transfer the articles to the Senate to make impeachment official. It is not an either nor or statement. It is a conjunctive requirement.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar


But, the trial is in the senate. The house took the role of investigator and grand jury.. and we can just let the fact that this isnt a criminal case that could result in incarceration.

Yes, the trial is in the Senate... is that a surprise to anyone? It's plainly spelled out in the Constitution. The accusatory evidence presented, however, is that which was obtained through the investigation in the House, and all of it is tainted.

As for this being a job thing, no... an American citizen stands to lose some of his civil rights. As it is Trump has the same rights we all do to run for political office. You or I can also run for President, assuming we are both natural-born citizens and at least 35 years old. We may not be able to get enough votes to show up on the radar, but we can run. If Trump is convicted, he loses that right. He will no longer be permitted to run for any political office.

It's not about just "incarceration." Incarceration is simply the most common loss of rights we are familiar with. Any removal of rights requires a conviction according to criminal standards.


Dont give me this oh, if this can happen to the president, it can happen to any of us... it is happening to some of us now!

I did, and I will. If you really cared about those problems, you would be just as incensed as I about this travesty. "Getting even" fixes nothing. "An eye for an eye" leaves the whole world blind.

This train of thought you are going down now is an evil from the bowels of Hell itself. It is an invitation to ever-increasing dictatorship and ever-decreasing liberty. If you want a society free from abuse of authority, then you have to oppose all abuses of authority. Anything else is a vote for more abuse.


Screw you and your look how badly they are treating our president! Has that president said anything on behalf of those innocent people who were gunned down in the shootout with the hijackers of the ups truck or any of the others who end up being harmed by over zealous, negligent, under trained cops?

No, thanks; I don't think you're my type.

That is an issue for the police. Do you really expect any one man in national office to get involved in every crime that occurs? Really? So you want Nancy Pelosi to come help investigate the next robbery in your town? Or how about Adam Schiff... shouldn't he be somewhere helping solve a crime?

Really, you are off the deep end here, and it sounds like you are so far off it that there's no bringing you back. You seem so angry about crime in the streets (as you should be) that you yourself are becoming filled with the same hatred that begets that crime (which you shouldn't be). You want to fix those issues? Try getting involved in something other than hatred. Try starting up a neighborhood watch, keep an eye on your local law enforcement officials, and call them out when they let crime slide. That might actually do some good. Screaming at the sky because "orange man bad" will not.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Detergent


Sorry. Neither the Constitution nor applicable law say anything about a requirement for "articles" to be transferred from House to Senate. If you think there is such a requirement then please quote it here.

No, I will not "quote it here." I already explained it on page 1. If you are too lazy to click a link and read, that's on you.

ThRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts




Impeachment is not formalized until they are actually forwarded to the Senate for adjudication.


No. That's like saying a person indicted by a grand jury isn't really indicted until the prosecutor files a formal charge and sets a trial date.

The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try impeachments.

Trump has been formally impeached by the House of Representatives. He has yet to be tried and convicted or acquitted of the charges enumerated within the articles of impeachment by the Senate.


edit on 21-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: OCD

edit on 21-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: CynConcepts




Impeachment is not formalized until they are actually forwarded to the Senate for adjudication.


No. That's like saying a person indicted by a grand jury isn't really indicted until the prosecutor files a formal charge and sets a trial date.

Trump has been formally impeached by the House of Representatives. He has yet to be tried and convicted or acquitted of the charges enumerated within the articles of impeachment by the Senate.



so does the Senate need those articles to hold the trial?



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


That's like saying a person indicted by a grand jury isn't really indicted until the prosecutor files a formal charge and sets a trial date.

Damn close this time! The indictment is not formalized and valid until it is accepted by the prosecutor so charges may be filed. That's why it is referred to as "handing down" an indictment.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Absolutely! But prosecutors don't immediately file charges against a defendant, and run to the courts to set a trial date when they get an indictment. They regroup and put together their upcoming "court" case.

Don't worry. The Senate will get those articles. Like I said, the articles were adopted Wednesday night. Congress left for holiday recess Friday night. The House still has to select their managers "prosecutors". The managers are the ones who formally present the articles over to the Senate, not the Speaker.

What we've seen is a couple days of Trumpian political knee jerk hysterics just before a 2 week recess. I don't expect total sanity in January, but I expect political business will have taken place during the break and the managers will be formally appointed or elected, and they will present those articles to Senate post haste. I also suspect Senators will have also spoken to one another and have some consensus of what kind of rules they want to employ.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



"handing down" an indictment.


Handing down an indictment, or returning an indictment to the judge who oversaw the grand jury....
I think the proverbial judge in this case is the Speaker of the House, not the Senate.

If the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach. Then Trump is impeached through their sole power.

Even though William Jefferson Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, their acquittal didn't annul the House's impeachment. William Jefferson Clinton remains an impeached president.


edit on 21-12-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa




Oh, and, the leading presidential candidate for the Democratic party calling 1/2 the citizens of the country deplorable is "presidential" to you?


It's no more impeachable of an offense than Trump calling all Democrats traitors who hate America.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

but isn't the impeachment the case that the house has against Trump? If that is the case, why do they want to call witnesses that haven't been called yet? They made their case, voted on it, and passed it based on the "facts" they have. I heard it said that the house has sole power of impeachment and the senate has SOLE power to try the case. If that is the way that document was written, what right does Pelosi have to dictate how the senate does their business? I don't remember the senate trying to force the house to be fair.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Handing down and indictment, or returning an indictment to the judge who oversaw the grand jury....
I think the proverbial judge in this case is the Speaker of the House, not the Senate.

You think wrong.

    The Senators are the jury.

    Trump is the defendant.

    The managers sent by the House are the prosecutor.

    The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the judge.

    The House is the grand jury.

The grand jury foreman... that would be Pelosi.


If the House of Representatives has the sole power to impeach. Then Trump is impeached through their sole power.

They do have the sole power to impeach. The Senate cannot refuse to accept Articles of Impeachment. But the House still has to deliver them... there is nothing that requires the Senate to go to Pelosi and beg for the Articles of Impeachment, and without those Articles of Impeachment there can be no trial because there are no charges to try.

If there are no charges to try, how can there be an indictment / impeachment?


Even though William Jefferson Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, their acquittal didn't annul the House's impeachment. William Jefferson Clinton remains an impeached president.

No, the Senate cannot annul an impeachment, but they can render it moot by acquitting the accused. There was still an impeachment, but it was judged to be unworthy of removal of the President.

An impeachment is not guilt! An impeachment, like an indictment, is simply a formal accusation. Anyone can be indicted.. as has been said, a decent prosecutor can get an indictment on a ham sandwich. That is true and I should know; I have served on a grand jury before.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

That's a fact. Either one of two things are true:

1) He hasn't been impeached or
2) Pelosi is overreaching and the Senate can hold a trial at a time, place and manner of it's choosing.

Trial? I meant to say acquittal. There is no facts or evidence to try.

When do the criminals go to jail? Including that drunk Pelosi? Defrauding the US at a minimum, although I prefer High Treason and tribunals. And support it All the way without any sort of condition without any further input from the (censored 4 letter word)

Pelosi thinks she's still in charge
go have another dozen drinks that sloppy, low intelligence fool Pelosi
edit on 12/21/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He's right. They aren't real Americans or real people. They are common criminals, who Attorney Durham will make pay dearly for their treason.

And all those attempting to subvert the nation via socialism should be trembling also. And may they never rest easy again.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Dems are crazy they literally helped Trump win 2020. The masses will not vote for a party that are devious and like to manipulate their voters. They want equal justice not one sided justice.
edit on 21-12-2019 by ambassado12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the judge.


Your thinking is wrong.

The Chief Justice doesn't receive the articles of impeachment, and isn't invited to preside until the articles of impeachment are delivered to the Senate.

The Speaker of the House oversees the "grand jury", which is the body of the House of Representative. Once a grand jury hands down an indictment to the judge overseeing the grand jury, that indictment is referred back to the prosecutors office, who files charges. A separate judge is assigned to the case and hears the charges, pleas, and sets a trial date, not the judge that oversaw the grand jury and the returned indictment.



There was still an impeachment, but it was judged to be unworthy of removal of the President.


LOL "unworthy".

Clinton was acquitted, not because he was innocent, but because the crime, lying about consensual sex while under oath, didn't rise to a level that threatened the national interest, thus they determined that there was no need to remove him from office. The Senate didn't rule that the charges were "unworthy" of the House's impeachment.

Clinton is forever a impeached president, because the House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to remove from office, or not. Not to rule of the worthiness of the House's impeachment.



posted on Dec, 21 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Denying reality, typical defense.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join