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: 16
55
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

If anyone actually believes Trump is a serial criminal destroying the Constitution, I don't see how they could disagree with that statement. If Trump is a criminal, Pelosi is now an accomplice.

TheRedneck




posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

This is correct. If anyone *cough* lefties *cough* doubts it, imagine a cop writes you a ticket but never turns it in to the courts. What happens? You're never "charged" (charged being the equivalent of impeached). In this case, the court is the senate. Until the house reports the charges (also known as impeachment) to the senate, the president has not been impeached.



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Somebody better alert the press!




posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Literally, fake news. Also worth noting, for the sake of giving the fake news press a break, many of those headlines were written before pelosi said she was withholding the articles from the senate to use as some form of leverage.

Take my prior example and imagine the press saw you get pulled over and ticketed and wrote their headlines: "[you] has been charged with a misdemeanor!" It's a logical jump but it's not accurate and if the cop never turns in your ticket, their headlines are wrong.

ETA:
I have no doubt that pelosi will submit the articles, probably in early january after realizing she has no power in the senate. So in time these headlines will be correct, but at the time they were printed they were not. BUT, if she tries to hang on to these articles until after the 2020 election and a new congress convenes, these headlines will all be wrong. As of this moment in time, trump is not an impeached president. He's close to impeached, but legally he is not.
edit on 22-12-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Dfairlite

Somebody better alert the press!



Oh No! It was a headline on a newspaper. When is the last time someone bought a newspaper other than to line a birdcage or to train a puppy where to pee? Where are you from? 1984?
edit on 22-12-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2019 by MRinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

How many of those authors were Constitutional lawyers? How many were lawyers? How many knew the difference between an infraction, a misdemeanor, and a felony? How many of them could debate their way out of a bogus traffic ticket?

I'd wager none, on all counts above.

And these are your 'legal experts.' That explains a lot, actually. Reporters do not determine legal issues. Sorry to break that to you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




How many of those authors were Constitutional lawyers?


I get that you agree with Noah Feldman's opinion, on this. Do you also agree with his opinion that Trump committed impeachable acts, and should be removed from office?



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


I get that you agree with Noah Feldman's opinion, on this. Do you also agree with his opinion that Trump committed impeachable acts, and should be removed from office?

No. I do not. I have explained my reasoning ad nauseum in this thread already.

My point was not that I blindly follow any legal opinion, but that I do listen to them before I listen to a headline. So far you have not provided supporting opinions (much less evidence) from anyone except reporters and most of them are pundits. Your entire argument seems to be that "This reporter said it, so it has to be true." I reject that out of hand.

Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter? I have, a few times when I was running a business. They knew nothing, absolutely nothing, about what they were reporting on. All they did was ask a few questions and then run a headline. I spent more time trying to educate them as to why their questions were nonsensical than I did actually answering questions, and they still never got what I said exactly right... at that point, I was just happy they got close. Reporters know how to quickly write articles; they are experts on absolutely nothing else.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

I dont know, what if you show up to the courthouse with the intention of paying the fine? Kind of hard for me to believe that they wouldn't take your money and then backtrack to link it to the paperwork later.

I expect nancy will either hand the impeachment over to the senate soon after they return or announce that they are holding it for revision because of new facts that have come out. If revised, it will have to be voted on again more than likely .. resulting in a new impeachment. Which means this impeachment would be null and void with her announcement.
But like I already said, if they were hold onto it for an extended time using the impeachment for political purposes, i think they would be going contrary to the spirit of the constitution by delaying his right to a timely fair hearing in the senate. If they were to do this you would get no argument from me that the impeachment is unconstitutional. Of course, I think certain members of the senate has already denied him of that fair trial by voicing the intentions so early in the process. They've about obliterated any chance that about half the country will believe their final decision on it.



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

So that means a Bill passed by both House and Senate is a Law even though it still has to go to the POTUS and get signed?


Does he sign off bills now?

My reading of things is that the House and Senate must place the impeachment of the President at special priority above all other work. The President should not be receiving any bills to sign.

If he has any bills to sign, it would only be because he has a backlog, and that because he hasn't been dealing with the work in a timely manner.


Ok, So the impeachment resolution was passed on 12/18/2019:


Sponsor: Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] (Introduced 12/10/2019)
Committees: House - Judiciary
Latest Action: House - 12/18/2019 Motion to reconsider Article II laid on the table. Agreed to without objection. (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes: There have been 2 roll call votes


Since that time, President Trump has had 15 bills presented to him for signature, 11 of which have been signed into law.

Legislative Search Results - (archive.is page of referenced link, actual link breaks in bbcode)

So apparently, the (semi)impeached president is still doing his job.
edit on 23-12-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: edited to change congressional seacrh result link



posted on Dec, 23 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Now that I've had more time to consider it I'm of a different mindset. Trump is impeached. Whether pelosi sends it to the senate or not, they can hold a trial.

Here's what changed my mind; the house voted and passed this resolution which states:



RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:


The house has declared trump impeached. That is where their responsibility ends, constitutionally speaking.

Here's the constitutional text on their responsibilities:



The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.


Having passed a resolution calling the president impeached, they have fulfilled their constitutional duty in the process. It now moves to the senate regardless of what the house does.

Here is the constitutional text on the senate responsibilities:



The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.


The senate is fully aware of the resolution to impeach, which changes the calculus of my prior argument. I made the mistake of assuming the court was unaware of your charges. The police officer is now attempting to hold onto the ticket as leverage over the court. The court doesn't need the police officer or the ticket to acquit someone. The ticket and the officer are evidence and witness, for conviction purposes. Consider that if your ticketing officer doesn't show up for your court date, you are acquitted by default as there is no witness to counter your testimony that you did not violate the law.

So the senate can set the trial date and if the house refuses to appear to defend their charges (which they detailed in the impeachment resolution), trump will be acquitted by default as there is no accuser. Mitch needs to set the trial date ASAP.



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Lol... mitch is home sitting by the fireplace sipping rum spiked egg nog admiring that poor baby Christmas tree that has been sacrificed that has been decorated so magnificently in their traditional celebration of the hybrid christian/pagan holiday. Why dont you write him and demand he calls the senate members and demand they return to dc.. and begin the proceeding tomorrow.. asap means next year, ain't none of them will be willing to give up their christmas break unless theres a major emergency that needs to be addressed.

All this bickering is just them trying to politicize the fact that they have put a halt on all of their duties till they come back from their oh much needed break. At least Schumer is trying to give the impression that hes willing to iron out some of the details during the break. Mitch seems to just be saying get back to me next year. Nancy's just giving them an excuse to ignore it and enjoy their holiday. So, maybe the media and public should just take their lead, and forget about it and enjoy the holidays.



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

You know, when I come across someone who is all gung ho about something, then decides at the last minute to drag it out, I tend to get a bit draggy myself. If you offer to buy a car from me, we discuss it, you're telling me you need it in a hurry, then you decide to hold up the payment while you obsess over when you want to pay me... too bad, I'm going to sell it to someone else who is serious.

So yeah, Mitch should be enjoying his Christmas.

Nancy Pelosi is holding up the works. Not Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell is not sitting on Articles of Impeachment wanting to tell the sole arbiter of the trial according to the Constitution what to do. You can try to spin this any way you want to... doesn't change a damn thing, except for making you look even more partisan.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Ya, as if all those senators would be in dc right now working on their hearing if only polosi would have rushed the document to them faster..
If you dont mind, I'll start worrying about the formal presentation of the articles to the senate next year. Till then it all just produces a few interesting discussions, like weather there's really an impeachment. A discussion which probably shouldn't be saturated with much partisanship since it's merely an exploration of the constitution and law.



posted on Dec, 24 2019 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The point is, you overlook Pelosi's obvious lack of candor based on her actions while attributing evil fantasy thoughts to McConnell without any actions on his part to back them up.

Your allegations would go much much farther toward credibility without adjusting your position based on party affiliation.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
55
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join