Strategy to avoid impeachment .

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
who will enforce the committees subpoenas?

why would one comply with such a sham process?

how will they impeach with no evidence?

a reply to: shooterbrody

The administration refuses to testify than they blew their chance to present contrary evidence if it goes beyond the inquiry stage.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: shooterbrody

The administration refuses to testify than they blew their chance to present contrary evidence if it goes beyond the inquiry stage.

hahahahaha
you just make that up?
ahahahaha
that is rich

also it demonstrates the attention to fairness this process is exposing....

1. The authority for House Committees for investigate matters and issue subpoenas is established by House vote at the beginning of each Congressional session.

2. Anyone who doesn't comply with Congressional subpoenas are subject to Contempt of Congress (a majority vote).

3. Contempt of Congress would be turned over to a Federal Attorney for prosecution.

4. An impeachment can begin in many different ways including a referral to a House Committee.

Establishing the facts of the matter again.

a reply to: shooterbrody

No, that's how a trial works. Both sides get to present their evidence. If they want to forgo that part of the process that's their call.

Maybe everyone should just take whatever some politician says at face value, right? Especially if it's the clown in the White House.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, that's how a trial works.

As ascribed here many times over this process is no trial.

Both sides get to present their evidence.

no again
secret hearings with no minority participation is what is ruling the day

have you even been following this event?

If they want to forgo that part of the process that's their call.

they have not even been invited to participate

the is where the whole house vote has entered past events
it defines the scope and process rules
this event we got a presser with the speaker.....it is why we cant have nice things karen

Maybe everyone should just take whatever some politician says at face value, right? Especially if it's the clown in the White House.

innocent until proven guilty and all that, right?
pesky values....

originally posted by: shooterbrody
As ascribed here many times over this process is no trial.

Because it hasn't gotten to that stage. Why is this so hard for you to follow? I've posted the process multiple times.

no again
secret hearings with no minority participation is what is ruling the day

So if it came before the Senate the administration couldn't present their side? Rhetorical.

they have not even been invited to participate

See above.

the is where the whole house vote has entered past events

That's nice, it isn't a requirement.

it defines the scope and process rules

Actually, it doesn't do anything except to you where the Representatives sentiments lie before it begins. Good for your feelz, not for much else.

innocent until proven guilty and all that, right?

Which is why you don't take things at face value, kinda proves the whole point. If nothing happened nothing will happen.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I've posted the process multiple times.

no
you have posted the dnc talking point about the process

secret hearings with no minority participation is what is ruling the day

still what is actually going on

funny how all of a sudden precedent has no place
especially when trump of all people has been call out for not being fit because of past presidents precedence
lol
"it is not a requirement"

only when convenient it seems

the bamn is gonna cost them
not that any of them seem to care

originally posted by: shooterbrody
no
you have posted the dnc talking point about the process

This is the DNC?

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

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.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

—Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

Anything about House votes prior to beginning an inquiry? No? That's because it's not required.

funny how all of a sudden precedent has no place

Is it required by the Constitution? No? Then it's optional.

especially when trump of all people has been call out for not being fit because of past presidents precedence

Oh, boo-hoo for Donny. Tell the mary to suck it up.

Anything about House votes prior to beginning an inquiry? No? That's because it's not required.

just the 2 modern examples of such
both are wrong tho.....tlb

Interesting no mention of committees or speakers in the document...
pay that no mind tho.....

they should just vote then
the articles are not mentioned in the constitution
just vote and send it to the senate
right?

Impeachment and Removal - Congressional Research Service

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-Members, such as when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests that the House may wish to consider impeachment of a federal judge, where an independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment, by message from the President,by a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury, or by petition.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Interesting no mention of committees or speakers in the document...

Are you actually reading the thread? It was posted already that each Congress sets the rules they want to use on impeachment or uses the preexisting ones. There is no rule about talking a full vote prior to an inquiry so unless it's changed it's optional.

Talk about being obtuse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

He's not going to read that too.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
i have read the rules
no mention of impeachment
nice try

also still ignoring precedent
tlb

also the rag 66 keep spamming only shows paths for members to initiate a full house vote to begin proceedings
the president is not a judge
again nice try

originally posted by: shooterbrody
i have read the rules
no mention of impeachment

What? That's directly from the Constitution on the subject of impeachment. It literally has the word 'impeachment' in the clause.

also still ignoring precedent

Precedent is not relevant, the rules are and there's no rule about taking a vote, unless you can find something that doesn't exist.

the president is not a judge
again nice try

You make less and less sense with each post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
your spin is dull
no vote no impeachment inquiry no matter how many times you stomp your foot

mr green got a vote
that alone is precedent for this session

all thats left is nancy bs gambit
it is why she holds regular updates on when they will take a vote to begin

hope she thinks it was worth it next session
it will be one way to be rid of sotomeyor, rgb ect

originally posted by: shooterbrody
your spin is dull

The Constitution isn't spin no matter how petulant you get over it.

no vote no impeachment inquiry no matter how many times you stomp your foot

I'm not the one upset about there not being a vote homeslice, that's you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I understand. I just wanted to provide factual evidence for anyone who might be reading along.

May I say, on a personal note, you have the patience of Job, my friend.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
one east coast elites

petulant

is a flyovers simple disagreement

it is text
take what you like

I'm not the one upset about there not being a vote homeslice, that's you.

lol
nope
especially not from a baby eating mason
not in the least!

nice try tho

a reply to: Gryphon66

I run a sales team for a living, so I'm used to baby sitting.