Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

a reply to: dragonridr

Record American prosperity delivers tons of free time for ATS posting.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: dragonridr

Record American prosperity delivers tons of free time for ATS posting.

LOL ... yep, record American prosperity that is on the same trend-lines we've been on for the past six years or so.

I'm surprised, CWM, that you care to throw shade at prolific ATS posters though. Are you being ironic?

I'll summarize the situation again:

The House has received a referral from the IG of the Intelligence Community regarding possible illegal activity.

The House Intelligence Committee (and two others) are investigating this either as a properly initiated impeachment action or because the CIA whistleblower complaint is filed BY FEDERAL LAW with the Intelligence Committee charged with oversight.

The right to investigate and subpoena for the Intelligence Committee (and the other Committees in the House) is certified at the beginning of each Congressional Session by House action and recorded in the Rules of the House of Representatives for that session.

The reality is that NO VOTE is required to begin investigating anything within the purview of the House's authority which includes both CIA oversight and impeachment because that has already been certified at the beginning of the Session.

In the past Presidential impeachments, the House handled the particulars a bit differently, and I have said multiple times I think that's stupid and that I thought using the Ukraine matter as the basis was stupid. However, now that the Mueller Report and associated investigative materials will be available, the case for impeachment will be far stronger.

After this investigative period, it seems likely that the House will formalize the inquiry, pass it to the Justice Committee, which will develop a set of Articles, which will then be voted on by the House and if passed sent to the Senate.

And that's the way it is.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The constitution should not be subject to interpretation by anyone other than perhaps strict grammatical rules by those who know then well. It is black and white. It says what it says precisely.

a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Are you such a grammarian?

Is there a part of the Constitution you're speaking of directly?

a reply to: dfnj2015

Wrong, the U.S. Constitution is not "open to interpretation." You, and others in the left are ignoring the FACT that Schiff and other democrats like Pelosi, Swalwell, etc have been lying from the start... For crying out loud, Schiff MADE UP what POTUS Trump and the Ukrainian President talked about in their phone conversation. Plus Schiff's lies about having 100% evidence POTUS Trump colluded with Russia, which he has NEVER released because he never had such evidence, and you want to claim that we should trust a committee in which Schiff has complete control of, and in which he can change the narrative to whatever he wants?...

None of the Republicans, or even other Democrats, whom are part of the intelligence committee can tell anyone, even other representatives or Senators, what happened in the SCIF. If anyone whom has access to the evidence/witnesses in the SCIF leaks anything they can be prosecuted by Schiff, and he has threatened to do so.

SCIFs are only supposed to be used for the intelligence committee, and some other officials such as the POTUS, VP, etc, to investigate/discuss counter-terrorism ops, and other ops that should remain a secret. SCIFs are not supposed to be used for impeachment because none of the information/conversations done in the SCIF can be known, or shown to the public or to other representatives or Senators, and impeachment is supposed to be an open inquiry for all members of the House and Senate. Not to mention the fact that only the chairman, Schiff, can divulge whatever information he wants to divulge that was used in the SCIF... Because it is an impeachment, by way of a SCIF, neither the POTUS, nor the VP among other officials, will not be able to get access to the SCIF. Hence they won't know what the witnesses said, the witnesses cannot be cross-examined, Republicans can't bring their own witnesses, unless they change the rules, etc. This means again that only Schiff will be able to make public whatever he wants.

As I have stated before, the House can have a close door inquiry for impeachment, or a vote on whether to impeach, but ALL representatives of the House, and later during the adjudication in the Senate, all members of the House and Senate have access to all evidence, and witnesses, plus they all can cross examine the witnesses. But because Schiff is doing the ILLEGAL investigation using a SCIF he has full control of the narrative, and he can make public only what he wants the public to believe without having to present one iota of evidence.

In other words, Schiff and other democrats like Pelosi want to control the narrative and for the public, and even most of the representatives and Senators, not to know the truth.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Are you such a grammarian?

Is there a part of the Constitution you're speaking of directly?

Better than being a liar, more so when you full well know that Mueller's report was written by the pro-Clinton democrats, and not by Mueller and there was NO EVIDENCE showing any collusion between POTUS Trump, or his campaign staff, with the Russians. There was also NO EVIDENCE of obstruction of justice, if there was the pro-Clinton democrats wouldn't have been able to finish the "Mueller report", and wouldn't have been able to release their lies about "but maybe we can impeach because maybe the POTUS wanted to obstruct justice..."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Calling anything else lies is very interesting when you merely chant White House talking points in this post.

However, this time I specifically addressed another poster's claim, so while it's always fun to exhange pleasantries, I'm going to have to decline to avoid thread drift.

Best.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Are you such a grammarian?

Is there a part of the Constitution you're speaking of directly?

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that the constitution is black and white. It says what it says. It's not open to interpretation. The whole grammarian part was just facetiousness.

If the constitution was open to interpretation, then it would be useless blowing about in the wind.

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Are you such a grammarian?

Is there a part of the Constitution you're speaking of directly?

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is that the constitution is black and white. It says what it says. It's not open to interpretation. The whole grammarian part was just facetiousness.

If the constitution was open to interpretation, then it would be useless blowing about in the wind.

Uhmm. You might want to check out Marbury v. Madison and the concept of judicial review.

Other than that, you're talking about strict constructionism. And in many cases I agree with you.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: tanstaafl
I figure it will be a sad day for you once the vote happens and the impeachment proceedings get televised,

a) If the vote happens, and succeeds. You do know the prior 3 attempts at bringing it to a vote failed, which is why they are refusing to hold another one. You knew that... right?

b) If they do ever get cocky enough to hold a vote, and if it passes - you're assuming it does - it might, and it might actually fail, due to the large number of dems who are up for re-election in districts Trump won, and it is also possible there are a few dems who actually won't vote the party line just because #OrangeManBad, and know there is no there there.

Last, once the impeachment vote happens, and if it is successful, the impeachment is over and done. Trump will have been impeached - just like Clinton was impeached.

The trial then happens in the Senate. Grahams Resolution condemning the illegitimate process going on in the House right now has 50 co-signers (last I heard, could be more now), and he is making noise about moving to dismiss their 'impeachment' as illegitimate without holding a trial. If it gets to them.

which they will be.

Yea, if the Senate actually holds a trial, it will be out in the open, and Trumps exoneration will be one more reason for TDS sufferers to suffer some more.

I’d enjoy the “secrecy” for now, if I were you. It gives Republicans something to complain about, too, since they can’t defend Trump’s actions anymore.

There is nothing to defend. He did nothing wrong. But you cannot see that, because #OrangeManBad.

As an American I have no concern about the whole impeachment thing. Now if I was an democrat I might be a little worried on the outcome.

Spinning wheels going nowhere an a lot of backroom negotiating.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
As usual, your response to clearly cited evidence is to regurgitate logical fallacies.

As usual, your response to extremely clear logical argument refuting your claim as to what that evidence means is to regurgitate the 'liar liar pants on fire' mantra, somehow believing that trumps logical argument.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
As usual, your response to clearly cited evidence is to regurgitate logical fallacies.

As usual, your response to extremely clear logical argument refuting your claim as to what that evidence means is to regurgitate the 'liar liar pants on fire' mantra, somehow believing that trumps logical argument.

The only poster that ever says anything faintly resembling a mantra is you. The only evidence you provide comes from the authority of you. Others have tried to help you understand the multiple flaws in your arguments and you ignore them all. Attempting to deal reasonably and honestly is wasted on your posts.

Best.

I agree with you. That will not stop the investigations though. Investigations can happen without full House consensus.

I am tired of three things in particular about all this:

First is that the Constitution is open to interpretation. The only people who say that are the ones who don't like what it says for whatever reason. If the Constitution supported their agenda you can bet they would not say it was open to interpretation.

Second, are the endless investigations and political theater. If there was something to find after three years I think we would have found it by now. We found a treasure trove of illegal/immoral/unethical acts by democrats though so it wasn't a total loss.

Third, I am tired of people saying impeachment is a way to get Trump out of office. Impeachment does not mean removed from office. Clinton was impeached. Was he removed from office? No. The only way impeachment could get Trump out of office is by causing a loss in 2020. Even with impeachment, with the current slab of meat puppets the dems are running I can't see Trump losing anyway.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only evidence you provide comes from the authority of you.

Yes - in the form of rational, logical argument, that neither you or anyone else has even tried to refute with anything beyond 'liar liar'.

Others have tried to help you understand the multiple flaws in your arguments and you ignore them all.

What I have ignored is 'liar liar' responses. Noone - not you, not anyone else - has tried to engage in a logical refutation of any of my claims.

Attempting to deal reasonably and honestly is wasted on your posts.

Yet here you are... TDS obviously really messes up ones ability to act rationally.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Logical argument without evidence is sophistry.

Look it up.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Logical argument without evidence is sophistry.

Look it up.

Oh, I'm very familiar with the term... and yet again, you engage in the classic dem ploy of accusing me of what you are guilty of.

Amazing...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'll summarize the situation again:

The House has received a referral from the IG of the Intelligence Community regarding possible illegal activity.

Yes - and the so-called witness has evaporated, never testified, and so their so-called complaint can be circular filed where it belonged in the first place, since there was no first-hand knowledge anyway, and the second-hand knowledge was shown to be totally false.

The House Intelligence Committee (and two others) are investigating this either as a properly initiated impeachment action or because the CIA whistleblower complaint is filed BY FEDERAL LAW with the Intelligence Committee charged with oversight.

See above. There is no whistleblower - until they testify. Where are they?

The right to investigate and subpoena for the Intelligence Committee (and the other Committees in the House) is certified at the beginning of each Congressional Session by House action and recorded in the Rules of the House of Representatives for that session.

You do know there are limits to said power... right? It does not include the power to go on fishing expeditions - yet at this point, that is precisely what it is, hence, the non-cooperation (and rightly so) from the targets of the fishing expedition.

The reality is that NO VOTE is required to begin investigating anything within the purview of the House's authority which includes both CIA oversight and impeachment because that has already been certified at the beginning of the Session.

There is no vote to engage in a preliminary examination of the charges. If the committee deems the charges worthy of pursuing a full investigation, then they must hold a vote.

And that's the way it is.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Another of your famous catch phrases? What are you going to call this one the "I'm rubber: you're glue" fallacy?

God, but your arguments are repetitive and dull. Careful, if you bore me I won't play anymore.

LOL