What Republicans should do to end the impeachment farce

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It isn't my word, it's what's actually transpiring.

? Are you ok? Not feeling well? Maybe you should get some rest before trying to engage further...

What is actually transpiring now has nothing to do with what happened during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.

Are you denying the committee isn't being conducted behind closed doors or that the 2015 rules were in effect when this was being done?

They are being conducted behind closed doors and being run in a completely and totally partisan manner.

The 2015/current rules have no bearing, because those are only applicable to the oridinary, day to day operations of congress.

Impeachment is an extra-ordinary Power/Process. The ordinary rules don't apply.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
What is actually transpiring now has nothing to do with what happened during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.

You obviously have a major reading comprehension issue as I've mentioned neither. I said these were the rules from 2015.

They are being conducted behind closed doors and being run in a completely and totally partisan manner.

And? Does that cause you partisan rectal discomfort?

The 2015/current rules have no bearing, because those are only applicable to the oridinary, day to day operations of congress.

Impeachment is an extra-ordinary Power/Process. The ordinary rules don't apply.

They still get to determine the rules of the process as they do with everything else, the fact that you don't like them is not relevant.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"What is actually transpiring now has nothing to do with what happened during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments."

You obviously have a major reading comprehension issue as I've mentioned neither. I said these were the rules from 2015.

Are you saying that the rules in effect in 2015 were in effect during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments?

Poor thing...

"They are being conducted behind closed doors and being run in a completely and totally partisan manner."

And? Does that cause you partisan rectal discomfort?

No. It gobsmacks of unlawful, unethical, and downright meanie-meanie behavior though.

"The 2015/current rules have no bearing, because those are only applicable to the ordinary, day to day operations of congress.

Impeachment is an extra-ordinary Power/Process. The ordinary rules don't apply."

They still get to determine the rules of the process as they do with everything else, the fact that you don't like them is not relevant.

They do, but said rules must still be in accordance with the Constitutional mandate that "The House of Representatives" has the sole Power of Impeachment, and a partisan hit job with one man being in control is in direct violation of that mandate.

The Constitution demands that all members of the HoR have equal opportunity to subpoena, call and question witnesses, not subject to being over-ruled by a petty-tyrant-wanna-be.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Are you saying that the rules in effect in 2015 were in effect during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments?

Are you being obtuse? I never mentioned Nixon or Clinton, I said these rules are from 2015.

No. It gobsmacks of unlawful, unethical, and downright meanie-meanie behavior though.

Except it isn't unlawful, your feelings are irrelevant.

They do, but said rules must still be in accordance with the Constitutional mandate that "The House of Representatives" has the sole Power of Impeachment, and a partisan hit job with one man being in control is in direct violation of that mandate.

The House approved the rules, therefore the process is in accordance with the House's mandate.

The Constitution demands that all members of the HoR have equal opportunity to subpoena, call and question witnesses, not subject to being over-ruled by a petty-tyrant-wanna-be.

Your opinion is not relevant, when the Republicans controlled the House no one bitched about these rules on their side.

originally posted by: IcanXplain
a reply to: tanstaafl

A little googling has produced this proof.

Politico.com

fas.org

Nope... but do keep trying.

Those are the regular rules for the House for exercising it's ordinary day to day activities.

They do not apply to the extra-ordinary Power of Impeachment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ksihkehe

What's keeping the Republican members of the Committees from "leaking" again?

Ethics. Something most dems and TDS sufferers - and far too many Republicans too - don't understand.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Its both peculiar and a little humorous though that you think the grand plurality of legally trained/seasoned individuals

That the same kind of people that ordained that the earth was flat?

and instead have hitched your opinion and utter confidence on cherry picked legal opinion outliers.

Yes, I much prefer to hitch my wagon to people who believe that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says (as it did when it was penned).

You continue hitching it to the latesy yammerhead CNN puts on.

Is that why you think I should think less, so that through ignorance I may agree with you?

Not at all... I just don't want you to hurt yourself. I am compassionate, after all.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Are you being obtuse? I never mentioned Nixon or Clinton, I said these rules are from 2015.

My apologies. I could have sworn I read a comment from you that the same thing was done in the prior impeachments. Either you actually did, and edited it out after I read it (possible, a number of your comments I replied to show as edited), or I'm confusing you with someone else.

I'll assume the latter, and restate my apologies for the confusion.

Except it isn't unlawful, your feelings are irrelevant.

I agree my feelings are irrelevant, but the Constitution isn't. The Constitution mandates that the whole House of Representatives wields the awesome Power of Impeachment. Not the Speaker, Not Adam Schiff.

The way they are doing it now, Adam Schiff is wielding the Power all by his lonesome. This is a plain and blatant violation of the Constitution.

"said rules must still be in accordance with the Constitutional mandate that "The House of Representatives" has the sole Power of Impeachment, and a partisan hit job with one man being in control is in direct violation of that mandate."

The House approved the rules, therefore the process is in accordance with the House's mandate.

Wrong. A delegated Power cannot be in turn delegated. The HoR cannot pass a resolution delegating the awesome Power of Impeachment to one man. Any such attempt is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

The Constitution demands that all members of the HoR have equal opportunity to subpoena, call and question witnesses, not subject to being over-ruled by a petty-tyrant-wanna-be.

Your opinion is not relevant,
It isn't my opinion, it is what the Constitution says.

when the Republicans controlled the House no one bitched about these rules on their side.

You keep going on about the ordinary House rules. these are irrelevant.

They do not apply to the extra-ordinary Power of Impeachment.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Either you actually did, and edited it out after I read it...

I don't post edit except for grammar and punctuation, it wasn't me.

I agree my feelings are irrelevant, but the Constitution isn't. The Constitution mandates that the whole House of Representatives wields the awesome Power of Impeachment. Not the Speaker, Not Adam Schiff.

He's not impeaching, he's conducting an inquiry. When/if it comes to impeachment the whole House will vote and be part of the process.

The way they are doing it now, Adam Schiff is wielding the Power all by his lonesome. This is a plain and blatant violation of the Constitution.

Committees are not in violation of the Constitution.

Wrong. A delegated Power cannot be in turn delegated. The HoR cannot pass a resolution delegating the awesome Power of Impeachment to one man. Any such attempt is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

It most certainly can and is a bedrock on which the Congress is built, the committees date to 1789 and have been used for all matters since then.

It isn't my opinion, it is what the Constitution says.

It's your interpretation of what the Constitution says and if it were in fact the case someone on the Republican side would have actioned on this. They didn't, because they are using the Republcian rules from 2015.

You keep going on about the ordinary House rules. these are irrelevant.

They do not apply to the extra-ordinary Power of Impeachment.

The word 'extra-ordinary' appears ONCE in the Constitution in reference to the President's ability to call both houses of Congress, it is certainly not used in regards impeachment, or any other Congressional activity, like you believe.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

What exactly is the Supreme Court going to rule on?
The fact that those dastardly Dems are doing things EXACTLY by the Senate Rules set forth in 2015 when it was Republican controlled?

So... show us where a special 'Inquiry' panel of investigation persons was given free-rein to :
Specifically for use in a ( fake) Dossier of Trumps' many Faux Pas moments because he is generally unschooled in 'Diplomacy'...

And the Trump Legal Defense was/is handcuffed from having Any Voice to contest the allegations or 'SPIN' of the Events in question...

the 2015 Rules...to my knowledge... did not have a rule against self-defense/ or Any limitations on the Accused to counter the absurd claims against the accused....
the courts/investigations of the 2015 (Senate) Rules had whats called Due Process as an inalienable right


I await your addressing the creation by Pelosi, called an 'Inquiry' Panel of Representatives, chaired by A Schiff as existing in that 2015 body of Rules the Republicans created & being used (as you claim) in the current House proceedings towards Impeachment

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Why do the Republicans need to do anything exactly? Everybody knows the vote will die in the Senate. I don't see why its incumbent on sounding the alarms and mustering all hands on deck to stop something that has no chance of happening anyways...

Seriously, I’m not sure the OPs idea has any legitimate legal standing. I think just letting the trial play out and making logical defensive moves and simply letting the Senate vote happen should be a fine strategy for you guys.

There are legitimate points Democrats have about why Trump should be impeached. It doesn’t matter, Republican senators can ignore all of it if they want.

After the impeachment is over, Trump should be able to do whatever he wants from then on, so.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Why do the Republicans need to do anything exactly? Everybody knows the vote will die in the Senate. I don't see why its incumbent on sounding the alarms and mustering all hands on deck to stop something that has no chance of happening anyways...

Seriously, I’m not sure the OPs idea has any legitimate legal standing. I think just letting the trial play out and making logical defensive moves and simply letting the Senate vote happen should be a fine strategy for you guys.

There are legitimate points Democrats have about why Trump should be impeached. It doesn’t matter, Republican senators can ignore all of it if they want.

After the impeachment is over, Trump should be able to do whatever he wants from then on, so.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

I hadn't heard that about the whistleblower. That's incredible! Where did you hear that ?

To keep anyone from bashing any one source, just Google...

"Eric Ciaramella was Fired in 2017"

There are plenty of articles surfacing on Eric's past.

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

I hadn't heard that about the whistleblower. That's incredible! Where did you hear that ?

To keep anyone from bashing any one source, just Google...

"Eric Ciaramella was Fired in 2017"

There are plenty of articles surfacing on Eric's past.

Thank you kindly. What proof do you have that Eric is the first whistleblower?

a reply to: tanstaafl

There are no Constitutional powers of "ordinary and extraordinary."

Again, in what must be the 20th or 30th time, these only exist in your own mind.

This argument is therefore invalid if not absurd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you kindly. What proof do you have that Eric is the first whistleblower?

Because his attorneys aren't denying it. They're only going around threatening politicians and media at this point on anyone who releases his name.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you kindly. What proof do you have that Eric is the first whistleblower?

Because his attorneys aren't denying it. They're only going around threatening politicians and media at this point on anyone who releases his name.

LOL. Textbook appeal to ignorance.

So you BELIEVE that Ciaramella is the first whistleblower? That is your OPINION not fact?

Thanks.

Whatever the facts, Federal law proscribes protections for whistleblowers and penalties for those who illegally expose them.

If you're correct in your belief, you're helping to perpetuate a crime.

a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL! Everything about this case is a matter of opinion, including the whistleblower and all the other "witnesses".

The Whistleblower Act protects the whistleblower from job retaliation or firing. Everything related to our government is supposed to be public information unless it's a national security risk, and at this point, what constitutes as a national security risk is all opinion driven now too.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL! Everything about this case is a matter of opinion, including the whistleblower and all the other "witnesses".

The Whistleblower Act protects the whistleblower from job retaliation or firing. Everything related to our government is supposed to be public information unless it's a national security risk, and at this point, what constitutes as a national security risk is all opinion driven now too.

The argument that everything is opinion really gets us nowhere. It's your "just" opinion that Trump isn't guilty of anything. It's "just" Trump's opinion that he didn't commit a crime. So it's just an opinion that impeachment proceedings are unfair?

Reducing everything to "opinion" solves nothing.

The Intelligence Community Whisteblower Act protects the identity of the whistleblower for obvious reasons. Source

Congress and the executive branch have defined in statute and directives procedures for IC whistleblowers to make protected disclosures that also provide for the security of classified information.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are not using house rules for impeachment. In fact they just had a vote to establish the rules. So your argument just shows your clueless.