What Republicans should do to end the impeachment farce

originally posted by: toysforadults
don't think this one is going to end the way everyone thinks

Really? How do you think this one is going to end?

Trump declares martial law and makes himself Presidente for life?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"But that is irrelevant anyway. There is no reason they cannot hold their own hearings to get a jump on things. Like the House, the Senate committees can also hold hearings if and when they like. Dig?"

Their hearings would be irrelevant in any impeachment process.

Irrelevant? Really?

Fine. You think public hearings showing the Senate absolutely shredding these so-called 'witnesses' whose secret testimony Schiff has been selectively leaking to support a false narrative will be irrelevant.

I disagree. Once the public sees the truth, what will plummet to irrelevancy are the (partially faked) numbers supporting impeachment.

a reply to: tanstaafl

In the actual impeachment process they're just partisan grandstanding which we already have enough of. The Senate has an actual function in the process and this isn't it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Really? How do you think this one is going to end?

Trump declares martial law and makes himself Presidente for life?

Or...

Impeachment fails miserably, Trump is re-elected in a huge landslide winning both the popular vote by a large margin, and the Electoral College by a larger margin than any President in History. As his first official act, he re-appoints Lt. Gen Michael Flynn as his NSA (Flynn having recently been not only totally exonerated, but having won a huge lawsuit/settlement against the FBI for being railroaded and extorted into a plea bargain due to falsified evidence against him and threats to go after his son and having lost his home and life savings fighting the falsified charges), and the head of every single TDS suffering talking head on CNN and MSNBC explodes on the air.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
In the actual impeachment process they're just partisan grandstanding which we already have enough of.

I agree we've had enough, but that wouldn't be the purpose of the Senate HEarings. The purpose of those would be to provide real, actual fair and open hearings where the truth can be exposed.

The Senate has an actual function in the process and this isn't it.

In a fair and open Impeachment proceeding, you would be correct - but the ongoing farce is anything but, so the Senate has the opportunity to at least pull back the curtain and let some sunshine in.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I agree we've had enough, but that wouldn't be the purpose of the Senate HEarings. The purpose of those would be to provide real, actual fair and open hearings where the truth can be exposed.

The 'truth' is what they want it to be, neither party is going to call people who don't make their case. The Senate has an actual function in an impeachment, show hearings are a waste of time and resources.

In a fair and open Impeachment proceeding, you would be correct - but the ongoing farce is anything but, so the Senate has the opportunity to at least pull back the curtain and let some sunshine in.

The House is operating under approved rules, the can do what they want at this time, the Senate is irrelevant.

originally posted by: teddyvetter
What American's SHOULD do in the face of flagrant disregard for the law by the democrats is to do what the constitution calls for in this situation..... exercise the 2nd amendment as it was meant to be used...

Don't be ridiculous. We may not be too far from such a need, but not yet - all that is needed is for some balls.

I would so love to be a member so I could do this. I have laughed in the past at moron Congresscritters that chained themselves to some gate somewhere protecting some brain-dead PC related crap... but this?

I'd happily chain myself to something inside the SCIF and be arrested for attempting to exercise my Constitutionally delegated power of Impeachment.

I'd also work closely with R leadership, in preparation for lots of TV coverage of them arresting me, and for my major lawsuit against the Dems for violating their oaths of office in having me arrested trying to exercise my Constitutionally delegated power.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The 'truth' is what they want it to be,

Contrary to popular leftist myth, the Truth is not subjective.

neither party is going to call people who don't make their case.

The Rs will happily call every single Dem witness that has been called so far, and either publicly shred their prior testimony, or the leaked half-truths provided by the dems.

The Senate has an actual function in an impeachment,

Irrelevant.

show hearings are a waste of time and resources.

Again, it is only a waste of time if you are under the delusion that they wouldn't absolutely shred the testimony of prior witnesses who supposedly provided 'damning evidence'. Newsflash: they would be shredded, in public.

"In a fair and open Impeachment proceeding, you would be correct - but the ongoing farce is anything but, so the Senate has the opportunity to at least pull back the curtain and let some sunshine in."

The House is operating under approved rules,

Approved... by who? Oh, the dems.

Sorry, but the dems cannot strip a member of the HoR of their Constitutionally delegated power.

quote]the can do what they want at this time,
They can try. It will take some Rs with balls to prove this wrong.

the Senate is irrelevant.

Only to someone who believes the delusional propaganda coming from Schiff and friends.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Contrary to popular leftist myth, the Truth is not subjective.

It's a partisan myth, the political hackery is rampant on both sides, all of you want to be coddled with bias confirmation.

The Rs will happily call every single Dem witness that has been called so far, and either publicly shred their prior testimony, or the leaked half-truths provided by the dems.

Even if they 'shred them publicly it's still grandstanding, they have no oversight of the House process at this point.

Irrelevant.

I'm sure you'll feel it's wholly relevant if Trump gets impeached.

Again, it is only a waste of time if you are under the delusion that they wouldn't absolutely shred the testimony of prior witnesses who supposedly provided 'damning evidence'. Newsflash: they would be shredded, in public.

You know what a kangaroo court is? That's what you're advocating for which is pretty delusional if you ask me.

Approved... by who? Oh, the dems.

The ones whereby the hearings were being held date from 2015, stop being disingenuous because you cannot admit your party is as much a piece of **** as the other party.

Sorry, but the dems cannot strip a member of the HoR of their Constitutionally delegated power.

Your inability to grasp how delegation to committees works is not relevant, the Founding Fathers understood this quite well when they initiated the process.

They can try. It will take some Rs with balls to prove this wrong.

If there was actually something to prove wrong the members of Congress who understand Constitutional Law much better than you would have done something by now. But they haven't, have they? What does that tell you about your personal interpretation?

Only to someone who believes the delusional propaganda coming from Schiff and friends.

Actually, I believe the Constitution is correct, the Senate isn't involved at this point. They get their say when it's their appointed time.

Republicans should challenge him to a duel until one of them wins.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Even if they 'shred them publicly it's still grandstanding, they have no oversight of the House process at this point.

No, but they can expose the lies to the point that due to public pressure, enough dems - especially those in districts Trump won, or came close to winning - will not vote to impeach.

I'm sure you'll feel it's wholly relevant if Trump gets impeached.

Not worried about it really - Clintons popularity rose quite a bit after he was impeached.

You know what a kangaroo court is? That's what you're advocating for which is pretty delusional if you ask me.

That is the most hilarious thing I've read in the last few days, and I've read some pretty wacked stuff.

A Kangaroo court is precisely what Schiff and company are engaged in right now.

Approved... by who? Oh, the dems.

The ones whereby the hearings were being held date from 2015,
I was actually talking about this most recent charade - er resolution - setting out the actual impeachment rules.

The rules adopted in 2015 had nothing to do with impeachment, it had to do with the ordinary business of the House.

"Sorry, but the dems cannot strip a member of the HoR of their Constitutionally delegated power."

Your inability to grasp how delegation to committees works is not relevant,

Your inability to grasp that a Constitutionally delegated power cannot itself be delegated is totally relevant.

the Founding Fathers understood this quite well when they initiated the process.

Really? Interesting, seeing as there weren't any House Committees when the Constitution was penned.

If there was actually something to prove wrong the members of Congress who understand Constitutional Law much better than you would have done something by now. But they haven't, have they? What does that tell you about your personal interpretation?

I don't rely on anyone else to validate my personal beliefs.

My interpretation is the only possible correct one. The proof is no one has been able to disprove it, with logic and reason, only attempts with differing variations of 'liar liar'.

President Trump's evidence-based suspicions about Joe/Hunter Biden are being revealed as factual.

HUGE?

Ukraine's Burisma gas company (Hunter Biden was a $50k @ month board member) asked the Obama/Biden Administration for help with ending an investigation into its dealings.

Shortly thereafter, Joe Biden blackmailed the Ukraine President into having the investigating prosecutor fired.

Exclusive from John Solomon: johnsolomonreports.com...

originally posted by: tanstaafl
No, but they can expose the lies to the point that due to public pressure, enough dems - especially those in districts Trump won, or came close to winning - will not vote to impeach.

It's all perspective, the lies are dependent on what side you're on. It's just showboating for their base.

Not worried about it really - Clintons popularity rose quite a bit after he was impeached.

I meant in regards that they control the Senate and when/if it gets to them you'll be thankful for the process.

That is the most hilarious thing I've read in the last few days, and I've read some pretty wacked stuff.

A Kangaroo court is precisely what Schiff and company are engaged in right now.

And guess who's rules those are?

I was actually talking about this most recent charade - er resolution - setting out the actual impeachment rules.

The inquiries, where everyone has their tight pink panties in a bunch over where passed in 2015.

The rules adopted in 2015 had nothing to do with impeachment, it had to do with the ordinary business of the House.

It covered impeachment as well, it was posted here and in your own thread.

Your inability to grasp that a Constitutionally delegated power cannot itself be delegated is totally relevant.

It most certainly can and it has been happening since Day 1 of the United States.

Really? Interesting, seeing as there weren't any House Committees when the Constitution was penned.

There were House and Senate committees since 1789 when it was signed. Are you saying the Founders didn't know what they were doing in 1789?

I don't rely on anyone else to validate my personal beliefs.

I'm glad you got around to finally admitting that this is your personal belief on how the Constitution functions and isn't in fact what the reality happens to be.

My interpretation is the only possible correct one. The proof is no one has been able to disprove it, with logic and reason, only attempts with differing variations of 'liar liar'.

The proof is no one in Congress bothered to take your interpretation and do anything with it which, owing to their understanding of law - seeing that many are attorneys and some versed in Constitutional law- means your view is not one the experts share.


You're basing your entire flawed argument on, "This is my interpretation of the Constitution and this is what they should be doing!". Meanwhile, over in reality, they are completely ignoring your uneducated view on the matter.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
It's all perspective, the lies are dependent on what side you're on. It's just showboating for their base.

No, the truth is not subjective, regardless of how many talking heads on CNN/MSDNC tell you it is.

It is the democrats in the House that are showboating... because they have nothing.

"The rules adopted in 2015 had nothing to do with impeachment, it had to do with the ordinary business of the House."

It covered impeachment as well, it was posted here and in your own thread.

Sorry, I don't believe you, so you'll have to post it again where these rules from 2015 specifically mention rules regarding impeachment.

"Your inability to grasp that a Constitutionally delegated power cannot itself be delegated is totally relevant."

It most certainly can and it has been happening since Day 1 of the United States.

That depends on the exact circumstances.

The Constitution delegates "the sole Power of Impeachment" to the House of Representatives.

The House cannot then delegate that power to one person. Such an argument is ludicrous on its face.

"Really? Interesting, seeing as there weren't any House Committees when the Constitution was penned."

There were House and Senate committees since 1789

The first and oldest Committee is the Committee on Ways and Means. It was first created as a select committee (do you know what that is?) in the 1st Congress on July 24, 1789, then became a standing committee in the 4th Congress (1795–1797).

when it was signed.

I said penned, not signed, but even there you are wrong, it was signed on September 17, 1787.

Can you do the math?

Anyway, obviously, you were wrong, there were no Committees in existence when the constitution was written.

Are you saying the Founders didn't know what they were doing in 1789?

I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about. The Founders would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that a few rogue members of the House could initiate and engage in an impeachment inquiry without the full and equal participation of every single member of the House.

"I don't rely on anyone else to validate my personal beliefs."

I'm glad you got around to finally admitting that this is your personal belief on how the Constitution functions and isn't in fact what the reality happens to be.

Of course it is my personal belief - and I just happen to be right about it too. Logic and reason are fully on my side.

The proof is no one in Congress bothered to take your interpretation and do anything with it which, owing to their understanding of law - seeing that many are attorneys and some versed in Constitutional law- means your view is not one the experts share.

Or they simply haven't thought about it in these precise terms, to the point of clarity, that would galvanize them into action.

You're basing your entire flawed argument on, "This is my interpretation of the Constitution and this is what they should be doing!". Meanwhile, over in reality, they are completely ignoring your uneducated view on the matter.

They cannot ignore what they are unaware of.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
No, the truth is not subjective, regardless of how many talking heads on CNN/MSDNC tell you it is.

It is when it comes to politics, only someone with their head up their ass thinks otherwise.

It is the democrats in the House that are showboating... because they have nothing.

Yeah, just the Democrats. Republicans never grandstand, they're just so sooper altruistic.

Sorry, I don't believe you, so you'll have to post it again where these rules from 2015 specifically mention rules regarding impeachment.

Gryphon posted them a page or two back, stop being lazy.

That depends on the exact circumstances.
The Constitution delegates "the sole Power of Impeachment" to the House of Representatives.
The House cannot then delegate that power to one person. Such an argument is ludicrous on its face.

Says who, besides you? This is the fundament of your argument which is solely your very personal interpretation of the Constitution.

The first and oldest Committee is the Committee on Ways and Means. It was first created as a select committee (do you know what that is?) in the 1st Congress on July 24, 1789, then became a standing committee in the 4th Congress (1795–1797).

Thanks Captain History, hope that helped you.

I said penned, not signed, but even there you are wrong, it was signed on September 17, 1787.
Can you do the math?
Anyway, obviously, you were wrong, there were no Committees in existence when the constitution was written.

Because there was no Congress when it was written. How could you have a committee when you don't even have an elected Congress to form one? Are you just being dense or did you actually think there was a Congress prior to it being ratified?

I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about. The Founders would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that a few rogue members of the House could initiate and engage in an impeachment inquiry without the full and equal participation of every single member of the House.

Would they? This is rich coming from the guy who doesn't even know when there was an actual Congress. Hur-dur.

Of course it is my personal belief - and I just happen to be right about it too. Logic and reason are fully on my side.

What States do Senators Logic and Reason represent and are they filing a petition with the Supreme Court based on your solid understanding of Constitutional law?

Or they simply haven't thought about it in these precise terms, to the point of clarity, that would galvanize them into action.

Orrrrrrrrrrrrr, it's nonsense because if it wasn't they would have pulled that card already.

They cannot ignore what they are unaware of.

Well then, I suggest you write the Republican leadership, say an Op-Ed or something, so they have the benefit of your spectacular genius when it comes to understanding the Constitution better than them or their lawyers.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
"No, the truth is not subjective, regardless of how many talking heads on CNN/MSDNC tell you it is."

It is when it comes to politics, only someone with their head up their ass thinks otherwise.

Only someone with their head up their a$$ would say such a thing.

The fact that politicians lie has nothing to do with the objective nature of truth.

"It is the democrats in the House that are showboating... because they have nothing.

Yeah, just the Democrats. Republicans never grandstand, they're just so sooper altruistic.

I'm obviously talking about right now. Of course Rs have done it many times in the past.

"Sorry, I don't believe you, so you'll have to post it again where these rules from 2015 specifically mention rules regarding impeachment."

Gryphon posted them a page or two back, stop being lazy.

I haven't seen it... either prove it or su...

"That depends on the exact circumstances.
The Constitution delegates "the sole Power of Impeachment" to the House of Representatives.
The House cannot then delegate that power to one person. Such an argument is ludicrous on its face."

Says who, besides you?

The Constitution. Checkmate.

"The first and oldest Committee is the Committee on Ways and Means. It was first created as a select committee (do you know what that is?) in the 1st Congress on July 24, 1789, then became a standing committee in the 4th Congress (1795–1797)."

Thanks Captain History, hope that helped you.

Happy to prove you wrong anytime...

"I said penned, not signed, but even there you are wrong, it was signed on September 17, 1787.
Can you do the math?
Anyway, obviously, you were wrong, there were no Committees in existence when the constitution was written."

Because there was no Congress when it was written. How could you have a committee when you don't even have an elected Congress to form one? Are you just being dense or did you actually think there was a Congress prior to it being ratified?

You're the one who claimed that there were committees already in existence when the Constitution was signed.

If the Founders had intended 'the sole Power of Impeachment' to be wielded by anyone who feels a little froggy when someone they don't like gets elected, they wouldn't have had such strong debate about it before ratification.

"I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about. The Founders would have laughed in your face if you had suggested that a few rogue members of the House could initiate and engage in an impeachment inquiry without the full and equal participation of every single member of the House."

Would they? This is rich coming from the guy who doesn't even know when there was an actual Congress. Hur-dur.

Nice try at deflection, but you , again, are the one who made the false claim that there were committees in existence when the Constitution was signed.

Of course it is my personal belief - and I just happen to be right about it too. Logic and reason are fully on my side.

What States do Senators Logic and Reason represent
Thats all you got... can't debate the specifics with logic and reason, so resort to ridicule about a subject that is way above your pay grade.

Go back to school and learn how to read.

a reply to: tanstaafl

This impeachment is as real as it gets. Not a farce. Trump is a multiple felon and belongs behind bars. ANYONE who supports him now cannot call themselves a patriot. The constitution clearly lays out how and why impeachments should happen. Your boy Trump used the office of the president for his own personal benefit. THIS IS NOT ALLOWED. It doesn't matter if any president before him did it. Trump did and got caught. He's going down and anybody who is against his impeachment is a traitor.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Only someone with their head up their a$$ would say such a thing.
The fact that politicians lie has nothing to do with the objective nature of truth.

It certainly does when it comes to political games like is happening now. Your truth is not the same as the Democrats truth and vice versa. You're all partisans.

I'm obviously talking about right now. Of course Rs have done it many times in the past.

They're doing it now too, just like they always do, there isn't a day without pandering and grandstanding.

I haven't seen it...

I don't care, they're there for the non-lazy.

The Constitution. Checkmate.

The Constitution doesn't say it cannot be delegated. You're tragically uninformed, the Constitution isn't a list of things you can do, it's a list of things you cannot do.

You're the one who claimed that there were committees already in existence when the Constitution was signed.

The Constitution went into effect in 1789. The first Congress was in 1789. The first committees were in 1789. Seeing a pattern here?

If the Founders had intended 'the sole Power of Impeachment' to be wielded by anyone who feels a little froggy when someone they don't like gets elected, they wouldn't have had such strong debate about it before ratification.

False premise, 'someone' isn't a committee. SomeoneS are.

Nice try at deflection, but you , again, are the one who made the false claim that there were committees in existence when the Constitution was signed.

See above. From year one of the Congress, and they delegated everything and anything from that point and moving forward.

Thats all you got... can't debate the specifics with logic and reason, so resort to ridicule about a subject that is way above your pay grade.

'Above my pay grade' says the person who admitted this is their personal interpretation of the Constitution? Funny. It is worthy of ridicule and I do ridicule it because it is ridiculous. Your 'logic and reason' are, for some odd reason, not being applied in the real world.

I know, I know, the Republicans just don't know what you know in your years and years of study on the matter. They just need some Constitutional genius like yourself to point this out to their ignorant asses so they can see the promised land. You get around to doing that yet O Savior of the Republic?

Go back to school and learn how to read.

Sure, as soon as you finish your law degree you never started. Hur-dur.

a reply to: ambassado12

The senate will get their turn at bat when and if they decide to impeach him.
Right now this is just the fact finding stage like any investigation.

You don't want to rush this.

originally posted by: richapau
This impeachment is as real as it gets.

So the yammerheads keep saying...

Not a farce. Trump is a multiple felon and belongs behind bars.

Yes, yes, yes - but you are forgetting one little thing. There is ZERO evidence he has done anything wrong - except win an election he wasn't supposed to win.

ANYONE who supports him now cannot call themselves a patriot.

Anyone who calls for the impeachment and jailing of the President of the United States just because they don't like him is guilty of sedition and deserves the death penalty.

The constitution clearly lays out how and why impeachments should happen.

Yes, yes it does. High crimes and misdemeanors... and there is zero evidence of that with respect to Trump - but lots of evidence against a lot of democrats.

Your boy Trump used the office of the president for his own personal benefit.

So the yammerheads keep saying - without any evidence in support, and lots of evidence he did nothing wrong.

He's going down and anybody who is against his impeachment is a traitor.

You and your ilk are the traitors... you're lucky you're just a keyboard whackjob, some of the dems are going to pay a very high price.