Cooperation/participation in impeachment...

[Harpy Eagle]

Obstructing the investigation makes him look pretty damn guilty too.

Recruiting whistleblowers offering to pay their mortgages Makes democrats look like nazis

Recruiting whistleblowers offering to pay their mortgages Makes democrats look like nazis

What evidence can you supply to support your claim regarding whistle-blowers and their mortgages?

Ukraine whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump

Fucking google is burying these stories wow

from your link....but does not pay clients' rent or mortgage, noting potential ethical issues with attorneys doing so.

Lol seriously wow

it was your link...maybe next time you should read it before you post it.

just a thought

 

[kyzr]

Democrat's impeachment articles getting blown up by Volker's testimony. Now what?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

The argument is over how to launch an "impeachment inquiry". For Nixon and Clinton the whole House voted to initiate. For Trump, Nancy made the assignment, which limits GOP participation using subpoenas, and other issues outlined in McCarthy's letter.
McCarthy asks Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry until she defines procedures
So the WH is not playing along, the WH wants the courts to stipulate what the Constitution requires for the initiation of an "Impeachment Inquiry".
"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

Isn't this sort of what is happening?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Is a 100% admission of guilt… Why the fuck would Trump do such a thing?… LOL

China knows...

China rejects Trump’s call to investigate Biden and son

"China has rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s call to investigate his Democrat rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son, saying Beijing had no intention of intervening in U.S. domestic affairs."

Do you think Trump has the slightest clue about anything EXCEPT earning more money?

His financials are his business... And nobody else’s

His financials are his business... And nobody else’s

How did that work out for Al Capone?

Which gangster posed/poses the biggest threat to America, Trump or Capone?

And obviously they didn’t want him for tax evasion, but couldn’t get him on murders and racketeering. Trump pays taxes. Not anywhere close. The IRS also has his tax information. They are not going to release it, and he’s not doing it either. Tough shit. But please feel free to post yours. Might be interesting reading.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kyzr]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

The argument is over how to launch an "impeachment inquiry". For Nixon and Clinton the whole House voted to initiate. For Trump, Nancy made the assignment, which limits GOP participation using subpoenas, and other issues outlined in McCarthy's letter.
McCarthy asks Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry until she defines procedures
So the WH is not playing along, the WH wants the courts to stipulate what the Constitution requires for the initiation of an "Impeachment Inquiry".
"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

Isn't this sort of what is happening?

1. It says what happened "until the early 20th century", Rep Al Green proposes impeachment all the time.
House shoots down attempt to immediately impeach Trump
2. It also says that the Constitution does not stipulate how impeachment "proceedings" are to be initiated
3. The current argument is how the "impeachment inquiry" is to be initiated, does the whole House need to vote on it or not?
4. The WH wants the USSC to translate the Constitution so both parties know what is or is not required.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

Not gotten that far? The committees are holding hearings. They are way past that!

Pelosi is bungling the impeachment on purpose, so she doesn't get the blame when it all goes south!

 

[Jitss617]

Recruiting whistleblowers offering to pay their mortgages Makes democrats look like nazis

Recruiting whistleblowers offering to pay their mortgages Makes democrats look like nazis

What evidence can you supply to support your claim regarding whistle-blowers and their mortgages?

Ukraine whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump

Fucking google is burying these stories wow

from your link....but does not pay clients' rent or mortgage, noting potential ethical issues with attorneys doing so.

Lol seriously wow

it was your link...maybe next time you should read it before you post it.

just a thought

What do you think people do with the kick back!? Lol PAY RENT LOL HELLOOOOOOOOO
God damn! Get a water filter! The fluoride is making you retarded lol

 

[peach174]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

The argument is over how to launch an "impeachment inquiry". For Nixon and Clinton the whole House voted to initiate. For Trump, Nancy made the assignment, which limits GOP participation using subpoenas, and other issues outlined in McCarthy's letter.
McCarthy asks Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry until she defines procedures
So the WH is not playing along, the WH wants the courts to stipulate what the Constitution requires for the initiation of an "Impeachment Inquiry".
"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

The WH is forcing them to adhere to the laws passed by both parties in 1998.
No subpoenas have been allowed on the committee from the Republicans.
That means no defense for the President.
That is unconstitutional and it's called railroading.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

The argument is over how to launch an "impeachment inquiry". For Nixon and Clinton the whole House voted to initiate. For Trump, Nancy made the assignment, which limits GOP participation using subpoenas, and other issues outlined in McCarthy's letter.
McCarthy asks Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry until she defines procedures
So the WH is not playing along, the WH wants the courts to stipulate what the Constitution requires for the initiation of an "Impeachment Inquiry".
"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

Isn't this sort of what is happening?

1. It says what happened "until the early 20th century", Rep Al Green proposes impeachment all the time.
House shoots down attempt to immediately impeach Trump
2. It also says that the Constitution does not stipulate how impeachment "proceedings" are to be initiated
3. The current argument is how the "impeachment inquiry" is to be initiated, does the whole House need to vote on it or not?
4. The WH wants the USSC to translate the Constitution so both parties know what is or is not required.

If the Constitution does not stipulate how impeachment "proceedings" are to be initiated, then there is no wrong way to do it. They can do it anyway they see fit. There is nothing for the USSC to translate. This is just a stalling tactic.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What evidence can you supply to support your claim regarding whistle-blowers and their mortgages?

Ukraine whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump

Fucking google is burying these stories wow

from your link....but does not pay clients' rent or mortgage, noting potential ethical issues with attorneys doing so.

Lol seriously wow

it was your link...maybe next time you should read it before you post it.

just a thought

What do you think people do with the kick back!? Lol PAY RENT LOL HELLOOOOOOOOO
God damn! Get a water filter! The fluoride is making you retarded lol

you have shown no evidence of a kick back

 

[Jitss617]

Ukraine whistleblower’s lawyers work for group that offers to pay officials who leak against Trump

Fucking google is burying these stories wow

from your link....but does not pay clients' rent or mortgage, noting potential ethical issues with attorneys doing so.

Lol seriously wow

it was your link...maybe next time you should read it before you post it.

just a thought

What do you think people do with the kick back!? Lol PAY RENT LOL HELLOOOOOOOOO
God damn! Get a water filter! The fluoride is making you retarded lol

you have shown no evidence of a kick back

Go to info war.com order the water filtration system..I’m serious.. it will make you smarter

 

[Lesh]

Is a 100% admission of guilt… Why the fuck would Trump do such a thing?… LOL

What?

You're saying that if the White House honors subpoenas...that they will be admitting guilt?

You are admitting that they are guilty.

Congrats.

For the first time I agree with you. They are holding back information because it will prove their guilt...of course

 

[Jitss617]

Is a 100% admission of guilt… Why the fuck would Trump do such a thing?… LOL

What?

You're saying that if the White House honors subpoenas...that they will be admitting guilt?

You are admitting that they are guilty.

Congrats.

For the first time I agree with you. They are holding back information because it will prove their guilt...of course

No you are trying to rush state Department officials to the hill before they can talk to council .. why not wait ? We don’t want Kangaroo court rooms

 

[Harpy Eagle]

from your link....but does not pay clients' rent or mortgage, noting potential ethical issues with attorneys doing so.

Lol seriously wow

it was your link...maybe next time you should read it before you post it.

just a thought

What do you think people do with the kick back!? Lol PAY RENT LOL HELLOOOOOOOOO
God damn! Get a water filter! The fluoride is making you retarded lol

you have shown no evidence of a kick back

Go to info war.com order the water filtration system..I’m serious.. it will make you smarter

I bet you order all sorts of things from inforwars!

and you think that makes you smart...

sucks to be you!

 

[peach174]

Nancy is terrified to have the House vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry, the way it has always been done. The Constitution says the <whole> House has the sole power of Impeachment. It does not say that the speaker of the house may start the impeachment process.


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

— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

Thanks for finding that! It says:
The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation. Presently, it is the House Judiciary Committee that initiates the process and then, after investigating the allegations, prepares recommendations for the whole House's consideration. If the House votes to adopt an impeachment resolution, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee recommends a slate of "managers," whom the House subsequently approves by resolution. These Representatives subsequently become the prosecution team in the impeachment trial in the Senate (see Section 3, Clause 6 below).[35]

The present investigation has not gotten that far. Pelosi is doing exactly what is outlined here.

The argument is over how to launch an "impeachment inquiry". For Nixon and Clinton the whole House voted to initiate. For Trump, Nancy made the assignment, which limits GOP participation using subpoenas, and other issues outlined in McCarthy's letter.
McCarthy asks Pelosi to suspend impeachment inquiry until she defines procedures
So the WH is not playing along, the WH wants the courts to stipulate what the Constitution requires for the initiation of an "Impeachment Inquiry".
"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

"The Constitution does not specify how impeachment proceedings are to be initiated. Until the early 20th century, a House member could rise and propose an impeachment, which would then be assigned to a committee for investigation."

Isn't this sort of what is happening?

1. It says what happened "until the early 20th century", Rep Al Green proposes impeachment all the time.
House shoots down attempt to immediately impeach Trump
2. It also says that the Constitution does not stipulate how impeachment "proceedings" are to be initiated
3. The current argument is how the "impeachment inquiry" is to be initiated, does the whole House need to vote on it or not?
4. The WH wants the USSC to translate the Constitution so both parties know what is or is not required.

If the Constitution does not stipulate how impeachment "proceedings" are to be initiated, then there is no wrong way to do it. They can do it anyway they see fit. There is nothing for the USSC to translate. This is just a stalling tactic.

They make the house rules, via constitution.
Right now the Dems are violating one of their own rules they passed in 98 and it was bipartisan.
To have a formal inquiry they have to vote for it on the floor so that both parties have the power of subpoenas.
Equal offence and defense.
Right now it's one sided for the left.

 

[SAYIT]

Obstructing the investigation makes him look pretty damn guilty too.

Actually, the 5th Ammendment says he's not obligated to give them shit (even concerning a witch hunt)...

But thank you for pointing out that the Democrats think the U S Constitution is irrelevant!!!

Everyone who ever took the fifth was clearly guilty as hell and had no further defense. Not sure it even applies to the White House or other governmental entities who are required to comply with oversight.

Witch-hunts are not oversight, Comrade O. The House has the authority to instituted "formal" (Pelosi) or "official" (Fat J-Nads) impeachment but instead have embarked on another political circus because 22 months of Mueller's didn't get 'er done.

 

[Rustic]

Is a 100% admission of guilt… Why the fuck would Trump do such a thing?… LOL

China knows...

China rejects Trump’s call to investigate Biden and son

"China has rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s call to investigate his Democrat rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son, saying Beijing had no intention of intervening in U.S. domestic affairs."

Do you think Trump has the slightest clue about anything EXCEPT earning more money?

His financials are his business... And nobody else’s

His financials are his business... And nobody else’s

How did that work out for Al Capone?

Which gangster posed/poses the biggest threat to America, Trump or Capone?

Nothing burger

 

[Rustic]

Is a 100% admission of guilt… Why the fuck would Trump do such a thing?… LOL

What?

You're saying that if the White House honors subpoenas...that they will be admitting guilt?

You are admitting that they are guilty.

Congrats.

For the first time I agree with you. They are holding back information because it will prove their guilt...of course

Lol
They owe congress nothing, Congress is basically telling them that they are guilty until proven innocent

 

[BULLDOG]

Obstructing the investigation makes him look pretty damn guilty too.

Having clandestine impeachment investigations makes you look pretty damn guilty too. How is the public going to accept it when they say, we find Trump guilty of X. We can't tell you why, we can't tell you from whom, just take our word for it.

Nobody is saying "just take our word for it". They are only investigating at this point. If/when an impeachment is filed, and a trial is held in the Senate, all the evidence will be presented. by the prosecution. There will be plenty of opportunity for Trump to answer any charges, call his own witnesses, and present his own case. That's when the members of the Senate will make their own decisions, and vote on whether the prosecution made their case.

 

[Rustic]

Obstructing the investigation makes him look pretty damn guilty too.

Having clandestine impeachment investigations makes you look pretty damn guilty too. How is the public going to accept it when they say, we find Trump guilty of X. We can't tell you why, we can't tell you from whom, just take our word for it.

Nobody is saying "just take our word for it". They are only investigating at this point. If/when an impeachment is filed, and a trial is held in the Senate, all the evidence will be presented. by the prosecution. There will be plenty of opportunity for Trump to answer any charges, call his own witnesses, and present his own case. That's when the members of the Senate will make their own decisions, and vote on whether the prosecution made their case.

He’s guilty until proven innocent in your eyes obviously… That’s the way you progressives think about things. Socialism 101