This Impeachment Subverts the Constitution
Dec 18, 2019 06:29:11 #
Notes: I have been saying this over and over, that the process of impeachment was not done right and unconstitutional. The president's constitutional rights have been violated by Adam Schiff and Pelosi.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution-115
72040762
WSJ By
David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
Oct. 25, 2019 5:59 pm ET
Rep. Adam Schiff speaks beside Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Oct. 15, 2019.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense.
Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.
The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority v**e, not by a press conference called by the Speaker.
Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.
*** Note the GOP party was not made to participate on this process., which was illegally conducted by Adam Schitt and Pelosi.
John Durham's Review of Russia and The FBI is Now a Criminal Probe
00:00 / 27:32
The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 v**e. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.
Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret.
Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.
Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context.
Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.
House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they h**e Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by v****g on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.
The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “v**e to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further.
If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.
The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress.
The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.
Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a p**********l “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.
Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power.
One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. p**********l e******n and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son H****r was unlawful “interference with an e******n.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). E******n-related offenses involve specific actions such as v****g by aliens, fraudulent v****g, buying v**es and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.
Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.
Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.
More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/this-impeachment-subverts-the-constitution-115
72040762
WSJ By
David B. Rivkin Jr. and
Elizabeth Price Foley
Oct. 25, 2019 5:59 pm ET
Rep. Adam Schiff speaks beside Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Capitol Hill, Oct. 15, 2019.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has directed committees investigating President Trump to “proceed under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry,” but the House has never authorized such an inquiry. Democrats have been seeking to impeach Mr. Trump since the party took control of the House, though it isn’t clear for what offense.
Lawmakers and commentators have suggested various possibilities, but none amount to an impeachable offense. The effort is akin to a constitutionally proscribed bill of attainder—a legislative effort to punish a disfavored person. The Senate should treat it accordingly.
The impeachment power is quasi-judicial and differs fundamentally from Congress’s legislative authority. The Constitution assigns “the sole power of impeachment” to the House—the full chamber, which acts by majority v**e, not by a press conference called by the Speaker.
Once the House begins an impeachment inquiry, it may refer the matter to a committee to gather evidence with the aid of subpoenas. Such a process ensures the House’s political accountability, which is the key check on the use of impeachment power.
*** Note the GOP party was not made to participate on this process., which was illegally conducted by Adam Schitt and Pelosi.
John Durham's Review of Russia and The FBI is Now a Criminal Probe
00:00 / 27:32
The House has followed this process every time it has tried to impeach a president. Andrew Johnson’s 1868 impeachment was predicated on formal House authorization, which passed 126-47. In 1974 the Judiciary Committee determined it needed authorization from the full House to begin an inquiry into Richard Nixon’s impeachment, which came by a 410-4 v**e. The House followed the same procedure with Bill Clinton in 1998, approving a resolution 258-176, after receiving independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s report.
Mrs. Pelosi discarded this process in favor of a Trump-specific procedure without precedent in Anglo-American law. Rep. Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and several other panels are questioning witnesses in secret.
Mr. Schiff has defended this process by likening it to a grand jury considering whether to hand up an indictment. But while grand-jury secrecy is mandatory, House Democrats are selectively leaking information to the media, and House Republicans, who are part of the jury, are being denied subpoena authority and full access to transcripts of testimony and even impeachment-related committee documents. No grand jury has a second class of jurors excluded from full participation.
Unlike other impeachable officials, such as federal judges and executive-branch officers, the president and vice president are elected by, and accountable to, the people. The executive is also a coequal branch of government. Thus any attempt to remove the president by impeachment creates unique risks to democracy not present in any other impeachment context.
Adhering to constitutional text, tradition and basic procedural guarantees of fairness is critical. These processes are indispensable bulwarks against abuse of the impeachment power, designed to preserve the separation of powers by preventing Congress from improperly removing an elected president.
House Democrats have discarded the Constitution, tradition and basic fairness merely because they h**e Mr. Trump. Because the House has not properly begun impeachment proceedings, the president has no obligation to cooperate. The courts also should not enforce any purportedly impeachment-related document requests from the House. (A federal district judge held Friday that the Judiciary Committee is engaged in an impeachment inquiry and therefore must see grand-jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, but that ruling will likely be overturned on appeal.) And the House cannot cure this problem simply by v****g on articles of impeachment at the end of a flawed process.
The Senate’s power—and obligation—to “try all impeachments” presupposes that the House has followed a proper impeachment process and that it has assembled a reliable evidentiary basis to support its accusations. The House has conspicuously failed to do so. Fifty Republican senators have endorsed a resolution sponsored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham urging the House to “v**e to open a formal impeachment inquiry and provide President Trump with fundamental constitutional protections” before proceeding further.
If the House fails to heed this call immediately, the Senate would be fully justified in summarily rejecting articles produced by the Pelosi-Schiff inquiry on grounds that without a lawful impeachment in the House, it has no jurisdiction to proceed.
The effort has another problem: There is no evidence on the public record that Mr. Trump has committed an impeachable offense. The Constitution permits impeachment only for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Founders considered allowing impeachment on the broader grounds of “maladministration,” “neglect of duty” and “mal-practice,” but they rejected these reasons for fear of giving too much power to Congress.
The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” includes abuses of power that do not constitute violations of criminal statutes. But its scope is limited.
Abuse of power encompasses two distinct types of behavior. First, the president can abuse his power by purporting to exercise authority not given to him by the Constitution or properly delegated by Congress—say, by imposing a new tax without congressional approval or establishing a p**********l “court” to punish his opponents. Second, the president can abuse power by failing to carry out a constitutional duty—such as systematically refusing to enforce laws he disfavors. The president cannot legitimately be impeached for lawfully exercising his constitutional power.
Applying these standards to the behavior triggering current calls for impeachment, it is apparent that Mr. Trump has neither committed a crime nor abused his power.
One theory is that by asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Kyiv’s involvement in the 2016 U.S. p**********l e******n and potential corruption by Joe Biden and his son H****r was unlawful “interference with an e******n.” There is no such crime in the federal criminal code (the same is true of “collusion”). E******n-related offenses involve specific actions such as v****g by aliens, fraudulent v****g, buying v**es and interfering with access to the polls. None of these apply here.
Nor would asking Ukraine to investigate a political rival violate campaign-finance laws, because receiving information from Ukraine did not constitute a prohibited foreign contribution. The Mueller report noted that no court has ever concluded that information is a “thing of value,” and the Justice Department has concluded that it is not. Such an interpretation would raise serious First Amendment concerns.
Equally untenable is the argument that Mr. Trump committed bribery. Federal bribery statutes require proof of a corrupt intent in the form of a quid pro quo—defined by the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Sun-Diamond Growers (1999), as a “specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” There was no quid pro quo in the call. Mr. Zelensky has said he felt no pressure, and the purported quid (military aid to Ukraine) was not contingent on the alleged quo (opening an investigation), because the former materialized within weeks, while the latter—not “something of value” in any case—never did.
More fundamentally, the Constitution gives the president plenary authority to conduct foreign affairs and diplomacy, including broad discretion over the timing and release of appropriated funds. Many presidents have refused to spend appropriated money for military or other purposes, on grounds that it was unnecessary, unwise or incompatible with their priorities.
Dec 18, 2019 06:35:22 #
Radiance3 wrote:
i Notes: I have been saying this over and over, t... (show quote)
It’s legitimate, it’s the duty of congress and it’s happening no matter how much the Orange Anus and his cult of sycophants whines!
Dec 18, 2019 06:40:40 #
Kevyn wrote:
It’s legitimate, it’s the duty of congress and it’s happening no matter how much the Orange Anus and his cult of sycophants whines!
Hahaha...only one going off the rails about Trump being impeached are you fainting goat liberals.....who are you calling sycophants? Project much? And that fetish with his orange anus, something is clearly wrong with you.
Your kind only makes President Trump stronger......carry on toy soldier, carry on.
Dec 18, 2019 07:21:25 #
zombinis3
Loc: Southwest
Radiance3 wrote:
i Notes: I have been saying this over and over, t... (show quote)
Agreed to a point the responsibility for foreign affairs is the president's. The inpeachment process is used to check the preformance of the individual. At which time if something is seen to be wrong then it is brought up. The main problem with the way it was written does allow it the chance to be used in the wrong way or time. Investigation is the house's area the trial is the senates.
According to reports the Republicans who were assigned to committes didn't
Participate.
The se******n below came from page 18 of the House Rules document that in 2015 Republicans v**ed a change to subpoena requirements. Pease note what is in parentheses. All meetings other than committee on Ethics are to be in the open. Since the impeachment is based on presumed ethical practices the meetings can be held in private. Then the other option for closed meeting is when the infomation that comes out may endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. How do you think B******i was investigated? it was behind closed doors also. How many times did the adminstration state that subpenoas didn't need to be responded to?
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the t***saction of business, including the mark-
up of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other
than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except
when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority
present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session because disclosure of mat-
ters to be considered would endanger national security, would compromise
sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or in-
criminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the
House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commis-
sioner, congressional staff, or departmental representatives as the com-
mittee may authorize, may not be present at a business or markup ses-
sion that is held in executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to
open committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or
by subparagraph (2). (2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its
subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television,
and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate a clause
clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as
provided in clause 2(k)(5).
(C)
Dec 18, 2019 07:41:18 #
Dec 18, 2019 08:17:39 #
[quote=zombinis3]Agreed to a point the responsibility for foreign affairs is the president's. The inpeachment process is used to check the preformance of the individual. At which time if something is seen to be wrong then it is brought up. The main problem with the way it was written does allow it the chance to be used in the wrong way or time. Investigation is the house's area the trial is the senates.
According to reports the Republicans who were assigned to committes didn't
Participate.
Ans. Republicans assigned in the committees did not participate because Adam Schiff did not allow them to.Adam Schiff did their meeting in secret at the house basement.
The se******n below came from page 18 of the House Rules document that in 2015 Republicans v**ed a change to subpoena requirements. Pease note what is in parentheses. All meetings other than committee on Ethics are to be in the open. Since the impeachment is based on presumed ethical practices the meetings can be held in private. Then the other option for closed meeting is when the infomation that comes out may endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. How do you think B******i was investigated? it was behind closed doors also. How many times did the adminstration state that subpenoas didn't need to be responded to?
Ans. I don't agree with that proceedings. This is unprecedented. All prior impeachments were held in the open. Witnesses or whistle blowers must be interrogated for the validity of their statements. The Court could not accept heresies, rumors and gossips. That is the most stupid and ridiculous kind of justice proceedings. No sound judgement could has been written in books neither practiced and decided in the Court of Law. It is ridiculous to making a alibi of for security reasons? There are many way to protecting the whistle blower.
Adam's process refused to present the whistle blower in person, hide without any ways to identifying whether that party exist. No Court of Law must allow that. That must never be acceptable as valid and factual evidence. It is NONSENSE. I repeat, they have many ways to protect the whistle blower if that is their concern.
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the t***saction of business, including the mark-
up of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other
than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except
when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority
present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session[b[ because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national securty, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or in- criminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional staff, or departmental representatives as the committee may authorize, may not be present at a business or markup session that is held in executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to open committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or
by subparagraph (2). (2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its
subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television,
and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate a clause clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as
provided in clause 2(k)(5).
(C)[/quote]
Overall the impeachment is wrong. Nothing to impeach. The president has the right to investigate any diplomatic involvement with foreign countries, under his power, especially when it involves material consideration and mutual diplomacy. It is a protocol to know the other party the country's history, honesty, compliance, and integrity of the leaders involved. All these are essential policies to be done and enforced before any action proceeds. Failing to doing these are dereliction of duties on part of the president. But the president did exactly what needed to be done, and he must be commended for that instead of being accused to abuse of power. That power on the first place is vested on him as the Commander in Chief, as the Chief-Executive of this country. He was exercising his rights and privileges, and no one must stop him for doing that. The 3 branches of government have equal powers. The president has his own.
Sensitive information? I do not agree the fact that every meeting of the Adam Schiff's committee was isolated in secret and denied the presence of the Republic committee. That is not justice. That is a subversion of any justice proceedings. Adam Schiff manipulated and monopolized his proceedings to ensuring that only his party could discuss what plans and schemes they could make in violations of the other party. Never in prior Congress this had happened. It was a complete denial of due process. This impeachment were all done against the framework of the constitution, to subvert the rights of the president. The impeachment must be dismissed.
Merry Christmas America!
According to reports the Republicans who were assigned to committes didn't
Participate.
Ans. Republicans assigned in the committees did not participate because Adam Schiff did not allow them to.Adam Schiff did their meeting in secret at the house basement.
The se******n below came from page 18 of the House Rules document that in 2015 Republicans v**ed a change to subpoena requirements. Pease note what is in parentheses. All meetings other than committee on Ethics are to be in the open. Since the impeachment is based on presumed ethical practices the meetings can be held in private. Then the other option for closed meeting is when the infomation that comes out may endanger national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. How do you think B******i was investigated? it was behind closed doors also. How many times did the adminstration state that subpenoas didn't need to be responded to?
Ans. I don't agree with that proceedings. This is unprecedented. All prior impeachments were held in the open. Witnesses or whistle blowers must be interrogated for the validity of their statements. The Court could not accept heresies, rumors and gossips. That is the most stupid and ridiculous kind of justice proceedings. No sound judgement could has been written in books neither practiced and decided in the Court of Law. It is ridiculous to making a alibi of for security reasons? There are many way to protecting the whistle blower.
Adam's process refused to present the whistle blower in person, hide without any ways to identifying whether that party exist. No Court of Law must allow that. That must never be acceptable as valid and factual evidence. It is NONSENSE. I repeat, they have many ways to protect the whistle blower if that is their concern.
Open meetings and hearings
(g)(1) Each meeting for the t***saction of business, including the mark-
up of legislation, by a standing committee or subcommittee thereof (other
than the Committee on Ethics or its subcommittees) shall be open to the
public, including to radio, television, and still photography coverage, except
when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority
present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of the
meeting on that day shall be in executive session[b[ because disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger national securty, would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, would tend to defame, degrade, or in- criminate any person, or otherwise would violate a law or rule of the House. Persons, other than members of the committee and such noncommittee Members, Delegates, Resident Commissioner, congressional staff, or departmental representatives as the committee may authorize, may not be present at a business or markup session that is held in executive session. This subparagraph does not apply to open committee hearings, which are governed by clause 4(a)(1) of rule X or
by subparagraph (2). (2)(A) Each hearing conducted by a committee or subcommittee (other than the Committee on Ethics or its
subcommittees) shall be open to the public, including to radio, television,
and still photography coverage, except when the committee or subcommittee, in open session and with a majority present, determines by record v**e that all or part of the remainder of that hearing on that day shall be closed to the public because disclosure sensitive law enforcement information, or would violate a clause clause 2(k)(5); or
(ii) agree to close the hearing as
provided in clause 2(k)(5).
(C)[/quote]
Overall the impeachment is wrong. Nothing to impeach. The president has the right to investigate any diplomatic involvement with foreign countries, under his power, especially when it involves material consideration and mutual diplomacy. It is a protocol to know the other party the country's history, honesty, compliance, and integrity of the leaders involved. All these are essential policies to be done and enforced before any action proceeds. Failing to doing these are dereliction of duties on part of the president. But the president did exactly what needed to be done, and he must be commended for that instead of being accused to abuse of power. That power on the first place is vested on him as the Commander in Chief, as the Chief-Executive of this country. He was exercising his rights and privileges, and no one must stop him for doing that. The 3 branches of government have equal powers. The president has his own.
Sensitive information? I do not agree the fact that every meeting of the Adam Schiff's committee was isolated in secret and denied the presence of the Republic committee. That is not justice. That is a subversion of any justice proceedings. Adam Schiff manipulated and monopolized his proceedings to ensuring that only his party could discuss what plans and schemes they could make in violations of the other party. Never in prior Congress this had happened. It was a complete denial of due process. This impeachment were all done against the framework of the constitution, to subvert the rights of the president. The impeachment must be dismissed.
Merry Christmas America!
Dec 18, 2019 09:02:50 #
The teason Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since the girst week he came in to office is becsuse he has commited impeachable offences
Dec 18, 2019 09:06:44 #
lpnmajor
Loc: Arkansas
Radiance3 wrote:
i Notes: I have been saying this over and over, t... (show quote)
So? Democrats have the majority, so a full House v**e to start impeachment proceedings would have had the same result.
Dec 18, 2019 09:11:18 #
peg w wrote:
The teason Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump since the girst week he came in to office is becsuse he has commited impeachable offences
================
Your ignorance knows no bounds. All kinds of investigations done, wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers' money and wasted time of Congress that must be done to serve people who elected them.
All but h**xes nothing found to impeach, but Adam Schiff wanted the president to impeach even after he wins the 2020 e******n which I believe is a landslide victory.
You handouts are all crooks and social problems. Get lost please.
The libs are subverting the rights of the people. No shame but instead violate the constitution to get ahead.
Dec 18, 2019 09:14:50 #
lpnmajor wrote:
So? Democrats have the majority, so a full House v**e to start impeachment proceedings would have had the same result.
==============
Majority could not define the results alone. Legal proceedings must be enforced. No secretive and isolated procedures, depriving the other party to participate.
Dec 19, 2019 14:29:30 #
Kevyn wrote:
It’s legitimate, it’s the duty of congress and it’s happening no matter how much the Orange Anus and his cult of sycophants whines!
So, you can call me a sycophant but I can't call you an i***t. Why that's......that's...….I***TIC!
Dec 19, 2019 15:20:26 #
rjoeholl wrote:
So, you can call me a sycophant but I can't call you an i***t. Why that's......that's...….I***TIC!
It is the work of i***ts period. They trying to save a sinking ship with all the rats aboard regardless of the dirty tricks they will fail.
Dec 19, 2019 19:00:56 #
Radiance3 wrote:
i Notes: I have been saying this over and over, t... (show quote)
I remember you saying it.
Dec 19, 2019 21:48:58 #
Kevyn wrote:
It’s legitimate, it’s the duty of congress and it’s happening no matter how much the Orange Anus and his cult of sycophants whines!
Biden screwed up.and blabbed.
Our President had a DUTY to see what happened.
This is obvious Kevyn and had he not done so he would not be a good president I'd and most Americans would want!!!
It's our tax money on the line.
Dec 20, 2019 00:11:31 #
zombinis3
Loc: Southwest
Radiance3 wrote:
color=blue b Overall the impeachment is wrong. ... (show quote)
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/lots-no-shows-impeachment-inquiry-depositions
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/due-process/
Sensitive information? I do not agree the fact that every meeting of the Adam Schiff's committee was isolated in secret and denied the presence of the Republic committee.
That is not the only reason it could been held in closed door.
Overall the impeachment is wrong. Nothing to impeach. The president has the right to investigate any diplomatic involvement with foreign countries, under his power, especially when it involves material consideration and mutual diplomacy.
The house has the same responsibility if something is found wrong the house has to investigate.
No sound judgement could has been written in books neither practiced and decided in the Court of Law.
Inpeachment is not criminal case congress can't deal in criminal cases like you stated each branch has it own responsibility.
It was a complete denial of due process.
Criminal
By your statement it sounds like you are referring to the criminal due process
Due Process Law and Legal Definition. ... Due process requirements apply to both criminal and civil law. Due process generally requires fairness in government proceedings. A person is entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard at a hearing when they have life, liberty. or property at stake.
Inpeachment house rules page 23
Due process rights of respondents (p) The committee shall adopt rules
to provide that (1) not less than 10 calendar days before a scheduled v**e by an investigative subcommittee on a statement of alleged violation, the subcommittee shall provide the respondent with a copy of the statement of
alleged violation it intends to adopt together with all evidence it intends
to use to prove those charges which it intends to adopt, including docu-
mentary evidence, witness testimony, memoranda of witness interviews, and physical evidence, unless the subcommittee by an affirmative v**e of a majority of its members decides to withhold certain evidence in
order to protect a witness; but if such evidence is withheld, the sub-
committee shall inform the respondent that evidence is being withheld
and of the count to which such evidence relates
Ans. Republicans assigned in the committees did not participate because Adam Schiff did not allow them to.
As per Roll call
All 15
Adam Schiff California dem
Jim Jordan Ohio oversight ranking
Mark Meadows NC oversight GOP
Devin Nunes California 8
Elsie Stefanik New York 9
Michael McCaul Texas 7 Rep Foreign Affairs ranking
Eliot L. Engel New York 3 Dem chairman
Scott Perry Pennsylvania 13 Rep Foreign Affairs
Lee Zeldin New York 11 Rep Foreign Affairs
Elijah E. Cummings Maryland Too ill Dem oversight
Carolyn B. Maloney NY 7 Dem acting chair
18 never attended
In total, the transcripts show 14 Republicans and four Democrats did not participate.
The fact that more Republicans did not participate than Democrats is noteworthy because the GOP complained that all members weren’t allowed to attend the depositions, with some even storming the secure area where the proceedings were held in protest.
In addition to Crawford, the Republicans nonparticipants were: Oversight Reps. Paul Gosar of Arizona, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, James Comer of Kentucky and Mark Green of Tennessee; and Foreign Affairs Reps. Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey, Steve Chabot of Ohio, Joe Wilson of South Carolina, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Ron Wright of Texas and Greg Pence of Indiana.
The only republican asked to leave was Matt Gaetz, Jordan stated that after 20 hours of testimony with only 12 present a 13th shouldn't be a problem.
The removal was finally completed after the ruling from the House parliamentarian. Gaetz agreed to leave the room. These depositions were held on Oct 3rd and 11th, the house was on reccess.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.