Let's Make Things Clear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

It is not illegal to investigate corruption; it is illegal to induce a foreign power to interfere in our elections.

But if corruption involves someone in the election, how can you differentiate?

If Trump wanted to investigate Biden, he should have done so with the resources of the Executive Branch, not ask foreign powers to do the dirty work in some alleged quid pro quo arrangement.

Is there a specific RULE that Trump HAS to follow to pursue investigations?

a reply to: Gryphon66
Nobody has said it, nobody should have to say it. It should hang over every conversation on the topic without being said.

The 4th is being violated by the investigations. It is clear the intent is to get an impeachment, not 'oversight' of the president or to find 'high crimes or misdemeanors'. The voluntary release of the transcript should satisfy Oversight, but it's not enough. This second-hand heresay claim is too compelling, congress must dig further...

Nobody said the 5th was violated, sometimes you have to exercise the 5th Amendment to protect the 4th. That's when you tell the investigators to take a hike, nobody's saying anything and you don't get anything without a subpoena or warrant. The left call that obstruction, as did you, and THAT is an attack on the 5th.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

Again, where in the Constitution do we find the requirements for the authority of House committees?

That should be easy to answer, since you're invoking the Constitution.

If you claim they don't exist, then the answer must be that they can act indiscriminately.

a reply to: RickyD

The Framers gave the power of Impeachment to the House after considerable debate.

When you say "won't pass muster in the Senate where we currently sit" are you referring to the Republican majority in the Senate?

Are you suggesting that the Senate Republicans should act in a partisan manner while you damn the House Democrats for doing so?

Fascinating.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't agree with how it is being handled but I have been searching to find a rebuttle online and haven't found it. I would love to find or hear one that holds weight with citation...i just cant so far...its all left leaning sources which we both know won't put the work in to rebut it and I havent seen a right leaning one that cites factual evidence that refutes it. The house can proceed however they wish, without breaking any house rules which they aren't, up until the time to pass said articles to the Senate which does indeed require a vote and a basic majority...something they do have.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Strawman. I didn't claim anything of the sort.

Cite the Constitution to back up your claim of "Constitutionality" ... or not.

I believe you know you're arguing from rhetoric not facts.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I am suggesting that is exactly how past cases have gone yes. Without interjecting my feelings into it party line votes are the norm here...as was the case with Clinton.

a reply to: RickyD

Yes, but the system was not intended to more or less allow two people from the body to stand in front of the press, declare they're impeaching the President and start issuing subpoenas and have them fall with full force of law.

One thing the Founders feared was that impeachment would become a tool of partisan politics, and if one or two Representatives can truly declare open season on the President like this, then this is what it actually is or has become through break down of the understood rules of procedure as they've been followed in the past.

a reply to: RickyD

Just as a curiosity ... since when are the facts of a matter "right or left leaning"?

Facts are facts, right? And out of curiosity, how do you determine if a source is "right" or "left"?

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't agree with how it is being handled but I have been searching to find a rebuttle online and haven't found it. I would love to find or hear one that holds weight with citation...i just cant so far...its all left leaning sources which we both know won't put the work in to rebut it and I havent seen a right leaning one that cites factual evidence that refutes it. The house can proceed however they wish, without breaking any house rules which they aren't, up until the time to pass said articles to the Senate which does indeed require a vote and a basic majority...something they do have.

Okay.

So they (the House) can do whatever they want, whenever they want and none of us can do a damned thing about it.

a reply to: ketsuko

While its not tradition nor how its ever been handled before basically yes...they do have the ability to do just what they are doing. I am unclear if they can force trump or his staff to comply with their requests they can indeed investigate as they are. The optics are bad for them to proceed this way though as far as I'm concerned.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DBCowboy

Strawman. I didn't claim anything of the sort.

Cite the Constitution to back up your claim of "Constitutionality" ... or not.

I believe you know you're arguing from rhetoric not facts.

I can't!

Apparently there is no "Constitutionality" , so they can do whatever they want, apparently.

a reply to: RickyD

Okay, allow me to rephrase.

Should the Republican-controlled Senate act to fairly and reasonably hold a trial regarding proposed Articles or should they merely protect Mr. Trump, since said Articles would only be "partisan" regardless of obvoius facts?

a reply to: DBCowboy

In regards to impeachment investigations yes they are given a pretty damn wide birth. I am as surprised as anyone but until someone can show me something sourced that says otherwise they indeed can. Its pretty dumb to me but that's the way its written. Again this is probably history making in its unorthodxness. Never before has a presidential impeachment been handled this way...but until they intend to actually pass the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial they do not have to vote a thing.

a reply to: DBCowboy

AH HA!

Now we come to the real matter!!!

Yes, it is appalling in my opinion that so much of the power of our Government is based on interpretation!

I have believed for three years that's part of the ... reason for Mr. Trump's Presidency ... to show us how absurd the powers of the Office have become.

(Same goes for the Congress, both chambers.)

EDIT: High time for a Constitutional Convention!

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think both the house and senate should be impartial...so far one of those 2 haven't now been very impartial at all and that is where this begins. Do I think the senate should take an impartial stance on a very unimpartial spectical the house is presenting them with...no its obsurred and not based in law at all. They haven't proven to me they actually have a case at all. If I was Mitch I would torpedo this they day it came across my desk.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So you agree that there is no "set" way of conducting an impeachment inquiry and that they (House leadership) are acting indiscriminately.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: RickyD

Okay, allow me to rephrase.

Should the Republican-controlled Senate act to fairly and reasonably hold a trial regarding proposed Articles or should they merely protect Mr. Trump, since said Articles would only be "partisan" regardless of obvoius facts?

In order to get the Articles, there would actually have to be a vote, now wouldn't there?

Nancy and Adam can't just draft them up and send them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

If you are honest with yourself regardless of the party facts in our government are only used or observed when they suit the side viewing them. Often skewed and often misrepresented. Perfect world yes...our world...seldom to never. Its why I dislike politics and politicians in general. I do like trump only for the fact he has, to me, done more on my behalf than any president in my lifetime.

a reply to: RickyD

So one Senator (McConnell) should have the power to subvert the obvious intent of the Founders?

Here's a better one for you, let's assume for the sake of argument that the contention being made above that Pelosi and Schiff are doing these investigations as some sort of rogue action on their own ... (absurd to my mind, but ....).

It's wrong for Pelosi to act as a partistan but you would cheer for McConnell to do the same thing???