Let's Make Things Clear

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

To be clear though, Pelosi is trying to demand stuff because she thinks she's a queen, but on VERY NICE stationary.

To be clear though, Trump is trying to demand (and prevent) stuff because he thinks he's a king, but uses very nice White House Stationary as if that makes it legal.

a reply to: Liquesence

Awww, I see what you did there.

YOU think Trump is evil and Pelosi is honorable.

Awesome.


Is she like, a star or something? You have an autographed picture?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Awww, I see what you did there.

YOU think Trump is evil and Pelosi is honorable.

Awesome.

Awww, I see what you did there.

YOU think Pelosi is evil and Trump is honorable.

Awesome.

Even though I never said she as honorable.

Is she like, a star or something?

When you're a star they let you do it, grab 'em by the pu$$y, whatever. Doubt Pelosi could get away with grabbing someone else's.

a reply to: Liquesence

Has she ever denied trying?

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

By definition Democrats and Republicans are both partisans.

It's just amusing the dichotomy here that one side is good and the other is bad.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

I've given you the Rules ... quote from them to back up your claim or not.

We have precedent from this session.
We had a vote.
No rules were changed with respect to impeachment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing

May I say as a sidenote, I find it fascinating that you think you (or any of us) understand the Rules of the House better than Nancy Pelosi.

She allowed the vote on the resolution brought by Congressman Green.
Its simple precedent from this session.
I find it fascinating you don't understand precedent.

a reply to: Liquesence

What about all those times Obama used executive privilege to block investigations run by the House during his time in office? Did he "think he was king" too?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing

May I say as a sidenote, I find it fascinating that you think you (or any of us) understand the Rules of the House better than Nancy Pelosi.

She allowed the vote on the resolution brought by Congressman Green.
Its simple precedent from this session.
I find it fascinating you don't understand precedent.

I find it interesting that the new strawmen is that we think Pelosi doesn't understand the rules. Of course, she does. But one can still flaunt rules one understands. Criminals do it all the time. So do drivers who speed.

Pelosi has to understand what she's doing to give this the veneer of propriety like she is.

a reply to: ketsuko

The danger is the Speaker of The House being able to change and set rules as she/he sees fit.

Pelosi doesn't plan to rule for the next 100 years, does she?

a reply to: Oraculi

Why Not take it to Court then if such " Suspect " Evidence Exists ? The Reality is , there is NO Evidence , so the Prez should Tell them All to Fook Off Already .......

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing

May I say as a sidenote, I find it fascinating that you think you (or any of us) understand the Rules of the House better than Nancy Pelosi.

She allowed the vote on the resolution brought by Congressman Green.
Its simple precedent from this session.
I find it fascinating you don't understand precedent.

I find it interesting that the new strawmen is that we think Pelosi doesn't understand the rules. Of course, she does. But one can still flaunt rules one understands. Criminals do it all the time. So do drivers who speed.

Pelosi has to understand what she's doing to give this the veneer of propriety like she is.

From what I can find case law states a full house or senate vote for a resolution is required for either bodies investigations to have enforceable subpoenas.
Reed vs county commissioners
So it appears they can "investigate" with no ability to enforce any subpoenas without a house floor vote.
So it will be a farcical investigation.
How they will manufacture articles of impeachment with no evidence I do not know.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So, confronted with the actual Rules of the House, and being shown that your claim and that of others is false, you now want to babble about precedent?

LOL. Sad.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What in the world are you talking about? The Rules of the House has been linked above.

The Rules don't require what you and others here have claimed.

Is this complicated to understand?

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

The Fourth Amendment regards private citizens in their homes (and logical extensions thereof) and requires warrants.

It is simply ... breathtakingly illogical to attempt to claim in your post that the Fourth somehow limits the CONSTITUTIONAL powers of Congress to conduct oversight on the Executive Branch or conduct an impeachment inquiry. The actions of Trump and the rest of the Executive Branch are not private actions they are public.

You brought up the Fifth, not me, claiming that ...

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26

Exercising your 5th Amendment rights is not obstructing justice and isn't impeachable.

In case you've forgotten, here's the text of the actual Fifth:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Impeachment is not a criminal investigation; that will come later.

a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL ... for any interested reader, here's the decision in "Reed v. County Commissioners" ...

Resolutions of the U.S. Senate created a committee of Senators to investigate the means used to influence the nomination of candidates for the Senate, and empowered it to require attendance of witnesses and production of books and papers, to take and preserve all ballot boxes, etc., used in a certain senatorial election, "and to do such other acts as may be necessary in the matter of said investigation." The committee and their agent brought suit in a federal court against county officers to obtain possession of the ballot boxes, etc. Held: 1. That the general authority conveyed by the clause above quoted is to be confined to acts of the same general class as those specifically authorized. P. 277 U. S. 389. 2. The context, the practice of the Senate to rely on its own powers, and the attending circumstances show that the Senate did not intend to authorize the committee to invoke the power of the Judicial Department. Id. 3. Therefore, the plaintiffs were not "authorized by law to sue," within the meaning of Jud.Code, § 24, defining jurisdiction of the district court. Id. 21 F.2d 1018 affirmed.

Notice that this regards the Senate, the text of a SPECIFIC resolution regarding a County government and the interpretation of same, not the Consitutional power of Impeachment.

In other words, the reference to Reed is merely more muddy water thrown on the subject under discussion.

Justia

a reply to: ketsuko

Perhaps you missed it:

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing

Trimmed for relevance, emphasis mine.

/shrug

So, to summarize: the claim that the House doesn't have the power to investigate the President and the Executive Branch is false, the claim that the rules of the House require any specific procedural vote in an impeachment investigation is false, as is the claim that the "Jefferson Manual" requires same, as is the claim that Pelosi and Schiff are acting outside their Constitutional authority, as is the claim that a specific decision of the SCOTUS in regard to a specific Senate resolution alters the Constitution of the United States ... etc. etc. etc.

Anything else?

a reply to: shooterbrody

To further clear up the matter:

It was long assumed that no judicial review of the impeachment process was possible, that impeachment presents a true “political question” case, i. e. , that the Constitution’s conferral on the Senate of the “sole” power to try impeachments is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of trial procedures to the Senate to decide without court review. That assumption was not contested until very recently, when Judges Nixon and Hastings challenged their Senate convictions. In the Judge Nixon case, the Court held that a claim to judicial review of an issue arising in an impeachment trial in the Senate presents a nonjusticiable “political question.” Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.

Justia

Emphasis mine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

So, confronted with the actual Rules of the House, and being shown that your claim and that of others is false, you now want to babble about precedent?

LOL. Sad.

You NOT understanding the legal aspects of "precedent" is sad.
Without subpoena power this whole event is a joke, one pulled by the speaker of the house.
Good luck with the electorate when that point is understood.