Here is my "take" on the impeachment inquiry, that it violates the 6th Ammendment

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: The2Billies

While you bring up interesting points, this is not a criminal proceeding and the 6th Amendment as you quoted it wouldn’t apply.

If it's not a criminal proceeding, then what is it? They are using all the rhetoric of a criminal proceeding in their language when they talk to the press about it.

And if it's not, they have no call to be whining about obstruction of justice when no one complies with their attempts.

This is a political procedure. It is impeachment. If Trump loses, he is forced from the Presidency, not convicted of a crime.

We are using this process because Mueller said that it was not possible to charge a sitting President with a crime. And then Trump went ahead and committed more crimes, so... impeachment is necessary to hold him accountable for his actions.

The House has constitutional authority over the Executive branch in an impeachment inquiry. Trump can still obstruct by keeping the House from the documents it is entitled to by the constitution. Right now, Trump is saying he won't cooperate unless the Democrats / House hold a formal vote first.

a reply to: ketsuko


For some reason, it was just made more difficult for me to sign in????? Two more steps???? Facebook did it. I can not log on with my email, only through Facebook.

Anyway, I have decided that this is truly a coup.

Making it quite public that Democrats are having behind doors secret meetings, no opposition voices or sympathetic voices to the President allowed

Making it public their goal is the ouster of the President of the US

Having plans in place to arrest the President's Cabinet if they won't cooperate.

Definitely a coup attempt.

I'm sure that now Facebook will make it impossible to log on because dissenting voices must be suppressed.

a reply to: The2Billies

A coup (short for coup d'etat) is usually considered to be a violent overthrough of a govenment by illegal means.

Impeachment is a Constitutional process for beginning the process of removing an official.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: The2Billies

While you bring up interesting points, this is not a criminal proceeding and the 6th Amendment as you quoted it wouldn’t apply.

If it's not a criminal proceeding, then what is it? They are using all the rhetoric of a criminal proceeding in their language when they talk to the press about it.

And if it's not, they have no call to be whining about obstruction of justice when no one complies with their attempts.

This is a political procedure. It is impeachment. If Trump loses, he is forced from the Presidency, not convicted of a crime.

We are using this process because Mueller said that it was not possible to charge a sitting President with a crime. And then Trump went ahead and committed more crimes, so... impeachment is necessary to hold him accountable for his actions.

The House has constitutional authority over the Executive branch in an impeachment inquiry. Trump can still obstruct by keeping the House from the documents it is entitled to by the constitution. Right now, Trump is saying he won't cooperate unless the Democrats / House hold a formal vote first.

So I take it you are ok with a political procedure;
whose publically stated goal is to oust the President of the US
is held behind closed doors
will not allow members of the President's party to attend
will not allow any "testimony" that does not make their case
with public pre-plans to arrest Cabinet members
will not allow anyone to represent the President in the "hearings"
will not allow the press or any public to attend
only allows Democratic Party members to leak the information the Democrats want them to leak, which is evident by a lack of concern over these "leaks"

This is what the Democratic Party has come to?
And you applaud what they are doing? It appears so with your writings.
Ok. Just be aware of the consequences.

Except when it happens to a Democratic President, which there is sure to be one. Don't get upset. Don't whine, it is now a precedent set. Start impeachment investigations before the swearing in - the new normal. Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the new President within months of inauguration - the new normal. Have behind doors secret meetings to oust the President and don't allow Democrats to attend or any legal representative of the President to attend - the new normal. YES, millennials will be convinced this is the new normal and the way the US political system works now. It will become the new normal way of treating future Presidents.

Thanks Democratic Party for the new normal. BTW, conservatives are just as angry and dislike and distrust Democratic Presidents as Democrats do Republican Presidents. In the past the conservative took it with Reagan and Bush. We tolerated Clinton and Obama. The big difference now, conservatives have finally learned from the Democrats, we must fight back at all costs, just as the Democrats have done these past 3 years, you have taught us that. The soul of the nation is at stake, especially when (not if) a Democrat wins the electoral college and not the popular vote. Thanks for a lesson well taught that will never be forgotten.

Let us not forget the new normal of insisting Presidents turn over transcripts of diplomatic phone calls to foreign leaders if anyone in Congress requests them, to be made public, and published in the press around the world. Talk about killing future diplomacy efforts. US Presidents can never ever again be trusted by world leaders now that this has happened. Thanks Democratic Party for the new normal.

An aside: Fascinating "Banksy" photos are in the background of ATS whenever I am writing.

a reply to: The2Billies

Impeachment is Constitutionally defined as a process to remove a government official for whatever reasons the majority of the House and Senate find valid.

The House Intelligence Committee has taken steps to interview principals in the "whistleblower" matter in private as is its mandate. The whistleblower was CIA which is the purvue of this committee.

What meetings have Republicans been shut out of? Official meetings of a House Committee?

What testimony has not been allowed?

What plans to arrest Cabinet members? Are you talking about enforcing contempt of Congress?

An Impeachment inquiry in the House is not a "trial" that format happens in the Senate. Impeachment, again, is more like an arrainment.

Etc. etc. in short ... what evidence do you have for your claims?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: The2Billies

A coup (short for coup d'etat) is usually considered to be a violent overthrough of a govenment by illegal means.

Impeachment is a Constitutional process for beginning the process of removing an official.

Yes, I know what it is.

It is not always violent.

If secret, behind closed door meetings, with no one with an opposing voice allowed, is legal, then there is absolutely no hope for the future of the USA. If making plans to arrest the Cabinet members openly and in public, is legal and applauded by the Democratic Party membership. Then there really is no hope for the future of the US.

We might as well do what Obama wanted, and become like the Chinese. Remember he said life would be much easier for the government if we had the Chinese form of government.

Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, “No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.”

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66


I have given evidence in previous writings. Reread the thread.

a reply to: The2Billies

If you know what a coup is you know that current investigations don't qualify as a coup unless you are merely expressing yourself in a metaphorical way. No, a coup is not always violent, but it is always illegal.

Again, what "secret closed door meetings" are you referring to? Congressional committees meet out of public view all the time, particularly those dealing with sensitive issues of national security and protecting our intelligence personnel.

Again, what plans to arrest Cabinet members are you referring to?

Obama wanted us to be like the Chinese? Oh my.

Is that like Trump suggesting that he should be made President for life?

a reply to: The2Billies

You made a string of vague charges that are absurd and unsubstantiated in the post I replied to, if you have no evidence, I have my answer. Thank you kindly.

originally posted by: thedigirati
remember folks

"they" said "only white people are racist"

"they" said "borders are racist"

now

"they" say "Impeachment is what we say it is"

"they" have a pattern

"they" Hate President Trump because he says

NO!

The best definition I ever heard regarding who "they" are came from a friend of mine some years ago...

He would use the phrase "well, you know what "they" say..." pretty often.

Finally, he was asked who "they" were and he responded: "Who are "they"? "They" are friends of my wife".

We all cracked up and laughed about that response for a long time...

a reply to: darkbake

OK ... so if impeachment is purely political now and obviously purely partisan.

No sitting president should ever expect to finish a term without being impeached if he or she cannot hold the House in his or her party because there is nothing stopping this type of thing from happening from this point forward.

All the majority party has to do is declare "Congressional Oversight", put together a kangaroo court behind closed doors, and pass along articles of impeachment along a strict party line vote.

a reply to: ketsuko

By George, I think you've got it!

See Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: The2Billies




An Impeachment inquiry in the House is not a "trial" that format happens in the Senate. Impeachment, again, is more like an arrainment.

You are correct that the "trial" happens in the Senate. But the House proceedings are like a Grand Jury proceeding, not an arraignment. An arraignment is the process where a person is brought before a judicial officer and is advised of the charges and is asked to enter a plea in answer to the charge(s). No evidence is presented. At a grand jury hearing, the prosecutor, and only the prosecutor, presents evidence to determine if there is probable cause to believe that a prohibited act was committed and the defendant committed it. The defendant has no constitutional right to appear or present witnesses, although some jurisdictions by statute allow the defendant to appear and testify. Any defendant who did so usualy talked their way into prison.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

By George, I think you've got it!

See Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

Even that one followed the rules we've all been trying to tell you exist -- a vote is always included allowing the full House to go on record.

So no, you're comparing apples and oranges even if you want to call them both politically motivated.

a reply to: ketsuko

You don't speak for "all" Kets. What is this strange group-think Trump-fans have?

You're claiming that the impeachment of Clinton wasn't politically motivated?

You're claiming that the acquittal of Clinton wasn't politically motivated?

Yes or no?

a reply to: F4guy

You are stretching the metaphor beyond all reason and usefullness.

This quote addresses the matter completely, accurately, and from a qualified source:

“The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution,”

The Impeachment Process in the House - Congressional Research Service

Please read it again, and for god's sakes stop the mindless repetitions of White House talking points.

a reply to: The2Billies

Ill help you a bit with you "crime" metaphor.

When someone is arrested on suspicion of robbing a bank, said person does not get to be present when the police question the teller or the witnesses. Said persons lawyer does not get to be present when the prosecution questions the witnesses or even other members involved in the crime.

I bet though if trump volunteered to testify before the house Intel committee they would allow him counsel.

Oh and if you want to follow "precedent" so bad how about we put in what the house considered a high crimesfor Johnson.

Articles 10 and 11 of their impeachment.

10. Making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States".
11. Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions.

Pretty sure trump is "guilty" of both of those.

Unfortunately our standards for a president have dropped a bit over the years I guess.

What I think is funny here is people asking what laws the house is breaking doing what they are doing at the moment.

The house is ruled by rules not specific laws, and the reason being is those rules can be changed when the house sits.

From my research the 116th house has rules that the power of Subpoena is provided to chairs or committees:

Power to sit and act; subpoena power
(m)(1) For the purpose of carrying
out any of its functions and duties
under this rule and rule X (including
any matters referred to it under clause
2 of rule XII), a committee or sub-
committee is authorized (subject to
subparagraph (3)(A))—
(A) to sit and act at such times and
places within the United States,
whether the House is in session, has
recessed, or has adjourned, and to
hold such hearings as it considers
necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or oth-
erwise, the attendance and testimony
of such witnesses and the production
of such books, records, correspond-
ence, memoranda, papers, and docu-
ments as it considers necessary.

The speaker of the house has now power to issue subpoena at their own will. Committees are formed either by the rules established by the house or via resolution.

When you base your existence on rules and presidence, it leaves it open to abuse. Going against presidence should be a last resort and generally, you'd think, would have a resolution passed before doing so.

Sounds like a coup attempt and treason to me.

Why are we investigating all this again? I thought it was over quid pro quo. That's what the whistleblower came forward over, right?

Now Schiff seems to have admitted this morning that there was no quid pro quo in the phone call.

"We have discovered in short order not only the contents of that call, but also the preparatory work that went into the call. The effort to condition something the Ukrainian president deeply sought, and that was a meeting with the president to establish that this new president of Ukraine had a powerful patron in the president of the United States that was of vital importance to Ukraine, was being conditioned on digging up dirt on the Bidens," Schiff told to Margaret Brennan.

"So, you see that as the quid quo pro, not just the military aid," she replied.

"Well, first of all, there doesn't need to be a quid pro quo," Schiff told her. "But it is clear already, I think, from the text messages that this meeting that the Ukrainian president sought was being conditioned on their willingness to intervene in the U.S. election to help the president."

So if quid pro quo was the problem, and now there is none ... what are we investigating again?