About time as Pelosi will hold a vote this week on impeachment

originally posted by: face23785
She just wants to get this over and done with because it's hurting the party. The only reason they went down this road was to appease the rabid base. She knows this is pointless. She's trying to straddle a line between making the extremists happy and not alienating moderates and Independents. I think she miscalculated.

I think she should go full bore, full impeachment and damn the cannons

Then see whose in shackles as the smoke clears, unfortunately the deep state is deeper than can be reached by some, so probably nothing but a few indictments of patsies and short prison time, then its all passed

Are we done yet wtih all this? Some of these people should be imprisoned for life for what they have done and others sentenced to worse.

We are at a precipice of the opportunity to take our republic back and unless we stand up, advocate, vote, and FINALLY as CONSERVATIVES protest, the moment will pass us by and it will be lost.

I am confined to a wheel chair, an island, and the crap pay from the gov for my service, but by god if i had the means I would be out on those steps, I get it we have jobs and families to take care of, but if we do nothing we will have naught the opportunity for either

Believe when I see it. Going on for over a month with no vote. All of a sudden she has all this support. Maybe so but hold the vote let's see. Let's all see all those that lose their seat over this vote when the smoke clears.

Sundance's take:

"The House resolution is intended to authorize and validate the pre-existing Pelosi “impeachment inquiry”, and then expand the authority within the rules to create the impression of a full House impeachment investigation; without actually having a House “impeachment investigation” vote…. because that would open-up rights to the minority and rights to the executive."

theconservativetreehouse.com...

Basically, they're up to the same trick, just taking a different route after the recent decision by Judge Howell, in hopes of being able to override executive privilege.
Still avoiding an actual impeachment investigation and just reaffirming the Speaker's decree of an impeachment "inquiry" with maybe a few changes in the mix.

This is great! I wonder if she realizes that if the Senate gets the trial around say June 2020, that Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders wont be able to campaign.??? As sitting Senators they are required to be jurors ( as are all 100 Senators) and cannot be excused....

This is an already failed reboot of The Muh Russia
probe that is now under a criminal investigation!

"we'll all hang from nooses"
Hillary Clinton 2015

Gosh, I guess now there's nothing for the White House to whine about any longer, eh?

With the initial investigations complete, and the facts known about the coverup, the whistleblowers protected ... this can now move to the next phase: all impeachment, all the time: every excuse removed.

I'm not a big fan of Pelosi by any stretch, but I was mistaken about her strategy, because now the White House and Trump's allies are on record for weeks stating that the only reason they weren't turning over all the information was that there had been no vote.

There will now be a vote.

And that vote is backed up with all the juicy details gathered from weeks of investigation, a judicial acknowledgement and release of even more evidence ... and the White House has knitted a nice cravat from all the rope Nancy gave them.

What is it some folks say?

BWAHAHAHA.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Charges dismissed for want of jurisdiction; Blount had been expelled from the U.S. Senate before his trial.

Luminari's link above.

Which raises the question, can U.S. senators and representatives be impeached? Generally speaking, no. The Senate Historical Office says the legality is "ambiguous," and in practice, it doesn’t happen. The one and only time the Senate had the chance to affirm that a member of Congress can be impeached, it took a pass.

Source

Then I guess you really need to send an email to the House of Representatives and tell them that they need to take that Senator off the list of people that the House has impeached, right?

His impeachment was dropped because he was expelled so they no longer had jurisdiction.

Had he stayed in the impeachment would have been completed.

The Constitution states "Federal official" as who the House can start impeachment proceedings on.

Are you saying that someone in Congress is not a Federal officer?

a reply to: Lumenari

You should really read your source charges were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction AND the fact that the Senate had already expelled him.

And the Constitutional phase is "civil officer."

I know that actual facts aren't that important to the argument you're trying to make.

I QUOTED from YOUR source to prove YOUR claim to be incorrect even in 1797.

No jurisdiction means no impeachment. That hasn't been tried in court yet, and what has it been, only 222 years, LOL




Actually, upon reflection, the actual facts here are not as simple as I made them out to be in this post above.

Senator Blount was impeached technically, i.e. the House voted on and delievered Articles of Impeachment. It was literally the first use of the Impeachment power, and the Senate immediately adopted its own rules which have been in place ever since, which effectively deny the House the right to Impeach a member of the Senate.

BUT, Luminari is correct in the assertion made that the House DID impeach a Senator, but incorrect in the claim that Members of Congress are civil officers.

Again, from Luminari's source:

Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers. Blount, who had been accused of instigating an insurrection of American Indians to further British interests in Florida, was not convicted, but the Senate did expel him.

Looks like they deceived again. They are just reaffirming the impeachment process. Which means more stalling and nonsense as usual. Just trying to fool the fools into thinking Trump must be guilty of "something".

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Which means more stalling and nonsense as usual.

Who is stalling? Do you think?

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Looks like they deceived again. They are just reaffirming the impeachment process. Which means more stalling and nonsense as usual. Just trying to fool the fools into thinking Trump must be guilty of "something".

Ooops. Trying to reverse the claims now? Already?

Realized that "all that is needed is a House vote" invalidates every claim made by the WH so far?

Yeah. Sauce for the goose, LOL.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Which means more stalling and nonsense as usual.

Who is stalling? Do you think?

The DNC. They won't be able to do anything to Trump. Senate will strike it down as their is no crime or fault of Trump. They just want to keep themselves from being investigated. The Ukraine scandal for example. www.youtube.com...

Plus they will drag this out to brain wash the mindless masses into believing Trump actually did something wrong as they mostly control the media. Which they calculate will get more votes.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

The DNC. They won't be able to do anything to Trump.

Correct. But then, the DNC isn't technically part of the equation.

Plus they will drag this out to brain wash the mindless masses into believing Trump actually did something wrong as they mostly control the media.

The DNC can't drag anything out. But the White House seems to be doing it's best with its idiotic letters.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Which means more stalling and nonsense as usual.

Who is stalling? Do you think?

well considering theyve been pushing this BS for almost a month so far, it would see to be clear its the Democrats

You having an aneurysm or a brain-fart? at our age either is understandable, otherwise dotn play stupid

a reply to: Phage

The DNC can't drag anything out. But the White House seems to be doing it's best with its idiotic letters.

Except they have bee draggin out this impeachment accusation for almost a month now without putting it for a vote in order to run the bs through the media for effect.

Were close to the same age, although in my 60s i think im a bit older, at any rate, theres no way youre this stupid , or youre baiting

Either way youre too old to be acting like such a Muppet, baiting people for questions you already know the answer to.

To everyone else, it would behoove you not to deal with people who are only looking for a reaction over discussion.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Could you show us in the Constitution where there is a timetable for impeachment?

2nd line

a reply to: Gryphon66

Could you show us where in the Constitution a reference to words "The House" means only those of one party - not the entire house/congress in regards to impeachment?

I believe this is why reference to "inquiry" "affirmation of inquiry" rather than straight up impeachment vote (full house) are used. A vote failed three times already for God's sake!

Playing word salad will come back to haunt Pelosi etel.

a reply to: Phoenix

No I cannot. Thankfully the Constitution doesn't refer to political parties.

These are semantic games are being played by two extremes set up by the corporate media. All that has happened to date is an announcement from the Speaker of the House and investigations by House Committees which are empowered at the beginning of every Congressional Session to do what they've done by the Rules of the House. In the case of the whistleblower, those investigations were required by law after the referral from the IG.

The claims that the investigations aren't legal are ludicrous talking points. The Republican members of these Committees have not been excluded.

On the other hand, my position has been that the Democrats were pretty dumb for not doing things the way they'd been done in the past. There is no Constitutional requirement for how an impeachment proceeds procedurally. I'm now willing to entertain the idea that Pelosi has actually properly set up the Republicans and the White House who have claimed for weeks now that a full House vote was necessary and that was preventing the White House from properly responding to subpoena.

That excuse is gone now or will be after the House votes on the resolution.

/shrug

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SailorJerry

Could you show us in the Constitution where there is a timetable for impeachment?

2nd line

So this means that the Senate could indefinitely stall their vote, since there is no timetable for impeachment.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Wouldn't surprise me at all considering McConnell's past behavior.