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

I would think the Senate would pick up any Impeachment passed in the House.
How long the trial would be is another matter - it might be short.
I would hope that the Senate would first consider whether the charges brought are even an impeachable offense, before getting into any proceedings on guilt/innocence.
Still strugging to see any law of rule has been broken, never mind something that is impeachable.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The only time the Senate has ever declined an Impeachment was in 1797.

At least there is precedent. There is no precedent for the House refusing its Constitutional obligation to hold a vote of the whole House to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry.

Given McConnell's past trampling of the Constitution,

Forgetting that litle thing called evidence? Just one example will do...

interestingly though, Chief Justice Roberts will preside in this Constitutionally-mandated action,

If it is initiated...

therefore, I believe we will see a trial.

You also believe that "The House of Representatives' means Nancy and Shifty acting in cahoots with a few other rigue Congress critters, instead of the whole House, as it plainly does.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You don't understand precedent or the Constitution.

"Because I said so" works for you.

The House Impeaches.

I do not.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Since I didn't get an answer all the way back from page 3, I'll ask again.

So, let me ask a question. If you are a US citizen, you travel to a country that allows you to do something, that something being illegal in the United States. Do you not think you can be prosecuted as a US citizen, by the US government, for that action?

I just want to make sure I'm reading you correctly.

Or have you decided what was said was a very ignorant statement?

a reply to: Hypntick

Are you familiar with the concept of jurisdiction?

IF so, you have your answer. If not, maybe you can look it up. Also, look up extradition and why it happens.

Here's an actual example. Let's say ... using the services of a prostitute in Amsterdam.

I commit a "crime" in Amsterdam, and you believe that when I get back to the United States I'm going to be tried for it?

Is that the kind of "ignorance" you're talking about?

a reply to: Gryphon66

it is a federal crime, prosecutable in the United States, for a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien, to engage in illicit sexual conduct in a foreign country with a person under the age of 18, whether or not the U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident alien intended to engage in such illicit sexual conduct prior to going abroad.

PROTECT Act of 2003

Now this is a single example of what you can be prosecuted for outside of physical jurisdiction. I can't speak to what Hunter Biden may or may not have done, or if the US has a law on the books that allows for prosecution of whatever he may or may not have done outside of the US. That being said, as an international traveler myself, it is reasonably known that if you commit something that is considered a crime in the US while abroad, you can be tried for it. Is this likely in most cases? No. Then again most people are not the sons of the former VP of the US.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You don't understand precedent or the Constitution.

I understand both very well. You are the one refusing to admit that "The House of Representatives" means the whole House, and that the Speaker (or any other rogue solitary member or tiny group of partisan members) has the Power of Impeachment.

"Because I said so" works for you.

Talking to yourself in front of the mirror again... tsk, tsk...

The House Impeaches.

Correct. Not the Speaker. Not Adam Schiff. The (whole) House.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would think the Senate would pick up any Impeachment passed in the House.
How long the trial would be is another matter - it might be short.
I would hope that the Senate would first consider whether the charges brought are even an impeachable offense, before getting into any proceedings on guilt/innocence.
Still strugging to see any law of rule has been broken, never mind something that is impeachable.

That's the problem. Stuff like "Abuse of power" is inherently subjective and subject to politicization. They've tried to claim obstruction of justice before, but they can't show where Trump obstructed the investigation. (Firing Comey didn't stop anything, and Trump has stated he knew it wouldn't.) As has been stated here ad nauseum, there is no such crime as "colluding with Russia" (or Ukraine), and when you start talking about "election meddling" then you're back in the world where it's a crime because it's politically convenient for you to claim so.

I would certainly hope that the senate would dismiss the articles of impeachment on the grounds that no objectively-defined crime has been identified.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I've never stated that the House doesn't refer to the House. This is your fallcious (read dishonest) claim.

I have pointed out, repeatedly with primary sources, that the current activities of the House (which are legitimate despite the fact that you and others can't accept the results of the last election) are sustained by the Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, and now judicial decision (which is also legitimate regardless of partisan wailing).

Your continued claims about "the whole House" are simply absurd. According to you, every action of every Committee would therefore have to be certifed by "the whole House" every time they voted on a bill or resolution TO SEND BACK TO THE FULL HOUSE. If you are being honest in your arguments, which frankly, I find unlikely ... then you simply do not comprehend how the procedures of the House function.

so about this "vote" pelosi mentioned yesterday.......
lol

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I've never stated that the House doesn't refer to the House.

That is what you are saying - whether you intend to or not - every time you claim that the Speaker of the House and a few individual rogue members of the House can wield 'the sole Power of Impeachment'.

I have pointed out, repeatedly with primary sources, that the current activities of the House are sustained by the Constitution,

No, you haven't, and none of the so-called primary sources have backed up such a false claim.

the Rules of the House of Representatives,

Which cannot over-ride the Constitution itself.

and now judicial decision

There is a judicial decision that states that a few members of the House can acti with the authority of the whole House?

Linky, please.

Your continued claims about "the whole House" are simply absurd.

Absurdly obvious, yes, I agree.

According to you, every action of every Committee would therefore have to be certifed by "the whole House" every time they voted on a bill or resolution TO SEND BACK TO THE FULL HOUSE.

Not at all, that is simply you deflecting.

The House is the Legislative Body, and has lots of specific powers when it comes to the legislative process. They can write their own rules for how to handle their business.

You seem to be incapable of grasping that the House's ordinary legislative powers, duties, obligations and responsibilities are completely separate and distinct from their 'sole Power of Impeachment', which is a very special and extra-ordinary Power delegated solely to the House.

If you are being honest in your arguments, which frankly, I find unlikely ... then you simply do not comprehend how the procedures of the House function.

I understand well enough to know the difference between their ordinary legislative powers, and their extra-ordinary sole Power of Impeachment.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I would certainly hope that the senate would dismiss the articles of impeachment on the grounds that no objectively-defined crime has been identified.

Right. I believe the legal term is 'failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted'.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You are purposefully misstating the facts. I have never said anything like "the Speaker of the House and a few individual rogue members of the House can wield 'the sole Power of Impeachment'." and you know that you can't quote me saying it or you would. This is your primary strawman argument.

I'll summarize my claim again for you: the House of Representatives is made up of Committees that are given authority to investigate and issue subpoenas within the areas of their administrative charge. These Committees are established by the approval OF THE HOUSE (as in the whole House) of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the particular Session.

Those facts handily discard 90% of your argument, the rest is the usual fallacious reasoning and dishonesty in your post.

a reply to: xuenchen

" They're scared of a court challenge !!!!!!! 😃 "


They should Also be Ascared of being Voted OUT OF OFFICE in 2020 . Every Member of Congress who Votes " Aye " for Impeachment Without a Really Good " Just Cause " will face the Wrath of Voters Next November . " Draining the Swamp "
just got a Little More REAL Right Now ......

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

" They're scared of a court challenge !!!!!!! 😃 "


They should Also be Ascared of being Voted OUT OF OFFICE in 2020 . Every Member of Congress who Votes " Aye " for Impeachment Without a Really Good " Just Cause " will face the Wrath of Voters Next November . " Draining the Swamp "
just got a Little More REAL Right Now ......

For the record, they just won a court challenge. And they'll likely win at Appeals. And they'll probably lose at Supreme Court which will do nothing more than farther outstrip the Constitutional limits on the Executive Branch.

I hope you guys actually get to see the day when the President really is a tyrant; remember that you that liberty died to thunderous applause.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You are purposefully misstating the facts.

No, I'm actually purposefully stating the facts.

I have never said anything like "the Speaker of the House and a few individual rogue members of the House can wield 'the sole Power of Impeachment'." and you know that you can't quote me saying it or you would.

Of course you have never said that in so many words, but...

There is simply no other way to interpret your claim that what these individual members are doing is a legitimate impeachment inquiry. None.

If they were engaging in a simple examination of some charge(s) or claim(s) of impeachable offenses, you'd be fine, but you are claiming that these individual members have the same power/authority of Impeachment as the whole House would if they passed a resolution initiating a formal impeachment inquiry.

You are wrong, and I have patiently and clearly explained it to you, even stooping so far as to doing so like I would my 5 yr old daughter. It isn't my fault that you cannot 'get it'.

I'll summarize my claim again for you: the House of Representatives is made up of Committees that are given authority to investigate and issue subpoenas within the areas of their administrative charge.

I don't and would never have disagreed with this.

These Committees are established by the approval OF THE HOUSE (as in the whole House) of the Rules of the House of Representatives for the particular Session.

Those facts handily discard 90% of your argument,

Not at all, since I've never disagreed with such a claim.

the rest is the usual fallacious reasoning and dishonesty in your post.

And here is where the rubber meets the road.

You are apparently unaware of the legal maxim Delegata potestas non potest delegari.

The House of Representatives was delegated the sole Power of Impeachment. That extra-ordinary and awesome Power cannot itself be delegated to some committee that didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

That Power can only be wielded by The House of Representatives. The whole House. Nothing else suffices.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Of course you have never said that in so many words, but...

Thx.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I hope you guys actually get to see the day when the President really is a tyrant; remember that you that liberty died to thunderous applause.

But liberty didn't die with the leftists right?

a reply to: 727Sky

There is at least one democrat, probably more since even CNN posted the names of 100 democrats whom didn't vote in favor for impeachment the last 3 tries, whom has said he, Jeff Van Drew, would vote no for impeachment tomorrow.

As for the vote, democrats are claiming they are giving Republicans what they asked, but this is false. They claim they are allowing Republicans to question the witnesses, but the only way to secure that is if Republicans are given subpoena power. Only then can they truly ask questions from the witnesses, they can bring their own witnesses, etc. Otherwise Schiff, and the other democrat chairmen of the other committees will simply veto any questions they don't want Republicans to ask the witnesses. This is just a ploy to make it look like they are giving equal power to Republicans, but it is a farce.

Without Republicans getting subpoena power all Schiff and the other democrat leaders of the committees can veto the right of Republicans to ask questions of the witnesses. Republicans have no subpoena power, so the democrats will continue doing what Schiff has done.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
...
Those facts handily discard 90% of your argument, the rest is the usual fallacious reasoning and dishonesty in your post.

The dishonesty is coming from you. You know full well that democrats control all committees. Schiff, Nadler, Harris, etc, anti-Trump democrats are the leaders of each committee, or at least most of them.

We all know these are the same people whom were all about "we have 100% evidence Trump colluded with Russia..." So don't play coy, and stop misrepresenting the facts.