What Republicans should do to end the impeachment farce

a reply to: tanstaafl

A little googling has produced this proof.

Politico.com

fas.org

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Would you reference any of the many Constitutional scholars who agree with your position?

If you have time. Thank you kindly.

Can't help you, post back when you find them. I've seen many on different news shows discussing this. In fact hearing one say precisely what I've claimed (not in so many words, but essentially) is what made me really take a close look at this - the wording of the delegation of Power in the constitution, and the meanings of the terms involved. But I didn't write down their credentials.

By all means, feel free to claim this as a win... it doesn't matter, because you are wrong, and even though you'll never admit - deep down you know it.

In fact, I know that you are not correct. I have posted direct citations to primary sources or expert sources (Library of Congress.)

For there to be an impeachment, for any civil officer to be impeached, a majority of the House must vote to do so. That claim is true and I have never disputed it.

I have not disputed that your claim that a Committee's investigative authority and subpoena power has to be formalized by the entire House. I have pointed out to you that happens at the beginning of each Session with the adoption of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

You have claimed that there is only one way to begin impeachment. I have pointed out multiple sources that prove otherwise (from the Congressional Research Service).

In sum, your arguments are always based on "because I said so." That is a fallacious argument.

111th verse, same as the first ...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: jjkenobi
a reply to: TheGreatWork

That part would come later if they try to physically remove Trump from the White House unlawfully.

If the Senate were to vote to convict a House Impeachment resolution, his removal would be lawful.

So, if he is convicted in the Senate, it would be a lawful removal.
That also means if he is acquitted in the Senate, it would be a lawful acquittal.

Therefore, regardless of what happens, this impeachment is lawful and Constitutional because it would have to be predicated on something lawful and Constitutional, and not a "farce" or "unconstitutional" as you claim.

Glad we cleared that up.

I wouldn't judge impeachment to be a sure thing. Impeachment would require 219 votes.

They got 231 today. That's a 12 vote margin.

Pretty thin if you ask me considering that the Democrats are as a group a contentious bunch of factions.

What if the Senate sent the House a note if/when Impeachment was handed over to them that the process did not comply with due process and due to double jeopardy cannot be reconsidered by any means?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
What if the Senate sent the House a note if/when Impeachment was handed over to them that the process did not comply with due process and due to double jeopardy cannot be reconsidered by any means?

Due process and double jeopardy don't apply in the House. No one is on trial.

I find it ironic that the GOP changed the impeachment rules to impeach Clinton and investigate Obama, now the democrats are essentially using republican rules on a republican.

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that the GOP changed the impeachment rules to impeach clinton and now the democrats are essentially using republican rules on a republican.

All the while saying "That ain't FAIR!"

originally posted by: olaru12
I find it ironic that the GOP changed the impeachment rules to impeach Clinton and investigate Obama, now the democrats are essentially using republican rules on a republican.

Try telling them that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: CharlesT

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, no one is stopping them from talking about this. They legally don't get involved in the process unless there is an actual impeachment.

And what are they going to condemn, that the Democrats are using the rules the Republicans put in place?

They legally CANT get involved in the process unless there is an actual impeachment. You just made my point. File suit in Federal Court...

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
You can't defend your position so you attack the poster. Right. I may misspell occasionally but you are definitely showing your ars here. Any other stupid comments?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Vote!

originally posted by: CharlesT
They legally CANT get involved in the process unless there is an actual impeachment. You just made my point. File suit in Federal Court...

Hur-dur.

You said the Senate in the comment I was replying to, the Senate cannot file a suit anywhere that allows them to get involved sooner, you'd need to change the Constitution.

originally posted by: CharlesT
You can't defend your position so you attack the poster. Right. I may misspell occasionally but you are definitely showing your ars here. Any other stupid comments?

No, I attacked your dopey basement comment as well as addressing your spelling.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: tanstaafl
But by all means - prove that the Dems are using rules created by the Republicans for this impeachment farce.

Was the initial inquiry in a committee done secretly? Yeah? There you go.

Sorry, but your word doesn't constitute proof.

There ya go...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

It would be easier for the White House and allies to keep up the incessant bitching about nothing too. Wanna bet that's what happens?

Nope, because what they are bitching about is about as far from 'nothing' as you can get.

Out of curiosity how many civil rights actions have you filed in Federal court? Or before the Supreme Court for that matter? Or is this another example of your boundless all-knowing wisdom *cough utter BS *cough*?

Objection: relevancy.

Do I have to possess "boundless all-knowing wisdom" in order to know that fighting federal lawsuits is a long, complicated drawn out process that you very well may end up losing even if you have a good case?

Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

Oh - and how many have you filed, much less won?

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: tanstaafl
"But by all means - prove that the Dems are using rules created by the Republicans for this impeachment farce."

You mean these rules....

thehill.com...

www.nationalmemo.com...

Try again. None of those apply to impeachment proceedings.

Oh - and quoting TDS level 6 sufferer Napolitano doesn't get you any points.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
In fact, I know that you are not correct.

In fact, you are incorrect.

I have posted direct citations to primary sources or expert sources (Library of Congress.)

And I promptly pointed out to you t hat they actually directly contradict your claim.

TDS... it is such a bad thing...

I have not disputed that your claim that a Committee's investigative authority and subpoena power has to be formalized by the entire House. I have pointed out to you that happens at the beginning of each Session with the adoption of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

And I have pointed out to you that those are the ordinary Rules for trhe House's day to day operations.

I have patiently pointed out to you that Impeachment is an extra-ordinary Power specifically delegated to the HoR, and that the processes by which it is governed do not fall under the ordinary powers exercised by the HoR.

You have claimed that there is only one way to begin impeachment.

False. I never said that.

In sum, your arguments are always based on "because I said so." That is a fallacious argument.

I agree, and you persistently engage in the 'accuse your opponent of that which you are guilty' ploy all the time.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Sorry, but your word doesn't constitute proof.

There ya go...

It isn't my word, it's what's actually transpiring. Are you denying the committee isn't being conducted behind closed doors or that the 2015 rules were in effect when this was being done?

originally posted by: Liquesence
Therefore, regardless of what happens, this impeachment is lawful and Constitutional because it would have to be predicated on something lawful and Constitutional, and not a "farce" or "unconstitutional" as you claim.

Glad we cleared that up.

Not at all... sorry you're having such a difficult time understanding such a simple thing. Let me try again...

In order for the President to be impeached, there is one thing and one thing only that is required - at a bare minimum, there must be a House resolution containing specific Articles of Impeachment, that must be voted on by the whole House, and approved. There is room for argument that a simple resolution to Impeach without specifying at least one Impeachable offense would be considered as legitimate by the Senate. I personally think that a "We don't like you! You're Impeached!" resolution would be dismissed by Roberts if it actually happened.

Regardless of what transpired before getting to that point - whether or not some Congresscritters engaged in partisan, biased, even unlawful actions - that one thing is all that is necessary for the act of impeachment to be lawful.

Separate actions to expel members (I'd love to see Shifty expelled from Congress - if he survives the 2020 landslide heading his way) would have to be engaged to deal with any potentially unlawful actions leading up to the vote on Articles of Impeachment.

Hope that clears things up for you...