Impeachment Amendment, first enacted as a Federal Law

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So all the rules (including committees being able to hold closed door investigations) have been signed off on by Republicans.

Many of the rules I see brought up that are broken are that of a trial, which is held by the Senate.

Please cite the rules that deal with Impeachment.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
"It is the current House that is acting as purely Partisan."

Under Mitch McConnel, so is the Senate.

He is the Majority Leader. It is his job to lead the Senate during this process.

Can you point to anything he has said or done that supports your claim that he is acting in a purely partisan manner? Has he denied the Ds the rights to do thinigs that he has reserved the right for the Rs to do.

Neither party can be absolved from partisanship.

The Senate hasn't even done anything yet to make an accusation or judgement.

If McConnell calls witnesses, but denies the Ds the right to do the same, I'll call him on it just like I did the Ds in the House.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
So all the rules (including committees being able to hold closed door investigations) have been signed off on by Republicans.

Many of the rules I see brought up that are broken are that of a trial, which is held by the Senate.

Please cite the rules that deal with Impeachment.

House impeachment rules are pretty loose and open to interpretation. It's basically drawing up charges for a trial to happen in the first place. People get charged with bogus stuff all the time and beat it in court (which is similar to what can be expected here, this dies in senate).

I'm not saying they didn't play dirty, we all know this is a BS publicity stunt, and one that will likely bite them in the ass...

But the rules allowed them to do closed door hearings, investigations, and the likes... I don't think any of that will fly in the senate.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The Republican's changed how congressional subpoenas are issued.

Democratic lawmakers are harshly criticizing House Republicans for altering committee rules governing how chairmen can subpoena witnesses and documents.

Democrats slams the GOP conference for changing rules on a number of House committees to make it easier for Republicans to subpoena witnesses without consultation or approval from minority lawmakers - an effort that came as Republicans are preparing aggressive oversight efforts for President Barack Obama’s final two years in office.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: tanstaafl
In case anyone who had already read the OP missed it, I edited it to add the following two clauses:

Section 2, Clause 5 / Article I, Section 2, Clause 10:

The term 'other high Crimes and Misdemeanors', as that term is used in Article II Section 4, is herein clearly defined as to exclude Maladministration, which would make the Executive Branch subservient to the Congress, but instead to only include other clearly defined crimes as defined in the law.

Section 2, Clause 6 / Article I, Section 2, Clause 11:

The last line in Article III Clause, which currently reads as: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.", is hereby amended to read: "And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of three fourths of the Members present.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The House invalidated my vote from 2016 without following due process throughout the Impeachment process to protect my vote. I call that insurrection and demand a 2/3 vote on each member to continue to hold office.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: tanstaafl

Hmmm...if the Impeachment was fully declared a coup attempt by voting for Articles of Impeachment that were unfounded then this certainly would apply because a coup by definition is an insurrection:

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Rotflmao!

Now that would be a crazy interesting trial to watch!

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
House impeachment rules are pretty loose and open to interpretation.

As far as I can tell, none of those rules had anything to do with impeachment.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The House invalidated my vote from 2016 without following due process throughout the Impeachment process to protect my vote. I call that insurrection and demand a 2/3 vote on each member to continue to hold office.

Trump is still president yea? So your vote is still good (mine as well).

I wouldn't waste your time with the latter, they did that job for you, just wait till 2020, and I bet many are gone. Just look at the casino odds for the 2020 election... Everything went in favor of the right.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
The Republican's changed how congressional subpoenas are issued.

Again - nothing to do with impeachment.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Can you point to anything he has said or done that supports your claim that he is acting in a purely partisan manner?

How about the 400 pieces of legislation and bills that the House passed that Mitch "The Reaper" Mc Connell has refused to send to the Senate floor. How about Merrick Garland?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yeah. But having to kiss lots of Congress Critters to keep their jobs would dissuade pulling another half baked stunt anytime soon.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
"Can you point to anything he has said or done that supports your claim that he is acting in a purely partisan manner?"

How about the 400 pieces of legislation and bills that the House passed that Mitch "The Reaper" Mc Connell has refused to send to the Senate floor.

That's just the sane thing to do with a bunch of socialist malarkey.

But I was talking about with respect to this impeachment sham/debacle.

How about Merrick Garland?

He was within his Rights as the Majority Leader in the Senate, and it is his job to keep leftists off the high court.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Mine is more an amendment about keeping US intelligence agency surveillance powers out of the hands of partisan operatives. Most of it is predictions about what the FISA report would say. Some was right, some wasn't. It was worse than I thought.

a reply to: tanstaafl

With regard to this impeachment? McConnell has promised to work in lock step with the White House, (the defendant) and he stated that he has no intention of behaving in a nonpartial manner as the jury foreman.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
The Republican's changed how congressional subpoenas are issued.

Again - nothing to do with impeachment.

Since the President was impeached for ignoring congressional subpoenas, it certainly does.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: tanstaafl

Mine is more an amendment about keeping US intelligence agency surveillance powers out of the hands of partisan operatives. Most of it is predictions about what the FISA report would say. Some was right, some wasn't. It was worse than I thought.

Ah. Ok, well, I'd prefer repealing the PATRIOT and any/all associated acts that allow any surveillance of Americans.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
With regard to this impeachment? McConnell has promised to work in lock step with the White House, (the defendant) and he stated that he has no intention of behaving in a nonpartial manner as the jury foreman.

Yeah, so, how do you like it now that teh shoe is on the other foot?

Roitflmao!

That said, I do think he should be partial, but only to the truth. Of course, TDS sufferers like yourself will only claim that their lies are the only truth...

Good thing sanity will prevail in the Senate.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
" "The Republican's changed how congressional subpoenas are issued."

Again - nothing to do with impeachment."

Since the President was impeached for ignoring congressional subpoenas, it certainly.

Congress' only legitimate response was to go to court. Sorry, but it is not an impeachable offense - meaning, it does not fall within the meaning of 'other high crimes and misdemeanors', no matter how badly you want to retroactively meddle in the the 2016 election.

I just figured it out... TDS sufferers are all Putin stooges!!!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
The Republican's changed how congressional subpoenas are issued.

Again - nothing to do with impeachment.

Since the President was impeached for ignoring congressional subpoenas, it certainly does.

Executive privilidge says he didnt have to because its not a legal process but polotical.