He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for. It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia. For the sake of argument, lets assume that is true. Does this exclude the possibility he did this primarily for self serving reasons? No. Then why make a non-sequitur argument to begin with? |
|
|
|
BUT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO!
This is very debatable. It's obvious the guys that wrote the constitution were very concerned about future presidents having too much power, abusing that power, being above the law, and also other countries interfering in our election. Anyone that's able to look at this situation without considering Trumps policies or his political opponents' policies surely sees that Trump is absolutely, without a doubt, checking all of these boxes. But, the founders didn't say explicitly that the senate must have a trial. Mitch has come out and said if the House impeaches, he would have no choice but to try Trump. Who knows what he'll actually do though. Maybe he'll hold the trial and then just immediately call a vote to end it. Seems like the best move would be to have the trial as long as he's sure there won't be a conviction. I just wish you guys that are Trump fans and fighting tooth and nail to defend everything he does (tecshare) would take a step back and realize you're arguing to give future presidents who have control of either the Speaker of the House or Senate majority leader to be a King. That's all it takes. The president and the leader of the House or Senate. The President can't be indicted or impeached. Can ask foreign countries for help and do whatever the fuck they want. When it comes to the impeachment and ethics stuff, your stance should not be swayed based on which party is in power. More fucking "NO U!!!1" arguments... How does insisting due process, historical precedence, and checks and balances be observed allow the President to "be a king"? All Pelosi has to do is call a vote. No one is stopping her, but she knows it will expose far more about them than it does Trump, because just like the Russia collusion delusion, it is all BASED ON NOTHING. You are literally arguing for the dems not having to follow due process out of one side of your mouth while condemning me for having blind allegiance out of the other. So are you going to admit those "subpoenas" have no force of law or just more of the usual...  |
|
|
|
Briefly stated, you have "subpoena" correct and those you argue with do not. I don't know WHY this argument is going on. This is very simple stuff. As mentioned, a congressional body / committee might issue a request - a letter - and then if they didn't get what they want, they could issue a subpoena. Even if they did issue an actual subpoena, if it is done outside of an official impeachment hearing, it still is issued from a co-equal branch, and the executive still has every right to exercise executive privilege and not comply. Once the hearing is voted on and official, this executive privilege is severely limited and the subpoena would then have the force of law, allowing it to be ruled on by the judiciary in the form of a suit, which would then give them enforcement ability. |
|
|
|
He's proud of getting the guy fired because it was something that the rest of the G8 and most of our allies were already pushing for. It was a victory for us and a defeat for Russia. For the sake of argument, lets assume that is true. Does this exclude the possibility he did this primarily for self serving reasons? |
|
|
|
Give me legal documents that backs that up as opposed to just saying it's so. But before you do, you should read some of the other stuff I'll be posting as none of that would back up what you're saying. "lock up" people for refusing to answer questions. They could be locked up for obstructing justice if they wanted to do that. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htmAs long as the subpoena meets the requirements set out in stuff I had listed before, and the investigation (note the difference), is within their authority, they can do so. While people are calling it an inquiry, it's simply operating as an investigation at this point. I suspect that if they decide to go to court over some issues, at that point they'd have a vote for an "inquiry" in order to "strengthen" their position. I should note that in this document you actually posted and then cherry picked from, they talk about some of the same things. Perhaps you should read it again. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-houseYou might also want to give this a good read https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdfShould also note that with Nixon, a resolution was passed in Oct 1973 for the judicial committee to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment. They needed to do that in order to give them the authority to do so and have subpoena powers. Today however, committees have been given far more powers and authority, a lot of which the Republicans brought about. The impeachment inquiry was not voted on until Feb 1974. We're in the first part and they may decide to do the second part as well. Clinton was a different thing all together because the impeachment was derived from the investigation done by Starr. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_NixonIn this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference.
Five different committees initiated inquiries into bengasi without any vote. They did it all on their own because it's simply not required. As for all your other stuff.. That's just your opinion. For example, you're parroting the same right wing talking points regarding past impeachments. Again. Did you even read that article you posted? The right you parrot only ever points to the presidential impeachments and conveniently ignores all the others. Allowing the presidents lawyers to sit in and question. Allowing the republicans to issue subpoenas. That was a "courtesy" and not any sort of requirement. It was purely done for optics. You're arguing politics and not legal. Back up your stuff with actual legal documents. Something else to note. It really doesn't matter if the other side can issue subpoenas. The majority can over rule them if they want and they can also limit what questions Trumps lawyers could ask as well in order to keep it focus and on track. It is simply not a trial. The trial takes place in the senate and it should be noted that the senate can do what they want as well. Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot?
You can blame the republicans for a lot of this since they're the ones that opened up the door to committees having broad powers. I seem to remember everyone saying the same thing about them doing that. But that's what it is now and everyone has to live with it. That entire paragraph was nothing more than you pleading for me (and others reading it), to agree with your opinion cause it's "wrong" as far as you're concerned. You're making a political argument and not one based on anything legal. By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public. Bottom line, you're just making arguments based on opinion because you want it to be a circus so it will drag on for months and then you all can make the argument that there's no use he gets impeached cause the election is so close. And all this other stuff you and the republicans are spewing is so that if he does get impeached etc then you all can claim he was railroaded and it was illegal and on and on. At least be honest about what you're really trying to do. Funny thing I heard the other day. The thought was that Trump doesn't want a second term and will actually do things like he's doing so he gets impeached. Then he can spend the rest of his time claiming he got "everything" done he said he would and then play the victim and gain a hell of a lot of support to any new ventures he starts like his own media company. Most of the other stuff in your response was just opinion and wishful thinking. i.e. Re: "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable.
Show me the legal arguments that makes the case as opposed to your opinion cause it doesn't fit what you want to happen. doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process
Well yes, yes they do. It says so in the constitution. If you have legal arguments to back up your opinion, then post them because everything I read says they do. Maybe you might want to give some of this a read as well. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769As you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot?
Actually no, you had a whole bunch of opinion articles and the one "real" thing you had was bullshit because it was specifically for hearings and says right on the page I posted that it's a sample meant to show some of the info that should be in the subpoena. As I stated and you can go look at it again, the "letter" you claim is not a subpoena, says right in it that it's a subpoena, outlines what inquiry that it relates to and states the potential punishment. It contains the information required just isn't on some "form". Give me an actual legal document instead of writing paragraphs of your opinion and how you "wish" it would be, or posting opinion articles. Show me the "form" that's supposed to be used for committee investigation subpoenas. Surely there should be something on the gov site(s) if one actually exists. No, I don't think I will. You don't have enough understanding of basic concepts of law for me to spend my time making references you don't even comprehend enough to argue accurately, making the effort a complete waste of time. Not to mention this is a completely tertiary issue. I gave you legal documents. I produced the so called "subpoenas" the house issued regarding the fake impeachment, and I referenced the subpoena you yourself linked and showed very clearly they are not the same document. Subpoena is a Latin word that means "under penalty". A subpoena is a document with legal force that has specific requirements in order for it to carry that force. It doesn't matter how it is issued, basic information like the information, things, or persons being subpoenaed, dates, signing parties, and clear language stating it is a legal order carrying a penalty for contempt of the order MUST be included. It is like arguing a contract is valid if it doesn't include what is being exchanged, between who, and by when, etc. It is a basic legal concept that you apparently don't comprehend, and I charge for tutoring. Teaching you the basic concepts to make these arguments is not my responsibility. Like I said you are in way over your head and just parroting other sources with zero personal understanding. Obstructing justice, again is a legal term that requires an official investigation to have the force of law. The Benghazi investigation was not an impeachment, and again is not a valid comparison. An official impeachment hearing REQUIRES the ability for the executive to be able to present evidence, it is not a "courtesy". Do you really believe that the impeachment process was designed for the house to unilaterally try the president without the ability to present counter arguments and evidence? If you do you are a fucking retard, because that would be constant chaos and the country could never run effectively under that metric. All you are doing is showing your ignorance of the law bringing these issues up. I don't want this dragged on for months. I want Pelosi to either issue a vote in the house, or drop the issue as soon as possible. Pelosi is trapped between having an official vote and having corruption blow up in her face, or dropping it and having her base blow up in her face. That is a pretty good motive to run a circus rather than a hearing. You keep demanding "legal arguments" but you don't have the tools to even understand what that is. Cases against corporations and individuals are not the same as an impeachment. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you. No the constitution does not say they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process. The constitution outlines checks and balances, all of which are currently being ignored. The legislative and executive branches are on equal standing, one doesn't get to unilaterally dictate to the other unless explicitly codified, and it is not explicitly codified, except under an official vote. Have you noticed your buddies Nutilduhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon have gotten really quiet all of a sudden? Do you wonder why that is? I will tell you why. They are doing one of two things. They are either desperately searching for an ACTUAL subpoena that never existed, or they have realized they were wrong and wisely decided to shut the fuck up rather than embarrass themselves arguing what they know to be false, much like you should. They have knowledge of basic concepts of law that you lack, that is why you are the only one here now vomiting your parrot spew all over me understanding none of it. A subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfNot a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf |
|
|
|
Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong?
"Standing committees in both houses of the United States Congress have the authority to send out subpoenas for legitimate lawmaking and investigation purposes. This compels the production of testimony or records, and failure to respond constitutes contempt of Congress." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena"violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or a committee thereof to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/399/"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation." "in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192Guess they have some law backing them up. As for your claim that it's just a "letter" and so has no standing.. Here's some of the 54 letters that republicans issued when investigating Clinton.. I suppose that if one doesn't comply with the request they'd escalate to something more official. Interestingly, as I was looking through the list of stuff the republicans had issued, even those "subpoenas" didn't use that form you posted. Seems like the only thing that's required is for it to state it's a subpoenas and be signed by specific people. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(3) Ryan to DNI 07-05-2016.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(4) Ryan to FBI 07-05-2016.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(47) Chaffet to Comey 07-06-2016.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-28-2016 Chaffetz to Eichner re Combetta and Suazo.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-22-2016 Chaffetz to MacDougall re Pagliano.pdf https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating(have to remove the first part of the url in order to access the documents on that list) The "letter" you're saying is fake, says it's a subpoena. I don't remember seeing that in any of the letters I looked through from the republicans though but maybe some did. For example, the letter from Ryan to Comey did not say it was a subpoena. Oh.. Here's a subpoena the republican used https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70) Chaffetz Subpoena to Pagliano 09-16-2016.pdf Not the same form. The form you posted though, is only a "sample" of what is used when "A party in a case may seek a witness to appear or documents to be produced at a hearing.". What's going on is not a hearing. https://oah.dc.gov/publication/general-subpoena-form-sample-only"A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearingSo. Got some real legal stuff to back up your opinion it's "fake"? Or are you just going to rant and call me names? There you go, now at least you are making an effort. You are still in over your head though... I am going to address your criticisms point by point, so pay attention. First of all, I never denied they have the authority to issue subpoenas, in fact I have already stated they could. Regarding 2 U.S.C. § 192, "under inquiry" has a definition. "Under inquiry" requires a formal legal process, otherwise congress could lock people up for refusing to answer any questions, and they clearly don't have that authority. In this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference. Regarding "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable. The question is if the legislative branch can force the executive branch into compliance when they have equal amounts of authority under constitutional checks and balances. This is of course assuming an actual subpoena is issued. Until the full house votes to engage in this inquiry, all you have is a unilateral declaration from within the house that has no extra authority over the executive branch. They have oversight authority, that doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process. This is why everyone is pressing them to put it to a vote, because this is not just precedent, it severely restricts executive privilege, but also gives the executive branch the authority to produce their own evidence. This whole secret hearings and unilateral declarations is not operating within the constitutional checks and balances, due process, or standing precedent of past impeachment processes. You people defending these actions are insane. Do you realize what you are advocating for? Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot? Suddenly these rules will become very relevant to you I am sure, but tell me more about my blind allegiance to Trump. Do you have any idea the kind of chaos you are unleashing upon this nation in your blind frothing rage induced compulsion to get Trump at all costs? Is creating possibly years or decades of civil unrest and possibly civil war worth it? You aren't thinking very far ahead. "House Republicans Issued More Than 70 Subpoenas and Letters" All of your links, while superficially very impressive I am sure, are again, just letters. None of your broken links are actual subpoenas. Notice they use words like "request" not "demand", "compelled", "commanded", or "ordered". Just saying it is a subpoena doesn't magically make it a subpoena. A subpoena is a legal process which has specific requirements and penalties for noncompliance. They REFERENCE several subpoenas, but they are not themselves subpoenas. That is except for one... https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdfAs you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot? |
|
|
|
Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already.
Subpoenas issued by congress technically aren't the same as subpoenas issued by a court for a civil or criminal investigation. Congress has a different set of rules to follow. It's not the same. Does that make them "not legal subpoenas?" LOL. Please... PLEASE argue this. |
|
|
|
Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?
Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you. The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast. The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that. Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong? Quoting because of topic sliding: According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena": https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdfhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdfA sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia: https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdfIf you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas. Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law. Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes. Some more reference material: https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiryhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.htmlhttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html |
|
|
|
I think Trump just needs to accept the consequences of the 2018 election. Then TECSHARE will also.
Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune.
While I'd love to see you dance, that would be off topic here. So I take it you're not really disputing that the Congress can impeach, can subpoena, and impeachment is not governed by criminal trial rules. That's right, keep topic sliding and no one bother responding to the rock solid evidence I gave of these "subpoenas" being nothing but deceptively worded requests for information. |
|
|
|
Just because a herd of vengeful simpletons with pitchforks want something does not make it legal or moral to accommodate them.
Just because the majority (selfishly) thinks something is right, does not make it right.
My example with a collection of luxury items was to illustrate how ridiculous your demands are.
You fail miserably in identifying the root causes of the issues, despite that, you propose a kneejerk solution that is destined for a spectacular failure. Both your analysis and solutions are superficial.
I have tried to explain to you that the motivation for change has to come from the poor people. Education, desire to become capitalists has to come from them. They and you need to change. If you and your camerades will not change, you, your and their children and grandchildren will be poor and slaves to the system, it will not matter what the system it is, capitalist, socialist or communist. All systems revert to their natural steady-state i.e. capitalism.
To be a free man, you have to become a free man. Deal with it, or die a slave. People seldom realize freedom and responsibility are the same thing. |
|
|
|
Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.
The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.
I did read it and I couldn't figure out what exactly you're so angry about because you keep jumping around, mostly arguing with yourself. That's why asked. Let's try again. Congress can impeach the President. Are you disputing this? Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this? Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Are you disputing this? Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune. |
|
|
|
Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?
As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.
I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.
Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them) You don't have ANY fucking clue what you are talking about, so save us both some time and just shut the fuck up. You are joining in halfway through this conversation, not bothering to read anything, and just parroting what your hive mind buddies are saying. The subpoenas don't exist, they are requests with no force of law. Of course you know this because you didn't just skip reading the actual "subpoenas" and jump right into parrot mode now did you? Oh Pelosi wants to prevent a shit show? Well clearly she is doing a fine job! If she wanted it over as soon as possible, she would just call a vote, no one is stopping her, but as I explained and you promptly ignored, she can't do that because if would expose widespread corruption within the Democrat party. You don't really get this whole thing, period. You have no problem having strong opinions about it though now do you? Again, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about and just want to join the collective parrot symphony. I explained all of these things you are criticizing using the ACTUAL supposed subpoena documents as well as actual subpoena forms. The additional articles are just there to demonstrate I am by far not the only one saying this. OF COURSE they are all "right wing" do you really think CNN or The Huffington Post would report on this even if they knew it was true? OF COURSE NOT. Attacking the source or the lean of the source is not a valid argument. Your appeal to authority fallacy in sourcing Newsguard is not a valid argument either. Also, you will notice, you didn't actually refute anything I said, you just repeated past talking points, made several logical fallacies, and declared your beliefs as facts with no substantiation. You are contributing absolutely NOTHING to this conversation, so unless you do in the future I am probably just going to ignore you, because it doesn't make any sense to put this much effort into replies to some one who doesn't bother to read anything, refute anything, and just vomits up what everyone else is saying understanding none of it. Then what's the problem with Trump's impeachment not being a criminal trial? You're kinda all over the place with your itch to prove... something. Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda. The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi. |
|
|
|
|
I like the quality of craftsmanship, but it seems like you could benefit by getting a little more creative by unifying function and form. The pieces are nice, but the jars look like an after thought rather than an integrated piece of art. I feel like a little more thought put into your design could take it to a whole new level. That said you definitely have an eye for details, and your prices are reasonable. Good luck with your sales!
|
|
|
|
You know, nobody would think less of you if you were to be critical of a politician you support. It's pretty clear you have pledged total and blind allegiance to Trump - If someone is critical of Trump, they are against you so you will attack them. If someone is critical of Trumps opponents, they will be on your side and you will defend them.
If someone asks you if Trumps opponents are bad, you'll be happy to explain how bad they really are.
If someone asks you about a specific negative aspect of Trump that you know to be true, you will attack that person rather than simply answering. It's borderline religious level with you. Like if you say something bad about him, something bad will happen to you.
This kind of mentality makes you oblivious to what's actually happening. You're missing out on all the negative aspect of one side, and all the positives of the other and it just makes your perception more and more polarized. There are plenty of things I don't like about Trump, but this thread isn't about Trump. Save the impartiality and psychoanalysis act. You are desperate to change the focus of discussion from Biden to Trump. It has been the constant theme of your posts in this thread here along with accusing me of everything you are doing. You know what I'm going to do now? That's right... |
|
|
|
Do you think Trump has a conflict of interest with Turkey because of Trump Tower Istanbul? I am not playing your little Playskool prosecutor game. If you have a point make it. I made my views clear already in spite of your denials. |
|
|
|
What would happen to the Chinese people if their government was destroyed? The government that brought them to where they are as .a country today? What would it be replaced with?
History showed one Chinese govt overthrown by violence, a worse one would be established. The Chinese Commies were shouting freedom and democracy as hell back in 1940s. Many commies died fighting for freedom and democracy until their last breath literally. And one couldn't say what those Commies claimed were all fake. The mainland Chinese govt controlled by nationalists back in 1940s was indeed corrupted and brutal. There was neither freedom nor democracy under such a dark regime. And that regime on mainland China was crashed by a civil war. Once the revolution succeed, the winner CCP who claim the power as a prize would not share it to people. Thus the revolution failed at the same time. History repeated in Iran in 1979 after the Shahanshah's regime was overthrown. The first act of the new leadership brought in by these types of revolutions is always to murder the revolutionaries responsible for bringing it forth. I am looking at you Coins4Commies. You and your kind will be the first to be thrown into the mass graves if you succeed in what you advocate for. |
|
|
|
Did you say that Joe Biden admitted to a bribe of the Ukrainian President? Yes, I did, because he is on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, threatening to withhold tax payer funds in exchange for him firing the lead prosecutor looking into the Burisma Holdings case, of which his son was directly involved. I look forward to your semantic gymnastics. Do you think Hillary is a criminal? She is absolutely and demonstrably a criminal. Just because she was not prosecuted doesn't change this. It is a matter of public record she knowingly over time was responsible for a pattern of allowing classified material to enter into the hands of multiple parties not cleared to receive it. This is a crime under federal law. There is so much more, but this particular accusation is not even debatable. Its hard to have a debate with someone who is physically incapable of admitting when they are wrong about something. The article linked in your opening post contained several inaccuracies and you stand by them all. You got caught posting flat out inaccurate "news" articles twice and you failed to acknowledge their inaccuracies. There's simply no debating you because you won't stand for rational criticism of your argument. You think posting a slew of personal attacks suffices for a counterargument. It doesn't. You don't care about any of this Nutilduhhh, just admit it. You have had a tiny little boner for me for some time. This is personal, not about debate, as demonstrated by your introducing unrelated forum matters into these discussions here, and political discussions into those unrelated forum matter discussions in other parts of the forum. You and your little friends are obsessed with me because I refuse to allow you collectively or individually to brow beat me into silence or compliance, thus you are compelled to try to get your narcissistic supply via any means necessary because my mere existence is a threat to your fragile state by introducing painful self awareness and cognitive dissonance. I am not even sure what you are referencing, but I am not responsible for supporting EVERY SINGLE point in EVERY reference material I produce, that is just fucking insane. If you want to debate a specific point, fine, reference it. This generalized bullshit is meaningless and just you throwing shit like a chimp. I don't rely on personal attacks in lieu of an argument. My personal attacks are almost always accompanied by a logical argument first, then a nice parting shot for those who also engage in such personal attacks, such as yourself. There are plenty of people who disagree with me on this forum and engage in rational debate that I don't attack personally. You know why? Because they stick to debating me instead of fishing for turds out of their toilet bowl to throw. |
|
|
|
Lets not forget that the reason we are debating about whether it's criminal or not is because TECSHARE thinks that House subpoenas are not valid since the house isn't the established process of impeachment. the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?
From the article he posted to defend his stance: How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.htmlI'm guessing they are implying that they don't mean they can change the rules that are actually in the constitution without an amendment. (Chief Justice must preside and stuff like that) According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena": https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdfhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdfA sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia: https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdfIf you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas. Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law. Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes. Some more reference material: https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiryhttps://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.htmlhttps://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
