Author Topic: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry  (Read 1993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
Make sure the quote isn't derived from anything Pelosi says.  She lies.  She's trying to deprive the President of any of the normal defenses permitted thieves and murderers.  He's beneath the law, because Trump.

No facing his accuser.  No counsel.  No defense witnesses can be called.  All proceedings to be secret, even from the defendant.  In short, the Bill of Rights do not apply.  This is where things stand today, with much excited support from people who want him gone.

And this is OK, because the ends justify the means.  By Any Means Necessary.

This is the sort of proceeding that will only increase the number of people who will oppose you, because Americans won't stand for unfair play.

It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.

It IS amazing.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
No facing his accuser.  No counsel.  No defense witnesses can be called.  All proceedings to be secret, even from the defendant.  In short, the Bill of Rights do not apply.  This is where things stand today, with much excited support from people who want him gone.


You may be misunderstanding the process. Impeachment proceedings in the House is the indictment phase. He gets all of the things you mentioned, in the Senate trial.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
It IS amazing.

I guess when one listens to CNN, one doesn't get the facts from legal experts who revere the Constitution.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!

You may be misunderstanding the process. Impeachment proceedings in the House is the indictment phase. He gets all of the things you mentioned, in the Senate trial.

But a vote must be taken the House first. And that is not happening. Mrs. Botox doesn't have the votes as I opined a few days ago. I know many don't agree with that, but it's what I believe.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
But a vote must be taken the House first. And that is not happening. Mrs. Botox doesn't have the votes as I opined a few days ago. I know many don't agree with that, but it's what I believe.


A vote must be taken to pass the articles of impeachment on to the Senate. There doesn’t appear to be any constitutional provision requiring a vote to conduct the inquiry. It’s been done in the past and should be this time, at the very least, to establish parameters.

The impeachment process in the House is like the grand jury proceedings in our justice system. There are no provisions for defense counsel, at that phase. If the articles are passed over to the Senate for trial, that’s when the usual rights of the accused come into place.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 10:44:07 AM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak

"At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure. First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere."

Trump wants a House vote to start impeachment inquiry.

"In her response, Pelosi reiterated she would not hold a floor vote, writing that there's no requirement to do so under the House rules, the Constitution or precedent."

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

After the investigation, if the evidence is sufficient, Articles of Impeachment are written and that is presented to the full House for a vote.  If that passes, Trump is impeached.
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak

"At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure. First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere."

Trump wants a House vote to start impeachment inquiry.

"In her response, Pelosi reiterated she would not hold a floor vote, writing that there's no requirement to do so under the House rules, the Constitution or precedent."

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

After the investigation, if the evidence is sufficient, Articles of Impeachment are written and that is presented to the full House for a vote.  If that passes, Trump is impeached.

Now that we've established normal rules of jurisprudence don't apply, then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party. 

The Democrats were dead wrong when they claimed back in '98 "The President isn't beneath the law."  Trump is well below the standard we insist upon when trying shoplifters.  Let the Star Chamber begin!

And, the silent majority will just sit down, shut up and vote Democrat, because the Republic is finally finished.

I assume every single court decision will go against Trump.  "We got 'im now!"
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Now that we've established normal rules of jurisprudence don't apply, then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party.


Sure they do. Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. In normal court proceedings, whenever that happens, there’s much yawning over it, followed by the statement that ‘you can indict a ham sandwich.’

There’s nothing different about it. The president, nor anyone else, should even care about it, unless there was a real threat of conviction. There’s not.
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 22,962
  • Gender: Male
Make sure the quote isn't derived from anything Pelosi says.  She lies.  She's trying to deprive the President of any of the normal defenses permitted thieves and murderers.  He's beneath the law, because Trump.

No facing his accuser.  No counsel.  No defense witnesses can be called.  All proceedings to be secret, even from the defendant.  In short, the Bill of Rights do not apply.  This is where things stand today, with much excited support from people who want him gone.

And this is OK, because the ends justify the means.  By Any Means Necessary.

This is the sort of proceeding that will only increase the number of people who will oppose you, because Americans won't stand for unfair play.

I just had to stop and take this opportunity to say, “Well done!”   :beer:

I can’t even recognize Nancy Pelosi’s America.

Trump has been giving these political graftsterstm nightmares since the day he was elected and it shows. The coup plotters know that soon someone’s gonna flip and they are starting to panic.

Nightmares, fear and panic. A fitting lead-up to their inevitable incarceration.

Offline austingirl

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,541
  • Gender: Female
  • Cruz 2016- a Constitutional Conservative at last!
"In her response, Pelosi reiterated she would not hold a floor vote, writing that there's no requirement to do so under the House rules, the Constitution or precedent."


Blatant lie. There is plenty of precedent.
Principles matter. Words matter.

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
"In her response, Pelosi reiterated she would not hold a floor vote, writing that there's no requirement to do so under the House rules, the Constitution or precedent."


Blatant lie. There is plenty of precedent.

But, we really shouldn't expect her to make any kind of statement without at least one lie in it.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®

Sure they do. Impeachment is nothing more than an indictment. In normal court proceedings, whenever that happens, there’s much yawning over it, followed by the statement that ‘you can indict a ham sandwich.’

There’s nothing different about it. The president, nor anyone else, should even care about it, unless there was a real threat of conviction. There’s not.

Secrecy is OK.  And cross-examination is forbidden.  Sounds good to me.  Would it be in bad taste of I order a few hundred balloons to go with the Impeachment party?

I've been looking at this incorrectly.  Trump must go, preferably in shackles.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
"In her response, Pelosi reiterated she would not hold a floor vote, writing that there's no requirement to do so under the House rules, the Constitution or precedent."


Blatant lie. There is plenty of precedent.

Doesn't matter.  Because Orange Man Bad.  All law and rules must be considered in the best possible light to get rid of him.  By Any Means Necessary.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
@Cyber Liberty

You said, "Now that we've established normal rules of jurisprudence don't apply, then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."

An impeachment case is just like a case against anyone in the country.  Read this to see how it is the same.  Trump gets his legal due process.

Someone on here said the House investigating the impeachment inquiry, is like a "Grand Jury" and that is correct.  No one in the country being investigated by a Grand Jury can go there and defend him/herself.  So Trump cannot go to the "Grand Jury", the three committees investigating this, to defend himself. 

If the Grand Jury, the committees, produces an indictment, the subject of the indictment defends him/herself during the trial. 

The trial due to impeachment happens in the Senate.  The House select members in the trial are the "Prosecutor" presenting the evidence.  The subject of the impeachment and his/her lawyers are the "Defendant".  The Senate is the "Jury". The head of the Supreme Court is the "Judge".

You said, "...then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."
That is true - (I want plenty of sprinkles on my donut) - I believe he will be impeached due to Dems having the majority vote in the House, and not convicted by the Senate, unless the three House committees come up with something worse Trump did than they have now.  Republicans running for reelection in the Senate, do not want this vote to happen in the Senate.  It's a no win either way in their home districts if they have to vote.
 
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
@Cyber Liberty

You said, "Now that we've established normal rules of jurisprudence don't apply, then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."

An impeachment case is just like a case against anyone in the country.  Read this to see how it is the same.  Trump gets his legal due process.

Someone on here said the House investigating the impeachment inquiry, is like a "Grand Jury" and that is correct.  No one in the country being investigated by a Grand Jury can go there and defend him/herself.  So Trump cannot go to the "Grand Jury", the three committees investigating this, to defend himself. 

If the Grand Jury, the committees, produces an indictment, the subject of the indictment defends him/herself during the trial. 

The trial due to impeachment happens in the Senate.  The House select members in the trial are the "Prosecutor" presenting the evidence.  The subject of the impeachment and his/her lawyers are the "Defendant".  The Senate is the "Jury". The head of the Supreme Court is the "Judge".

You said, "...then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."
That is true - (I want plenty of sprinkles on my donut) - I believe he will be impeached due to Dems having the majority vote in the House, and not convicted by the Senate, unless the three House committees come up with something worse Trump did than they have now.  Republicans running for reelection in the Senate, do not want this vote to happen in the Senate.  It's a no win either way in their home districts if they have to vote.

So, if this is true and the rules are whatever Pelosi and crew say they are, then it seems reasonable that Trump and crew say our rules are whatever we say they are and we're not sending people to "testify" (otherwise called "impeachment trap").
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
@Cyber Liberty

You said, "Now that we've established normal rules of jurisprudence don't apply, then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."

An impeachment case is just like a case against anyone in the country.  Read this to see how it is the same.  Trump gets his legal due process.

Someone on here said the House investigating the impeachment inquiry, is like a "Grand Jury" and that is correct.  No one in the country being investigated by a Grand Jury can go there and defend him/herself.  So Trump cannot go to the "Grand Jury", the three committees investigating this, to defend himself. 

If the Grand Jury, the committees, produces an indictment, the subject of the indictment defends him/herself during the trial. 

The trial due to impeachment happens in the Senate.  The House select members in the trial are the "Prosecutor" presenting the evidence.  The subject of the impeachment and his/her lawyers are the "Defendant".  The Senate is the "Jury". The head of the Supreme Court is the "Judge".

You said, "...then I might as well arrange the Impeachment Party."
That is true - (I want plenty of sprinkles on my donut) - I believe he will be impeached due to Dems having the majority vote in the House, and not convicted by the Senate, unless the three House committees come up with something worse Trump did than they have now.  Republicans running for reelection in the Senate, do not want this vote to happen in the Senate.  It's a no win either way in their home districts if they have to vote.

We need to get rid of this guy, By Any Means Necessary.  The President forfeit his due process rights when he took office.   We've been hearing about his lack of First Amendment rights with the calls to ban his Twitter account, so who cares about the Fourth and Fifth, anyway? 

He's a bad egg, and bad eggs should be considered beneath the law.  This is the Facebook Community rules anyway.

Go ahead and let Schiff run his star chamber. 
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
Doesn't matter.  Because Orange Man Bad.  All law and rules must be considered in the best possible light to get rid of him.  By Any Means Necessary.
@Cyber Liberty

The last two indictments, Clinton, Nixon, included a House vote to begin impeachment, but was not necessary and is not necessary now.   The House should not have taken those votes as they are now muddying the water with people saying it must be done because it was done before.  A vote is not required.

Thinking about this, plus your objection to the way the impeachment indictment happens,  after the investigation results and Articles of Impeachment, if any, are presented to the full House, I think it should require a 2/3 vote of the House, instead of a majority vote, to impeach.  Impeachment is a serious charge so require a 2/3 vote.
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Offline Victoria33

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,869
  • Gender: Female
  • Prissy my Yorkie
So, if this is true and the rules are whatever Pelosi and crew say they are, then it seems reasonable that Trump and crew say our rules are whatever we say they are and we're not sending people to "testify" (otherwise called "impeachment trap").
@Sanguine

No, the House is going by the constitution and no vote is required by the House to start an impeachment inquiry.   The three committees can invite and/or require witnesses to testify and/or submit required records.  Any House committee investigating anything can do this, not just investigating impeachment. 

Every time the White House, Trump, do not comply with witnesses or records, that is another impeachment charge - "obstruction".
I AM SELLING MY BOOK: 
“EMERGENCIES HAPPEN! BE PREPARED NOW!”
IF INTERESTED, WILL SEND YOU TABLE OF CONTENTS, WRITE ME AT:
mards.derrick@aol.com
MY WEBSITE: "THE WRITING OF MARCELLA DERRICK"  https://www.marcelladerrick.com/

Offline Sanguine

  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 36,041
  • Gender: Female
@Sanguine

No, the House is going by the constitution and no vote is required by the House to start an impeachment inquiry.   The three committees can invite and/or require witnesses to testify and/or submit required records.  Any House committee investigating anything can do this, not just investigating impeachment. 

Every time the White House, Trump, do not comply with witnesses or records, that is another impeachment charge - "obstruction".

How do you propose that the Constitution requirement that "the House of Representatives" start any impeachment inquiry?  By this reasoning, anyone and everyone in the House can start an impeachment inquiry and start subpoenaing witnesses.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." – George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788

“Do right and risk the consequences.”
– Sam Houston

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,360
Doesn’t seem like it’s constitutionally required, but it should be.


Collins is implicitly conceding that nothing in the Constitution requires the House to authorize impeachment inquiries; a formal article of impeachment is all the founding document mentions. As to the requirements of House rules — well, that’s debatable. Those rules provide a procedure for authorization of impeachment hearings, but it’s entirely unclear that they are required. UNC professor of jurisprudence Michael J. Gerhardt testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year that no full House authorization has been acknowledged as mandatory in the past:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/no-clear-requirement-that-house-approve-impeachment-inquiry.html
An inquiry costs money. Isn't there a requirement for the authorization of those expenditures? Doesn't that have to be voted on, or is there some dump truck full of petty cash they are digging into?
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online Cyber Liberty

  • Coffee! Donuts! Kittens!
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 47,306
  • Gender: Male
  • We got 'im now!®
An inquiry costs money. Isn't there a requirement for the authorization of those expenditures? Doesn't that have to be voted on, or is there some dump truck full of petty cash they are digging into?

Rules are for fools.  Orange Man must go, BAMN.  We are now indistinguishable from the Antifa group of that acronym.
Don't call it the "Federal Government," that's an insult to the Founders.  It's a "National Government."
I will NOT comply.
                          Castillo del Cyber! ~~~~~>                          :dontfeed:

Offline edpc

  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,879
  • Gender: Male
  • Professional Misanthrope - Briefer and Boxer
Secrecy is OK.  And cross-examination is forbidden.  Sounds good to me.  Would it be in bad taste of I order a few hundred balloons to go with the Impeachment party?

I've been looking at this incorrectly.  Trump must go, preferably in shackles.


That’s how grand juries have always worked, in the standard justice system. There is no right to defense, as charges are considered. I know that you know that.

The institution of the grand jury frankly does not embrace the concept of a defense counsel. There is no provision which includes him in any facet of the proceedings, and in fact many of the rules have been deliberately drawn to exclude him. At no stage of the grand jury process is there a legal right to counsel. It is not too much to say that at its very essence the grand jury system is based on the idea of preventing a defense.

https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2106&context=mlr



« Last Edit: October 09, 2019, 12:39:23 PM by edpc »
I disagree.  Circle gets the square.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 26,360
Rules are for fools.  Orange Man must go, BAMN.  We are now indistinguishable from the Antifa group of that acronym.
My continuing question is simple enough. We have several members of Congress who have not only violated their oaths of office, but who have shown callous disregard for the Constitution (or contempt or defiance thereof), again in direct violation of their Oath. Can they be removed from office for that?

The one Amendment I would like to see would be the ability of their respective electorates to petition Members of the House or Senate to recall, and make them thus directly responsible to those who elected them (language which would survive the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which I believe should happen as well).
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression


There are no "Socialists", no "Progressives", only Communists, with every negative image that totalitarianism might muster, demanding fealty and conformity to their views, with a legacy of 150,000,000 dead and counting.

Online Elderberry

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 8,874
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

Quote
Targets of congressional investigations have challenged the power of Congress to investigate before a formal resolution commences impeachment proceedings. For example, President Buchanan wrote to the committee investigating his administration:

    I do, therefore, ... solemnly protest against these proceedings of the House of Representatives, because they are in violation of the rights of the coordinate executive branch of the Government, and subversive of its constitutional independence; because they are calculated to foster a band of interested parasites and informers, ever ready, for their own advantage, to swear before ex parte committees to pretended private conversations between the President and themselves, incapable, from their nature, of being disproved; thus furnishing material for harassing him, degrading him in the eyes of the country ...[22]

He maintained that the House of Representatives possessed no general powers to investigate him, except when sitting as an impeaching body.

When the Supreme Court has considered similar issues, it held that the power to secure "needed information ... has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate. ... [The power to investigate is deeply rooted in the nation's history:] It was so regarded in the British Parliament and in the colonial Legislatures before the American Revolution, and a like view has prevailed and been carried into effect in both houses of Congress and in most of the state Legislatures." McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 161 (1927). The Supreme Court also held, "There can be no doubt as to the power of Congress, by itself or through its committees, to investigate matters and conditions relating to contemplated legislation." Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160 (1955).

The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to investigate so it can inform the public of the operations of government:

    It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.[23]
He who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf