The Briefing Room

General Category => Scandal Watch => Impeachment 45 => Topic started by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 09:25:49 AM

Title: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 09:25:49 AM
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, has been directed by the State Department not to appear Tuesday for a scheduled interview with House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Sondland, a Trump political appointee, has emerged as a central player in Trump's bid to persuade Ukraine’s new government to commit publicly to investigate corruption and the president’s political opponents.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-orders-ambassador-center-ukraine-scandal-not-appear-congress-n1063636 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-orders-ambassador-center-ukraine-scandal-not-appear-congress-n1063636)

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: libertybele on October 08, 2019, 09:49:27 AM
Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, has been directed by the State Department not to appear Tuesday for a scheduled interview with House committees leading the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Sondland, a Trump political appointee, has emerged as a central player in Trump's bid to persuade Ukraine’s new government to commit publicly to investigate corruption and the president’s political opponents.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-orders-ambassador-center-ukraine-scandal-not-appear-congress-n1063636 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-orders-ambassador-center-ukraine-scandal-not-appear-congress-n1063636)

Interesting. We'll see if he complies.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: skeeter on October 08, 2019, 09:53:47 AM
Interesting. We'll see if he complies.

His answer should be 'I'll appear before an actual impeachment hearing.'
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
Interesting. We'll see if he complies.


His attorney has already put out a statement that he would not testify, based upon the fact he is bound by state department protocols. It’s further down, in the article.


"As the sitting U.S. Ambassador to the EU and employee of the State Department, Ambassador Sondland is required to follow the Department’s direction," Luskin continued, adding that Sondland "is profoundly disappointed that he will not be able to testify today."


Trump has also weighed in, via Twitter.


Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

 I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public....

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

....to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!

17.6K
8:23 AM - Oct 8, 2019
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: mystery-ak on October 08, 2019, 10:43:34 AM
Schiff: State withholding Sondland texts, messages on personal device
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464810-schiff-state-withholding-sondland-texts-messages-on-personal-device
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 10:45:02 AM
Reveal who this fake whistleblower is and you'll get the texts.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 10:57:16 AM
There are legitimate reasons why Sondland should answer questions. He is the US ambassador to the EU and Ukraine is not part of the European Union. Having a formal inquiry may be the best thing that could happen. In previous impeachment processes, under Nixon and Clinton, the minority party also gained the power to subpoena. Republicans could call and question their own specific witnesses.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-07/subpoena-power-republicans-want-house-vote-impeachment-inquiry-pelosi-doesnt (https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-07/subpoena-power-republicans-want-house-vote-impeachment-inquiry-pelosi-doesnt)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 11:07:21 AM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 08, 2019, 11:18:03 AM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.

Exactly.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 08, 2019, 11:46:02 AM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.

Absolutely.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 11:50:44 AM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.

@Cyber Liberty I don't think Nancy is going to let the Republicans anywhere near this impeachment crap.

She's opened up her playbook to how she treated the Republicans in the House during the Obamacare proceedings.  She completely shut them out during that as well.  Told them they weren't needed or wanted.

History is repeating itself.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 11:57:14 AM
@Cyber Liberty I don't think Nancy is going to let the Republicans anywhere near this impeachment crap.

She's opened up her playbook to how she treated the Republicans in the House during the Obamacare proceedings.  She completely shut them out during that as well.  Told them they weren't needed or wanted.

History is repeating itself.

Let's hope the useful idiots like Amash and Romney see this.  I am not optimistic.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 11:59:01 AM
Let's hope the useful idiots like Amash and Romney see this.  I am not optimistic.

I'm not either...we have politicians allegedly on our side that are more fearful of what some talking head on the nightly news is gonna say about them than actually doing the right thing for their constituents and the country.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 12:11:49 PM
I'm not either...we have politicians allegedly on our side that are more fearful of what some talking head on the nightly news is gonna say about them than actually doing the right thing for their constituents and the country.

Useful idiots we will have with us always.  But remember:  Susan Collins did vote to confirm Kavanaugh.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on October 08, 2019, 12:14:42 PM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Jazzhead on October 08, 2019, 12:17:37 PM
Trump's correct on this:  Unless and until Republicans have the same powers as the Majority in these "hearings," he should not cooperate in any way.  There's nothing to cooperate with.

Agreed.  American justice is not defined by kangaroo courts.   
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: mystery-ak on October 08, 2019, 12:22:52 PM
Democrats to subpoena Sondland
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464827-democrats-to-issue-subpoena-to-sondland
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: aligncare on October 08, 2019, 12:29:40 PM

State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry v2.0
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: jpsb on October 08, 2019, 12:37:52 PM
Good.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 12:38:54 PM
Quote
Democrats to subpoena Sondland


That won’t really matter. Their subpoena power is fairly weak. If the administration doesn’t want him to testify, he will defy it, like Rove and Holder have, in the past.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 12:42:50 PM
Democrats to subpoena Sondland
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464827-democrats-to-issue-subpoena-to-sondland

Pound sand, Schitt.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: truth_seeker on October 08, 2019, 12:47:01 PM
The ambassador to the EU has precisely what role, in dealings between the US, and non-EU member Ukraine?

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 08, 2019, 12:59:56 PM
His answer should be 'I'll appear before an actual impeachment hearing.'

Exactly.   These unofficial "requests to appear" should be ignored.   Only the truly stuckonstupid useful idiots are unaware that the rats are merely playing impeachment games here.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 01:23:19 PM
Exactly.   These unofficial "requests to appear" should be ignored.   Only the truly stuckonstupid useful idiots are unaware that the rats are merely playing impeachment games here.

Well, today the Democrats issued a subpoena for the Ambassador.  Let's see them enforce it.

Schitt also announced a refusal of this subpoena would be an Article of Impeachment (obstruction), if such a thing ever came to a vote.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 01:40:34 PM
Well, today the Democrats issued a subpoena for the Ambassador.  Let's see them enforce it.

Schitt also announced a refusal of this subpoena would be an Article of Impeachment (obstruction), if such a thing ever came to a vote.


Technically, they could do that, because similar obstruction charges were part of the articles of impeachment, being drawn up for Nixon.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 01:43:52 PM

Technically, they could do that, because similar obstruction charges were part of the articles of impeachment, being drawn up for Nixon.

Yep.  The Dem case for the Article would be severely weakened if a court agrees Congress does not have the authority to compel witnesses in a non-Impeachment related hearing, like this one.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 08, 2019, 01:58:56 PM
Well, today the Democrats issued a subpoena for the Ambassador.  Let's see them enforce it.

Schitt also announced a refusal of this subpoena would be an Article of Impeachment (obstruction), if such a thing ever came to a vote.

From my understanding, they have only started an "Inquiry" into impeachment.... vs. an official Impeachment hearing....

so any "subpoena" the rats issue is invalid and should only be considered a "request".   If that is incorrect, can somebody please post the explanation?  Another issue that I am thoroughly confused about.  And I suspect that the rats are intentionally muddying these waters to confuse the public.

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 02:08:01 PM
From my understanding, they have only started an "Inquiry" into impeachment.... vs. an official Impeachment hearing....

so any "subpoena" the rats issue is invalid and should only be considered a "request".   If that is incorrect, can somebody please post the explanation?  Another issue that I am thoroughly confused about.  And I suspect that the rats are intentionally muddying these waters to confuse the public.

You bet your sweet bippy they're trying to muddy the waters, and I'd bet a week's pay they're shopping for an Obama or Clinton Judge to declare any subpoenas "valid and binding."  Sure, it would be overturned but the damage will be done.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 08, 2019, 02:20:41 PM
You bet your sweet bippy they're trying to muddy the waters, and I'd bet a week's pay they're shopping for an Obama or Clinton Judge to declare any subpoenas "valid and binding."  Sure, it would be overturned but the damage will be done.

So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.

https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/ (https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/)

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 02:30:15 PM
So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.

https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/ (https://www.westernjournal.com/justice-clarence-thomas-missing-start-new-supreme-court-term-due-illness/)

I believe the Ambassador can request a summary Judgement today.  IANAL.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 08, 2019, 02:41:49 PM
Yep.  The Dem case for the Article would be severely weakened if a court agrees Congress does not have the authority to compel witnesses in a non-Impeachment related hearing, like this one.

Quote
Any House impeachment probe is not a court case, but it has elements in common with a trial, or at least with a grand jury proceeding. Without a formal opening of the inquiry and without clear rules, the target of the probe (Trump) is being denied both clarity and appropriate notice, both of which are necessary for a fair defense. In such circumstances, he has both a moral and arguably a greater legal right to refuse executive branch cooperation. Without an official vote for an inquiry and without official rules providing at least something akin to trial-defense rights, this is less an equitable proceeding than it is a star chamber.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 02:51:03 PM


All the Rats need is for a friendly Obastard or Clinton Judge to declare Schitt's "subpoenas" valid and binding, "fairness" be damned.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 02:57:35 PM
So... what's the solution?   Should the Supreme Court rule on it?   Heard that Clarence Thomas is suffering from an illness.   Let's hope that it is "just the flu".   But I put nothing past the radical left these days.


There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 03:00:47 PM

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Are you prepared to say Shitt is running an "Impeachment Inquiry?"  Speaker Pelosi isn't.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 03:01:47 PM
Oh goody!  Shemp Smith is on to tell me what to think!
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 03:06:19 PM
Are you prepared to say Shitt is running an "Impeachment Inquiry?"  Speaker Pelosi isn't.


No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 08, 2019, 03:07:57 PM

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Exactly the point (which I guess I wasn't clear on).  Unless or until the rats open a formal impeachment process vs. merely an inquiry, none of the subpoenas amount to a San Francisco pile of...er.... well, you get the drift.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 08, 2019, 03:08:21 PM

There is already a precedent from SCOTUS, in the Nixon v United States case. In that ruling, the justices decided 8-0 (Renquist recused) executive privilege could not be asserted to keep testimony and evidence away from Congress. Impeachment is a constitutional process, which requires gathering of evidence. Those who are subpoenaed would likely face obstruction charges of their own, with stricter enforcement potentially being imposed, if they declined. That would require a formal impeachment process, which would open the door for Republicans obtaining subpoena power of their own, to mount a defense. Those people would be under the same jeopardy of obstruction or contempt.

Yet, as the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Nixon, the privilege is not absolute. Granted, the Nixon case involved judicial review, not congressional review, but the principles involved are similar.(Maybe..maybe not -emphasis  the ghost) ) The more formally and logistically a congressional probe is conducted procedurally such as a criminal trial, the greater the weight of Congress’s power to pierce the veil of executive branch confidentiality involving a State Department official.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 08, 2019, 03:09:50 PM

No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower)

Which is yet another reason (and there are several) why the rats don't want to open an official, formal impeachment hearing.   They've got too much to lose if their side is placed under oath.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 03:11:04 PM
Which is yet another reason (and there are several) why the rats don't want to open an official, formal impeachment hearing.   They've got too much to lose if their side is placed under oath.


Yes, in the current scenario, their powers to subpoena are fairly weak, as I pointed out in post 19.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378512.msg2070191.html#msg2070191 (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378512.msg2070191.html#msg2070191)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 08, 2019, 03:24:23 PM

No, I’m saying for those conditions to be in effect, a formal impeachment process would have to be in place. That, however, is a double edged sword. Ranking Republicans on the appropriate committees will also have the same subpoena powers. There is a story out there that Schiff had discussed the whistleblower complaint, prior to its filing. That would make him a witness.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trey-gowdy-adam-schiff-now-a-fact-witness-and-gop-should-call-on-him-to-testify-about-whistleblower)

I agree with that, and it's one of the reasons given that Schiff should not be leading any investigation of the so-called "dog-whistleblower."  He's made himself a witness to the facts of the case, by virtue of his contacts with the person prior to the filing of the report.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 03:48:22 PM
A bit of a side story…

The White House has reached out to outside lawyers for impeachment counsel, according to a person familiar.

One of the lawyers they reached out to is Trey Gowdy, a former congressman and an ex-federal prosecutor. He now regularly appears on Fox News.


https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-08-2019/h_afb06fe7b6ff08e44eee6755427682dd (https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-inquiry-10-08-2019/h_afb06fe7b6ff08e44eee6755427682dd)

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 08, 2019, 04:21:49 PM
The ambassador to the EU has precisely what role, in dealings between the US, and non-EU member Ukraine?

That's what the rats want to know.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGAGvP-WkAEXis8?format=png&name=small)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 04:48:48 PM
That's what the rats want to know.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf (https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGAGvP-WkAEXis8?format=png&name=small)

Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

Quote
"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions," Sondland wrote back. "The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelenskiy promised during his campaign.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy)


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 08, 2019, 05:10:42 PM
Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy)


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.


Thanks for pointing out the dishonesty in the post you are replying to.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 08, 2019, 05:11:00 PM
Glad to see you haven't changed a bit in your cherry picking of thigns out of context.

And now...the rest of the story:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/text-message-reveals-top-diplomat-called-withholding-security-assistance-for-political-campaign-crazy)


Amazing how you libs continue to lie by omission about the actual conversation and how out of context you're taking stuff to fit your false narrative.

Yes, that's rotten.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 05:17:24 PM
Yes, that's rotten.

@Sanguine @austingirl and look at the time span between the two texts.

The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.

Well guess what there was something said that puts the whole conversation into perspective.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 08, 2019, 05:21:47 PM
@Sanguine @austingirl and look at the time span between the two texts.

The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.

Well guess what there was something said that puts the whole conversation into perspective.

Indeed.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 08, 2019, 05:25:04 PM
Yes, that's rotten.

I was shocked, shocked I tell you he would go that low.

Someone should kick his butt so hard he'd be whistling through his hemorrhoids.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 06:10:15 PM
The left wants you to ignore that there is 34 minutes between those cut and pasted texts like nothing else was said during that time.


OK, but there’s another problem with a different exchange.


“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” wrote Taylor.

Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” wrote Sondland. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”



Sondland said ‘call me’ and that is exactly what Taylor did. There was obviously something in that conversation that bothered Taylor, because he referred to it, in the text. There was a five hour gap in his response to Taylor and a couple news outlets are reporting that in that timeframe, Sondland spoke directly with Trump. Sondland is a bit out of his area, since Ukraine is not part of the EU. Is it an obvious, damning CYA exchange? Not quite, but it’s also not exactly a ‘nothing to see here,’ either.


Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.

-snip-

On Tuesday, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported that during the five hours between texts, Sondland was in phone contact with Trump. The New York Times also reported the conversation last week. Sondland is not a career diplomat but a businessman, the founder and chairman of the Provenance chain of hotels, and a Republican donor who contributed $1 million to the Trump inauguration before his appointment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 08, 2019, 06:13:45 PM

OK, but there’s another problem with a different exchange.


“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” wrote Taylor.

Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text.

“Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” wrote Sondland. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”



Sondland said ‘call me’ and that is exactly what Taylor did. There was obviously something in that conversation that bothered Taylor, because he referred to it, in the text. There was a five hour gap in his response to Taylor and a couple news outlets are reporting that in that timeframe, Sondland spoke directly with Trump. Sondland is a bit out of his area, since Ukraine is not part of the EU. Is it an obvious, damning CYA exchange? Not quite, but it’s also not exactly a ‘nothing to see here,’ either.


Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee.

-snip-

On Tuesday, NBC News and the Wall Street Journal reported that during the five hours between texts, Sondland was in phone contact with Trump. The New York Times also reported the conversation last week. Sondland is not a career diplomat but a businessman, the founder and chairman of the Provenance chain of hotels, and a Republican donor who contributed $1 million to the Trump inauguration before his appointment.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-sondland-phone-call-texts-impeachment-200820883.html)

I say this as a journalist myself...I don't trust a damn thing Yahoo News...NBC or even the Wall Street Journal reports on this stuff.

Not a slam on you...they've just so misrepresented every single bit of this that no one knows whats real and what's made up of whole cloth from the MSM.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 06:33:54 PM
I say this as a journalist myself...I don't trust a damn thing Yahoo News...NBC or even the Wall Street Journal reports on this stuff.

Not a slam on you...they've just so misrepresented every single bit of this that no one knows whats real and what's made up of whole cloth from the MSM.


There’s always reasons to doubt politicians and the MSM. Nobody’s an angel in all of this. I tend to believe the WSJ, more. They were the first to dig up the payments to Daniels, were called hacks, but were proven to be correct. You will probably recall that Trump recently attributed making this phone call, at the behest of Rick Perry. That’s probably true. I also doubt this idea to have Ukraine investigate Biden was something that originated with him, either. As the Atlantic reported...

This morning, a former senior White House official told me this “entire thing,” referring to the Ukraine scandal, was “Rudy putting shit in Trump’s head.” A senior House Republican aide bashed Giuliani, telling me he was a “moron.” Both individuals spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be candid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879/ (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/09/giuliani-ukraine-trump-biden/598879/)

Trump has a terrible habit of hiring lousy personal attorneys and letting them do questionable work. See Giuliani, Cohen, and Cohn, as examples. There was an interesting story, written by the AP, concerning the intrigue around Rudy and his business associates. Apparently, the former US ambassador was an impediment to their goals. Somehow, they had advanced knowledge, she would be dismissed. In the end, this all may boil down to Trump following bad advice, from yet another lousy personnel decision. The story is worth a read…

Profit, not politics: Trump allies sought Ukraine gas deal

https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter (https://apnews.com/d7440cffba4940f5b85cd3dfa3500fb2?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 08, 2019, 06:52:18 PM
"Nearly five hours later, Sondland responded with a formal-sounding statement that could be seen as attempting to cover for any potential illicit behavior from the White House and ends communication via text...

Two news organizations have now confirmed a New York Times report about a phone call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, apparently giving Sondland talking points on the issue, which was the impetus for the investigation by the House Intelligence Committee."



Good Lord! Yahoo? could be seen as...apparently giving Sondland talking points


weasel words and rank speculation masquerading as news.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 07:20:37 PM
Good Lord! Yahoo? could be seen as...apparently giving Sondland talking points


weasel words and rank speculation masquerading as news.


OK so who is reliable? Fox? Trump says they are no longer dependable. OANN? They employ Jack Posobiec. During the 2016 campaign, he launched a subversive attempt to discredit a left organization, by putting phony people in there with ‘Rape Melania’ signs and he got caught at it. They still want to keep him on staff? Everybody has an agenda.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 08, 2019, 07:30:10 PM

 Everybody has an agenda.

Except you.  So fair.  So balanced. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 07:32:19 PM
Except you.  So fair.  So balanced.


Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 08, 2019, 07:39:39 PM

Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.

That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on October 08, 2019, 07:41:40 PM
That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 07:50:17 PM
That ship sailed.  So how about joining the rest of us in the  reality we are faced with.


Probably because the reality is - when he comes right down to it, he has absolutely no idea what he’s doing and the progress and disaster avoidance to date has been a bleeping miracle. This phony savior is going to leave a wake of destruction, as he always has.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 08, 2019, 07:56:09 PM

Probably because the reality is - when he comes right down to it, he has absolutely no idea what he’s doing and the progress and disaster avoidance to date has been a bleeping miracle. This phony savior is going to leave a wake of destruction, as he always has.
@edpc
How has he managed to run the country for almost three years, appointing conservative judges, cutting taxes, reducing unemployment, fighting on the border, cutting regulations, improving the economy so wages rise, with little to no help from the RINOs? How can you ignore those things?

I was opposed to him as a candidate, but ending up voting for him and support him when he's right.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 08, 2019, 08:03:02 PM
@edpc
How has he managed to run the country for almost three years, appointing conservative judges, cutting taxes, reducing unemployment, fighting on the border, cutting regulations, improving the economy so wages rise, with little to no help from the RINOs? How can you ignore those things?

I was opposed to him as a candidate, but ending up voting for him and support him when he's right.


Who are these RINOS you speak of? In the past, that’s been people like Ryan and McConnell. I’m pretty sure they’re the ones that are responsible for getting the tax legislation through, which kick started the economy. Also, the only reason why there are so many openings for judges is because The Turtle stonewalled the previous administration. There’s your bleeping reality.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: corbe on October 08, 2019, 08:37:09 PM

Of course I have an agenda – it’s to elect someone who might actually be a conservative, instead of an opportunistic five time party changing political weathervane fraud.


 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 08, 2019, 10:25:41 PM
@mystery-ak
@Cyber Liberty
@roamer_1

All arguing about what is required to begin an impeachment inquiry/investigation, are wasting time.  Some may want it started differently, but that doesn't matter as it is happening as set down in the constitution/law.  No House vote is required to begin an impeachment inquiry/investigation.

An impeachment inquiry was begun by the Speaker of the House. It only requires the Speaker of the House to begin such an inquiry, which she did on Sept. 24, 2019:

"An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the 45th and current president of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.  It began after revelations that President Trump and top administration officials had allegedly pressured leaders of multiple foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, in ways presumably intended to advance Trump's personal and political interests.  Additional allegations of misconduct emerged in the days afterwards."

Three House Committees came together to begin this inquiry/investigation and they are working now.  They are:
Elijah Cummings of the House Oversight Committee; Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee; and Eliot Engel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

If witnesses do not come forward after invited to testify and/or produce records, it is perfectly legal to issue a subpoena to require their appearance or stated records, and they must do it.  If they do not, they will end up in court and that applies to everyone, even the White House/President.  With the White House/Trump calling this whole procedure unconstitutional/illegal and refusing to produce records, preventing witnesses appearing, there will be court action/orders and the witnesses and records will be sent to the committees.  The Secretary of State is doing the same thing, and eventually witnesses from there plus records will go to the committees via court order.

Once the investigations are completed by the three committees, that evidence/report goes to the entire House and a vote to impeach, or not, will happen.

Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.

If the House impeaches, which means "indicts", Trump defends himself once the Senate begins the trial.  The House selected members are the prosecutors in the trial, and Trump and his lawyers the defendant, and the Senate is the Jury.  At the end of this trial, if convicted, the Senate removes him from office, or they don't convict him and he remains in office.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 09, 2019, 01:42:44 AM

Amazing how you libs
@txradioguy
 :3:

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 05:32:55 AM
Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.


Not always. In the Nixon inquiry, HR 803 provided the authority and funding for the process.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803)

In October 1998, the House voted on the impeachment inquiry of Clinton, prior to the impeachment vote in December.

https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/impeachment.advancer/ (https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/10/08/impeachment.advancer/)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:25:29 AM
@Victoria33

Quote
Note: As I said, no action is required by the House to begin an impeachment inquiry, and it is already ongoing. Taking a vote of the House now to begin the inquiry, would be window dressing, means nothing.

So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 09:28:25 AM
@Victoria33

So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.

I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:36:34 AM
I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.

What a quaint notion!  Yes, but the Rats and the Nevers want Trump out, so whatever rules we thought applied, don't when a President spells his name T-r-u-m-p.  That will revert to normal when we get a different president, provided he/she's popular with the DeeCee crowd.  Until then, anything goes if it can be seen as anti-Trump.

It's a well know fact that a President named "Trump" is below the law, so we should just accept it and move on to the next loser.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 10:00:02 AM
@Victoria33
So far, you are the only person reporting as settled fact that Pelosi can start in Impeachment on a whim, complete with document demands and forced testimony.  Doesn't mean it's not true, just an observation.  The Courts will decide I am sure, because without such an order Trump will continue to tell her to pound sand.
@Cyber Liberty

In the past a vote was taken but was not necessary.  This has been said by Pelosi and others numerous times; I am surprised you have not heard/read this.  Will put sources on here.  Plus, every committee in the House/Senate may issue subpoenas if witnesses refuse to come.

Pelosi kept holding off starting an impeachment inquiry and did it the date in September I put that on here.  A House member can also bring up staring an inquiry and that requires a vote.  Okay, going to find more sources about Speaker starting inquiry.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 10:11:00 AM
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 (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/no-clear-requirement-that-house-approve-impeachment-inquiry.html)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: verga on October 09, 2019, 10:11:17 AM
@Cyber Liberty I don't think Nancy is going to let the Republicans anywhere near this impeachment crap.

She's opened up her playbook to how she treated the Republicans in the House during the Obamacare proceedings.  She completely shut them out during that as well.  Told them they weren't needed or wanted.

History is repeating itself.
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 10:17:33 AM
@Cyber Liberty

In the past a vote was taken but was not necessary.  This has been said by Pelosi and others numerous times; I am surprised you have not heard/read this.  Will put sources on here.  Plus, every committee in the House/Senate may issue subpoenas if witnesses refuse to come.

Pelosi kept holding off starting an impeachment inquiry and did it the date in September I put that on here.  A House member can also bring up staring an inquiry and that requires a vote.  Okay, going to find more sources about Speaker starting inquiry.

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. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 10:20:04 AM
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.

The ends justify the means.  The President is supposed to check his Constitutional rights at the door.  Because Trump.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 10:24:09 AM
The problem is that this is a juridical proceeding and not legislative. They are bound by different rules. She may think she has the final say, but she is wrong.

I agree...but the normal rules never seem to apply where the Dems are concerned. 

Quote
She has not even taken a floor vote yet, so this is nothing more than a witch hunt.

My guess is she won't until after the 2020 election...if ever  I honestly don't think this was every about really impeaching the President...it was about muddying him up enough to try and make him unelectable in 2020...that's why when one false scandal gets myth busted...another one magically pops up.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 10:30:57 AM
I believe the Constitution (who cares what that says?) says that "the House of Representatives" must start the impeachment process, not the Speaker.  That implies some sort of vote to determine consensus must occur.

@Sanguine

That is correct. The entire House must start the impeachment process. One botoxed-to-the-gills apostate doesn't make it legitimate.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 10:32:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 10:34:22 AM
It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.

It IS amazing.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 10:34:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 10:36:42 AM
It IS amazing.

I guess when one listens to CNN, one doesn't get the facts from legal experts who revere the Constitution.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 10:38:31 AM

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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 10:42:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 10:48:02 AM
@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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 10:57:46 AM
@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!"
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 11:14:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: aligncare on October 09, 2019, 11:22:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 11:28:48 AM
"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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 11:34:42 AM
"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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:48:06 AM

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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:49:37 AM
"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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 11:50:32 AM
@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.
 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 11:52:43 AM
@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").
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:55:40 AM
@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. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 12:04:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 12:20:33 PM
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".
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 12:25:32 PM
@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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 09, 2019, 12:26:01 PM
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 (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?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 12:32:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 12:38:29 PM
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



Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 09, 2019, 12:40:33 PM
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).
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Elderberry on October 09, 2019, 12:51:17 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States (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]
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: truth_seeker on October 09, 2019, 01:03:23 PM
There seems to be an impass. Didn't anybody take middle school civics, or have a Wikipedia law account?.

BTW precisely what is the alleged infraction that Trump supposedly did?

Is that specific thing, more important than the findings of the IG and Durham----you know this entire Cou 'd Etat.

If that troubles you less, then you are a damn phule
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 09, 2019, 01:43:23 PM
It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.

Ehhh.... no.   My two cents....there is no justification for defending Pelosi... ever.

So if anybody here defends Pelosi, I posit that it's not due to any TDS. 
It's because they are a damned closet DemocRat.  (sue me)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: XenaLee on October 09, 2019, 01:49:01 PM
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.

At this point.... I'm already mad enough at the Democrats (and I am not alone re: this) ....

that I want every swingin D one of em behind bars.  And I'm being nice here, compared to what they deserve to have happen to them.   9999hair out0000
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 09, 2019, 01:49:27 PM
Ehhh.... no.   My two cents....there is no justification for defending Pelosi... ever.

So if anybody here defends Pelosi, I posit that it's not due to any TDS. 
It's because they are a damned closet DemocRat.  (sue me)
No defense for Pelosi, to be sure. She's a raving moonbat, angry that she didn't get to be Hillary's right hand in the destruction of America (that's probably cost her millions, by now, too).
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 02:27:23 PM
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.
@Sanguine

The House works through committees.  A member of a committee can suggest an impeachment inquiry, and then the committee either votes to start an inquiry, or not.  It is the three committee's names I posted that are more germane to consider impeachment inquiry and they are.

I think it was you who asked where the money would come from for a committee to start an inquiry.  Each committee already has a budget/money to do the work of the committee.  I should be able to find those budget amounts.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 09, 2019, 02:41:06 PM
@Sanguine

The House works through committees.  A member of a committee can suggest an impeachment inquiry, and then the committee either votes to start an inquiry, or not.  It is the three committee's names I posted that are more germane to consider impeachment inquiry and they are.

I think it was you who asked where the money would come from for a committee to start an inquiry.  Each committee already has a budget/money to do the work of the committee.  I should be able to find those budget amounts.
Have those committees voted to start the inquiries, or are these just rogue partisanship?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 02:46:22 PM

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

I've been told, scores of times, this is not the same as a criminal prosecution, it's a political matter.  This is obviously true because criminals are neither above nor below the law.  This is much simpler because President Trump is clearly beneath it.  Pelosi is demonstrating there isn't a law to be either above or below, it's what she says it is on any given day.

It's a Kangaroo Court, so proceed.  You got 'im now!
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 02:51:53 PM
It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.

By any means necessary. Even if it means making a deal with the Devil.  Whatever it takes to get the Bad Orange Man out.  It would appear a lot of folks have been hiding their true motives.

These are the days I just want to give up, because there's nobody or nothing worth fighting for anymore.  Piss on everybody.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 02:52:39 PM
@Sanguine

The House works through committees.  A member of a committee can suggest an impeachment inquiry, and then the committee either votes to start an inquiry, or not.  It is the three committee's names I posted that are more germane to consider impeachment inquiry and they are.

I think it was you who asked where the money would come from for a committee to start an inquiry.  Each committee already has a budget/money to do the work of the committee.  I should be able to find those budget amounts.

I'm talking Constitutional requirements, and you had answered that there was no (explicit) Constitutional requirement for a vote.  There is also no Constitutional requirement for committee action.  So, apparently you are saying my statement "anyone and everyone in the House can start an impeachment inquiry and start subpoenaing witnesses" is correct.

And, no, I didn't ask about funding.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 02:53:42 PM
By any means necessary. Even if it means making a deal with the Devil.  Whatever it takes to get the Bad Orange Man out.  It would appear a lot of folks have been hiding their true motives.

These are the days I just want to give up, because there's nobody or nothing worth fighting for anymore.  Piss on everybody.

I hear ya, @Cyber Liberty.  It's damned demoralizing for sure.   
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 09, 2019, 03:00:26 PM
Problem is, this is an obvious and ongoing Democrat ploy. If there are specific charges to be made against the POTUS, or reasons aside from partisan crap to initiate impeachment proceedings or an investigation, then do so, but this has been a fishing expedition, a prosecution looking for a charge from the git-go.

I see this as a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, while others who have, by their own admission, and in their own words, committed crimes go uninvestigated, and they are Legion (only they are Democrats). There is no 'equal protection under the law' here.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 03:03:01 PM
I'm talking Constitutional requirements, and you had answered that there was no (explicit) Constitutional requirement for a vote.  There is also no Constitutional requirement for committee action.  So, apparently you are saying my statement "anyone and everyone in the House can start an impeachment inquiry and start subpoenaing witnesses" is correct.

And, no, I didn't ask about funding.

There is a a slight difference.  Anybody in the majority can do those things (Al Green).  Republicans are in the minority, so they aren't allowed to call witnesses, cross examine the witnesses called, and as far as I know, during recess the Rats don't even have to tell Republicans there are hearings at all.  We hear about them from the unbiased Press (stop laughing!).  Even Grand Juries aren't as one-sided as some have said they are.

It's a kangaroo court, and my only hope is the voting public sees it as such and decides it's wrong.  Others, who we thought knew better, are fine with using any means necessary.  Philosophically speaking, they're no better than the Antifa thugs.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 03:10:36 PM
I've been told, scores of times, this is not the same as a criminal prosecution, it's a political matter.  This is obviously true because criminals are neither above nor below the law.  This is much simpler because President Trump is clearly beneath it.  Pelosi is demonstrating there isn't a law to be either above or below, it's what she says it is on any given day.

It's a Kangaroo Court, so proceed.  You got 'im now!


It’s a political process, because the only consequence is removal, not incarceration. That would require another trial, once the official is removed from office. See the example of Alcee Hastings. He was impeached and removed from his position as a federal judge. Later, he was acquitted in a separate criminal trial. Unfortunately, that allowed him to run for office, again.

Other than that, the impeachment process functions the same way as an indictment, in the standard judicial process. Stop being hyperbolic and think about it. You’re smarter than that.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: aligncare on October 09, 2019, 03:15:41 PM
 999yawn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States)

I guess the question comes down to does there exist a legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing, a viable predicate for beginning an impeachment inquiry? Or, as in today’s example with Trump, is it a malicious, demonstrably partisan, politically motivated attack on the president?

HELLO?  Democrats were drawing up articles of impeachment on Trump for wearing the wrong tie with that shirt, 2-days after Trump was elected!
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 03:37:50 PM

It’s a political process, because the only consequence is removal, not incarceration. That would require another trial, once the official is removed from office. See the example of Alcee Hastings. He was impeached and removed from his position as a federal judge. Later, he was acquitted in a separate criminal trial. Unfortunately, that allowed him to run for office, again.

Other than that, the impeachment process functions the same way as an indictment, in the standard judicial process. Stop being hyperbolic and think about it. You’re smarter than that.

I'm just a simple retired Engineer, and I know what unjust looks like.  I think I need to just give up and say, "You are absolutely correct and Hero Peolsi is going to save us from the Bad Orange Man."  Meanwhile, I'll be pulling up the drawbridge on the Castle and let y'all decide what you want to do.  Just don't try to guess how I'll vote on anything because, as it turns out, voting doesn't matter.  It probably hasn't mattered my whole life. 

2016 was an aberration, in the end Trump will be destroyed and the country will get the government it deserves, good and hard.

I've always prided myself at being out in the middle of the whole "Orange Man Bad" fight, but the haters have been doing an excellent job of pushing me to the other side. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 03:40:12 PM
999yawn

HELLO?  Democrats were drawing up articles of impeachment on Trump for wearing the wrong tie with that shirt, 2-days after Trump was elected!

That they have, as an old friend I miss greatly used to say, "to thunderous applause.  I'm happy for the haters, they're going to get exactly what they deserve.  Good and hard.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 04:01:40 PM
I'm just a simple retired Engineer, and I know what unjust looks like.  I think I need to just give up and say, "You are absolutely correct and Hero Peolsi is going to save us from the Bad Orange Man.


Yeah and I’m an active medical device technician. Both of us have dealt with manuals, throughout our respective careers, and have good enough reading comprehension to figure things out. At best, Pelosi will ram a couple of articles of impeachment through the House. Since it’s a constitutional process, McConnell can’t shelve it. You’ll get your trial, with legal representation, discovery, and cross-examination. There’s no way in hell there’s 67 votes, for removal.

Pelosi won’t be ‘saving’ anyone from anything. All she will do is appease their base. It will also energize the right. It’ll be a rallying cry for both sides, generate turnout, and go either way. The admin should actually welcome it. Mulvaney just recently said impeachment will result in a 45 state victory. Unless he decides to go on his own, everyone is just gonna have to accept the fact Trump will be around until at least January 2021.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 04:12:59 PM
Unless he decides to go on his own, everyone is just gonna have to accept the fact Trump will be around until at least January 2021.

Fully agree.  The goal is not to remove him, it's to damage him for the election.  Al Green admitted that a couple Sundays ago.  I don't think it's a plan that's going to work for them, but it might.  I know that if I am to be in the fight, I'll be against both Democrats and Republican dead-enders.  It's OK, really, because McCain was one of those, and I got used to his railing at me decades ago.  I find Dems wrongheaded, but far more respectable than Republicans like McCain and Romney, who spend more vitriol fighting me than they do the leftists. :shrug:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 04:30:53 PM
I find Dems wrongheaded, but far more respectable than Republicans like McCain and Romney, who spend more vitriol fighting me than they do the leftists. :shrug:


I had my problems with both, but held my nose, because I lived in the battleground state of OH, at the time. Is there any question that either one of them would have been better than Obama? For all of their faults, both recognized Putin and Russia for the geopolitical threat they would become and are.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 04:36:46 PM

I had my problems with both, but held my nose, because I lived in the battleground state of OH, at the time. Is there any question that either one of them would have been better than Obama? For all of their faults, both recognized Putin and Russia for the geopolitical threat they would become and are.

I'm sure they would have been better than Obastard, and could have demonstrated it if they had run serious campaigns.  But, that's a low bar, and I'd probably be grievously disappointed as they would have things just as destructive to the country.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 04:41:24 PM
I'm just a simple retired Engineer, and I know what unjust looks like.  I think I need to just give up and say, "You are absolutely correct and Hero Peolsi is going to save us from the Bad Orange Man."  Meanwhile, I'll be pulling up the drawbridge on the Castle and let y'all decide what you want to do.  Just don't try to guess how I'll vote on anything because, as it turns out, voting doesn't matter.  It probably hasn't mattered my whole life. 

2016 was an aberration, in the end Trump will be destroyed and the country will get the government it deserves, good and hard.

I've always prided myself at being out in the middle of the whole "Orange Man Bad" fight, but the haters have been doing an excellent job of pushing me to the other side.

@Cyber Liberty

You are correct about the fundamental unfairness of the fake impeachment, but don't give up. The way evil Mrs. Botox is proceeding is unprecedented and that is just fine with certain members of this forum.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
I'm sure they would have been better than Obastard, and could have demonstrated it if they had run serious campaigns.  But, that's a low bar, and I'd probably be grievously disappointed as they would have things just as destructive to the country.


Well, as I’ve said, here and other places, I believe that Trump will have long lasting detrimental effects on conservatism, after he’s gone. I have the luxury of being NT, since I live in brick red KS. There’s more both of us could probably say about the subject, but I don’t want to get sidetracked, as I did yesterday. So, back to our regularly scheduled program...
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378684.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378684.0.html)

A Louisiana Republican congressman introduced a resolution Tuesday to expel Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from the House of Representatives, the latest sign that frustration in the GOP is building as Democrats continue their impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

"Nancy Pelosi's vicious crusade against our lawfully-elected President is nothing more than a politically-motivated witch hunt and it must be stopped," Abraham said in a statement. "She has disgraced the people's House and weaponized the Speaker's gavel for her party’s political gain."

Nancy's fans will be incensed! :silly:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: truth_seeker on October 09, 2019, 05:19:53 PM

 I believe that Trump will have long lasting detrimental effects on conservatism, after he’s gone.

Compared to which alternative?

Clinton? McCain? Romney? 3rd party kook? Staying home?

I am amazed that people take the time to involve themselves in political forums, then to take non-viable options.

Like going to a team sports game, and sitting quietly hoping somebody else was on the field.


 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 06:56:23 PM
I'm getting to where I don't give a shit anymore.  I'm tired of fighting both sides, so I encourage the Rats and Never Trump Republicans to all get together, and carpool to Hell with themselves.  They have the same goals, and they'll get the President they want.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 07:19:59 PM
It's amazing to me that members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS.
@austingirl

"...members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS."

The constitution (law) about impeachment is what it is - no matter if a Democrat or Republican is the House Speaker.  It is not a  matter of liking or disliking Pelosi.  You can't change law just because you don't like Pelosi.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 07:28:09 PM
@austingirl

"...members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS."

The constitution (law) about impeachment is what it is - no matter if a Democrat or Republican is the House Speaker.  It is not a  matter of liking or disliking Pelosi.  You can't change law just because you don't like Pelosi.

Just as long as we're clear on something:  Presidents named "Trump" deserve less protection from Impeachment than a shoplifter gets from criminal prosecution under the Bill of Rights.  Once that is understood it all makes sense.

It's finally clear to me now: Trump is not above the law, but he's far, far beneath it.

This country deserves every drop of misery it's going to get.  Thanks, y'all for dragging me down too.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 07:54:12 PM
Have those committees voted to start the inquiries, or are these just rogue partisanship?
@Smokin Joe

The Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry.

Sept. 12:
"Washington, DC - A key committee (Judiciary Committee) of the US House of Representatives voted on Thursday ...approving guidelines for impeachment hearings..."  The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17, along party lines."

The three committees consult with each other as needed.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 07:56:41 PM
@Smokin Joe

The Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry.

Sept. 12:
"Washington, DC - A key committee (Judiciary Committee) of the US House of Representatives voted on Thursday ...approving guidelines for impeachment hearings..."  The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17, along party lines."

The three committees consult with each other as needed.

Is that correct @Victoria33, or should it be "democrats on the Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry"?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: austingirl on October 09, 2019, 08:18:21 PM
@austingirl

"...members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS."

The constitution (law) about impeachment is what it is - no matter if a Democrat or Republican is the House Speaker.  It is not a  matter of liking or disliking Pelosi.  You can't change law just because you don't like Pelosi.

@Victoria33
Have you any concern that the current fake impeachment is unprecedented and the others were conducted properly?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 08:21:38 PM
Is that correct @Victoria33, or should it be "democrats on the Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry"?

Ain't democracy grand?  Majority rules! 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Jazzhead on October 09, 2019, 08:22:11 PM
@austingirl

"...members of this forum defend what Pelosi is doing because of their TDS."

The constitution (law) about impeachment is what it is - no matter if a Democrat or Republican is the House Speaker.  It is not a  matter of liking or disliking Pelosi.  You can't change law just because you don't like Pelosi.

But you sure as hell can slam Pelosi for running roughshod over precedence and due process.   The Constitution may not prescribe precise rules for impeachment, but it doesn't call for a kangaroo court.   
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 08:25:54 PM
@Victoria33
Have you any concern that the current fake impeachment is unprecedented and the others were conducted properly?

That doesn't matter, Impeachment is whatever a majority deems it to be, and the process can be made up as they go along because they have a majority vote!  It's democracy in action, exactly as the Founders warned us.  We were not able to keep the "Republic," and the past decade or so will be described as the years the Republic collapsed.  This impeachment business is really only a symptom of the fact that we are no longer a nation capable of self-rule.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 08:31:06 PM
But you sure as hell can slam Pelosi for running roughshod over precedence and due process.   The Constitution may not prescribe precise rules for impeachment, but it doesn't call for a kangaroo court.

The Constitution may not call for a kangaroo court, but a majority of people have decided that's OK.  The Rats just needed to peel away some Republicans, which they have done so, courtesy of people like Jonah Goldberg.

It's all over but the shouting.  I have known this as an indisputable fact the day Obastard got reelected, because I knew right then the takers can outvote the makers, and there's nothing left to prevent the inevitable looting.

That we had a President willing to stand up to them was a one-off aberration, and people who fancy themselves "conservative" provided just the right amount of pressure to tip the scales.  Not for forever, but certainly for what remains of the USA. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 08:38:29 PM
The Constitution may not call for a kangaroo court, but a majority of people have decided that's OK.  The Rats just needed to peel away some Republicans, which they have done so, courtesy of people like Jonah Goldberg.

It's all over but the shouting.  I have known this as an indisputable fact the day Obastard got reelected, because I knew right then the takers can outvote the makers, and there's nothing left to prevent the inevitable looting.

That we had a President willing to stand up to them was a one-off aberration, and people who fancy themselves "conservative" provided just the right amount of pressure to tip the scales.  Not for forever, but certainly for what remains of the USA.

Yes, rule of law and constitutional republicanism is so last century.  Who needs it?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 08:58:38 PM
Yes, rule of law and constitutional republicanism is so last century.  Who needs it?

The next step will be the Supreme Soviet, long a dream of the leftists.  Oh, sure there will be an attempt to play with a European Parliamentary system, but that will fail to the first strongman who promises to set things right.

We already have the basic trappings of that system:  Everybody seems OK with the notion that a simple Majority on Congress can issue a No Confidence vote to overturn the Government.  The Founders had a few things to say about that notion, but the modern, now a-go-go brainiacs know so much better than those old, dead white guys.

To thunderous applause.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 09, 2019, 09:08:03 PM
@Smokin Joe

The Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry.

Sept. 12:
"Washington, DC - A key committee (Judiciary Committee) of the US House of Representatives voted on Thursday ...approving guidelines for impeachment hearings..."  The Democratic-led House Judiciary Committee voted 24-17, along party lines."

The three committees consult with each other as needed.
Still backing the Rats witch hunt I see
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:12:38 PM
Still backing the Rats witch hunt I see

Majority rules, man!  Isn't it great?  Hey, enjoying that mutton we voted on for dinner?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 09:20:54 PM
Is that correct @Victoria33, or should it be "democrats on the Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee met together to begin the impeachment inquiry"?
@Sanguine

When a committee meets, all members are notified to meet, however, none are arrested and taken to the committee meeting against their will.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 09, 2019, 09:23:25 PM
This country deserves every drop of misery it's going to get. 

(https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/2018/10/graham.jpg)
Agreed.

Quote
Thanks, y'all for dragging me down too.

This has nothing to do with your feelings.  The President has few rights under the Constitution, and many obligations.  Donald J. Trump does not have a right to be President.  Under the Constitution the House has the right to impeach him.  Once the voters gave the House to the rats I suspect we both knew the rats would and could impeach President Trump for whatever reason they could fit into "high crimes and misdemeanors," and they would not be fair about it.

I think the rats and the media are very unfair, but I also think they always have been.  I expect Trump will be impeached much later than the holidays but the Senate will find him not guilty.  I accepted that last Nov.  This is probably where we are headed, and getting angry over it is probably not going to stop it.

I admire your passion against injustice, and I can empathize because I can absolutely understand how you believe President Trump has been remarkably successful despite never getting a fair shake by his lessors...the MSM and the rats.

I don't agree with you.  I think President Trump deserves the ridicule and disapproval, but I can empathize because I saw the rats and MSM never give a fair shake to Dubya, McCain, and Romney.  Three men I think are better than our last two President and it still angers me that President Trump joined the rats and media in their condemnation.

But I actually feel a little guilty for having my own opinion, because I like you, and I can see you are distressed.  Trump is going to be impeached, not convicted, and likely re-elected.  That would not be the end of the world.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 09:25:37 PM
@Sanguine

When a committee meets, all members are notified to meet, however, none are arrested and taken to the committee meeting against their will.

Now, I understand where the problem is.  You are operating without full information.  The dems have cut the republicans out of the process, down to and including excluding them from notification of committee meetings.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 09:25:40 PM
Still backing the Rats witch hunt I see
@The Ghost

Stating the facts, even though you don't like the facts, they are the facts.  I don't consider either party as the facts are the facts.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 09:27:01 PM
@Sanguine

When a committee meets, all members are notified to meet, however, none are arrested and taken to the committee meeting against their will.

But they are being blocked from participating.  The Dem heads of the committees "investigating" Trump are not allowing the Republicans on the committees to call their own wittinesses...issue their own subpoenas and are being blocked from seeing the documents the Dems have that allegedly implicate Trump.

Now you know I'm far from being a Trump fanboy...but this is hardly a fair and impartial "investigation" Pelosi and her henchmen are conducting here.  It smacks of how she ran the House during the crafting of Obamacare when she shut the Republicans out of the entire process then as well.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: The Ghost on October 09, 2019, 09:28:03 PM
@The Ghost

Stating the facts, even though you don't like the facts, they are the facts.  I don't consider either party as the facts are the facts.

The fact you want the bad orange man impeached shows your true colors.  Wear it proud. Say it loud. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:31:37 PM
@Sanguine

When a committee meets, all members are notified to meet, however, none are arrested and taken to the committee meeting against their will.

Are you sure about the notification part?  Why do you suppose "hearings" are taking place during a recess?  Oh, I forgot:  The rules are whatever the Majority says they are.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 09, 2019, 09:35:04 PM
It smacks of how she ran the House during the crafting of Obamacare when she shut the Republicans out of the entire process then as well.

Having gotten away with it in the past, perhaps she feels confident doing what she found successful in the past.

Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:35:27 PM
But they are being blocked from participating.  The Dem heads of the committees "investigating" Trump are not allowing the Republicans on the committees to call their own wittinesses...issue their own subpoenas and are being blocked from seeing the documents the Dems have that allegedly implicate Trump.

Now you know I'm far from being a Trump fanboy...but this is hardly a fair and impartial "investigation" Pelosi and her henchmen are conducting here.  It smacks of how she ran the House during the crafting of Obamacare when she shut the Republicans out of the entire process then as well.

That is exactly what's going on, and people who have some sort of personal problem with Trump are loudly applauding it.  Masks are falling off all over the place, the country be damned.  Never mind about what the effin' Turks are doing, we're being overrun by the socialists right here at home.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 09:37:04 PM
Having gotten away with it in the past, perhaps she feels confident doing what she found successful in the past.

Sadly...you're right.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Having gotten away with it in the past, perhaps she feels confident doing what she found successful in the past.

When a pitcher finds a pitch a batter can't hit, that batter can count on a steady diet of that pitch.  That's is exactly what she's doing, for the same reason Bubba Clinton diddled an intern, and a dog will lick his testicles:  Because they can.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: edpc on October 09, 2019, 10:22:37 PM
When a pitcher finds a pitch a batter can't hit, that batter can count on a steady diet of that pitch.


Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. I ask Jobu to come, take fear from bats.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 10:26:28 PM

Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. I ask Jobu to come, take fear from bats.

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/921a7f56ac9ba8b85b8a4087e7179801/tenor.gif?itemid=13929685)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 10:28:42 PM
But they are being blocked from participating.  The Dem heads of the committees "investigating" Trump are not allowing the Republicans on the committees to call their own wittinesses...issue their own subpoenas and are being blocked from seeing the documents the Dems have that allegedly implicate Trump.  Now you know I'm far from being a Trump fanboy...but this is hardly a fair and impartial "investigation" Pelosi and her henchmen are conducting here.  It smacks of how she ran the House during the crafting of Obamacare when she shut the Republicans out of the entire process then as well.
@txradioguy

The Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, involved in this impeachment inquiry, are as a Grand Jury.  A Grand Jury does investigation which is done, in this case, by the three committees listed above.   A person cannot attend a Grand Jury to defend oneself since there is nothing to defend if the Grand Jury does not indict.  Both parties can question witnesses, read documents the committees requested.  Republicans are not blocked from any of this evidence, not blocked from questioning witnesses.  This is not a trial.

At the end of the investigation, the evidence is presented to the whole House and a vote is taken to impeach or not.  If the vote is not to impeach, that is the end of it.  If the president is impeached, takes a simple majority to impeach, the case goes to the Senate for trial.  The prosecutor is the House members sent to the Senate to present the evidence.  The defendant, Trump, is represented by his lawyers.  The Judge is the Supreme Court Judge, the Senate is the Jury.  After all this takes place, the Senate votes to convict or not, meaning to remove or not remove the president from office.  It takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to remove the president from office.

I am hearing tonight that Trump is calling Senate Leader McConnell, three times every day to assure himself the Senate will not convict. 
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 10:32:22 PM
@txradioguy

The Intelligence Committee, the House Oversight and Reform Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee, involved in this impeachment inquiry, are as a Grand Jury.  A Grand Jury does investigation which is done, in this case, by the three committees listed above.   A person cannot attend a Grand Jury to defend oneself since there is nothing to defend if the Grand Jury does not indict.  Both parties can question witnesses, read documents the committees requested.  Republicans are not blocked from any of this evidence, not blocked from questioning witnesses.  This is not a trial.

At the end of the investigation, the evidence is presented to the whole House and a vote is taken to impeach or not.  If the vote is not to impeach, that is the end of it.  If the president is impeached, takes a simple majority to impeach, the case goes to the Senate for trial.  The prosecutor is the House members sent to the Senate to present the evidence.  The defendant, Trump, is represented by his lawyers.  The Judge is the Supreme Court Judge, the Senate is the Jury.  After all this takes place, the Senate votes to convict or not, meaning to remove or not remove the president from office.  It takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to remove the president from office.

I am hearing tonight that Trump is calling Senate Leader McConnell, three times every day to assure himself the Senate will not convict.

@Victoria33

I understand how impeachment works.  Got very versed on it going back to Nixon (yes I'm that old).

But there has been no vote on the floor of the house authorizing these investigations.  And until that happens...it's just a partisan witch hunt.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Elderberry on October 09, 2019, 10:47:05 PM
@Victoria33

I understand how impeachment works.  Got very versed on it going back to Nixon (yes I'm that old).

But there has been no vote on the floor of the house authorizing these investigations.  And until that happens...it's just a partisan witch hunt.

Dang! I didn't think you're That Old! Myself, I had the misfortune of taking a political science class during the Nixon impeachment process. I do not believe that a floor vote is required to start any house investigation. Do you have a source of that bit of information?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 10:54:35 PM

Straightball I hit it very much. Curveball, bats are afraid. I ask Jobu to come, take fear from bats.

 :laugh:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 10:58:20 PM
@Victoria33   But there has been no vote on the floor of the house authorizing these investigations.  And until that happens...it's just a partisan witch hunt.
@txradioguy

A vote in the House is not required.  One was taken the past two times, but was not required.  The constitution does not call for a vote.

"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."

This impeachment process is going "by the book".  One may not like the "book", but the law is the law and the facts are the facts.  I have been accused of liking Pelosi and liking the Democrats and hating Trump as I have presented the facts.  It matters not to me these people say that - I will continue to present the facts. 

As for Trump, I believe his behavior is that of a "Malignant Narcissist" and should not be president.  I consider him a danger to the country.  I do not hate him, as others say, but I do think, due to his behavior I evaluate after many years of evaluating human behavior, he is not qualified to lead this country.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 10:59:17 PM
Dang! I didn't think you're That Old! Myself, I had the misfortune of taking a political science class during the Nixon impeachment process. I do not believe that a floor vote is required to start any house investigation. Do you have a source of that bit of information?

Technically you're correct.  There's nothing in the Constitution that states there has to be a vote.  But there is precedent....which the Dems only care about if one of their protected classes or imaginary rights are threatened.

Going back to the first first Presidential impeachment...Andrew Jackson in 1868...an impeachment resolution was introduced in the House and a vote of the entire House of Representatives was taken to authorize the impeachment proceedings to begin.  Nixon resigned before the vote could be taken...and the House voted in favor of impeachment for Clinton as we all know.

There is the precedent for introducing a formal resolution to the full House and having them vote.

Ever single time there has been a vote before the inquiry began.  But now Pelosi is setting a very dangerous new standard for impeaching  President in order to protect Red State Dems up for reelection next year...one the Founding Fathers fought to avoid in the carefully worded requirement of what rises to an impeachable offense.

They didn't want one party or a rogue group in the House doing exactly what is happening now...and that is attempt to blackmail the President just because they don't like him.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:00:47 PM
@txradioguy

A vote in the House is not required.  One was taken the past two times, but was not required.  The constitution does not call for a vote.

"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."

This impeachment process is going "by the book".  One may not like the "book", but the law is the law and the facts are the facts.  I have been accused of liking Pelosi and liking the Democrats and hating Trump as I have presented the facts.  It matters not to me these people say that - I will continue to present the facts. 

As for Trump, I believe his behavior is that of a "Malignant Narcissist" and should not be president.  I consider him a danger to the country.  I do not hate him, as others say, but I do think, due to his behavior I evaluate after many years of evaluating human behavior, he is not qualified to lead this country.

OK, so we're clear on where you stand on Impeachment. :shrug:
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 11:02:21 PM
@txradioguy

A vote in the House is not required.  One was taken the past two times, but was not required.  The constitution does not call for a vote.

"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."

This impeachment process is going "by the book".  One may not like the "book", but the law is the law and the facts are the facts.  I have been accused of liking Pelosi and liking the Democrats and hating Trump as I have presented the facts.  It matters not to me these people say that - I will continue to present the facts. 

As for Trump, I believe his behavior is that of a "Malignant Narcissist" and should not be president.  I consider him a danger to the country.  I do not hate him, as others say, but I do think, due to his behavior I evaluate after many years of evaluating human behavior, he is not qualified to lead this country.

No Victoria it's not going by the book as I just explained.  I know you want it to go the one sided way Pelosi is doing it because its self serving on your part towards your well known dislike for Trump...but there is historical precedent for not doing it this way.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:06:24 PM
No Victoria it's not going by the book as I just explained.  I know you want it to go the one sided way Pelosi is doing it because its self serving on your part towards your well known dislike for Trump...but there is historical precedent for not doing it this way.

By Any Means Necessary.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 11:15:19 PM
By Any Means Necessary.

The military has another term that applies to this situation...Mutually Assured Destruction.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: aligncare on October 09, 2019, 11:19:10 PM
The fact that a floor vote isn’t required isn’t the point, but rather that the investigation lacks a clear and understandable predicate to even raise suspicion of Trump wrongdoing, plus it lacks bipartisan support. lacking those, any impeachment inquiry would appear to the neutral observer to be nakedly political and a cynical move designed only to damage Trump for the upcoming election.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 09, 2019, 11:20:52 PM
Technically you're correct.  There's nothing in the Constitution that states there has to be a vote.  But there is precedent....
@txradioguy
There was precedent before the Senate used the Nuclear Option.  Now there is precedent after.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 11:23:34 PM
@txradioguy
There was precedent before the Senate used the Nuclear Option.  Now there is precedent after.

You're right...Harry Reid set the precedent on using the Nuclear Option to stuff the courts with Progressive hard left judges.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Elderberry on October 09, 2019, 11:23:59 PM
Technically you're correct.  There's nothing in the Constitution that states there has to be a vote.  But there is precedent....which the Dems only care about if one of their protected classes or imaginary rights are threatened.

Going back to the first first Presidential impeachment...Andrew Jackson in 1868...an impeachment resolution was introduced in the House and a vote of the entire House of Representatives was taken to authorize the impeachment proceedings to begin.  Nixon resigned before the vote could be taken...and the House voted in favor of impeachment for Clinton as we all know.

There is the precedent for introducing a formal resolution to the full House and having them vote.

Ever single time there has been a vote before the inquiry began.  But now Pelosi is setting a very dangerous new standard for impeaching  President in order to protect Red State Dems up for reelection next year...one the Founding Fathers fought to avoid in the carefully worded requirement of what rises to an impeachable offense.

They didn't want one party or a rogue group in the House doing exactly what is happening now...and that is attempt to blackmail the President just because they don't like him.

It appears that for Nixon, investigations were performed before any House floor vote took place.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon)

An impeachment process against Richard Nixon began in the United States House of Representatives on October 30, 1973, following the "Saturday Night Massacre" episode of the Watergate scandal. The House Judiciary Committee set up an impeachment inquiry staff and began investigations into possible impeachable offenses by Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. The process was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Nixon[1] of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to Watergate.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Sanguine on October 09, 2019, 11:24:42 PM
The fact that a floor vote isn’t required isn’t the point, but rather that the investigation lacks a clear and understandable predicate to even raise suspicion of Trump wrongdoing, plus it lacks bipartisan support. lacking those, any impeachment inquiry would appear to the neutral observer to be nakedly political and a cynical move designed only to damage Trump for the upcoming election.

That's it very clearly.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Right_in_Virginia on October 09, 2019, 11:25:24 PM
The fact that a floor vote isn’t required isn’t the point, but rather that the investigation lacks a clear and understandable predicate to even raise suspicion of Trump wrongdoing, plus it lacks bipartisan support. lacking those, any impeachment inquiry would appear to the neutral observer to be nakedly political and a cynical move designed only to damage Trump for the upcoming election.

Add to this terrific post the "investigation" is being done in secret and the minority party is unable to cross-examine or call witnesses of their own.

Quote
During the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries, House rules allowed the president’s attorneys to be present for all sessions related to impeachment, to cross-examine any witnesses and to present evidence of their own

https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-basics-what-to-know-about-the-process-11570661211 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-basics-what-to-know-about-the-process-11570661211)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: txradioguy on October 09, 2019, 11:28:16 PM
It appears that for Nixon, investigations were performed before any House floor vote took place.

But you'll notice that even with Nixon there was a formal resolution brought forth...the one thing missing from this sham of an inquiry.  Pelosi won't bring one to the floor because she knows it will fail.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Elderberry on October 09, 2019, 11:34:59 PM
But you'll notice that even with Nixon there was a formal resolution brought forth...the one thing missing from this sham of an inquiry.  Pelosi won't bring one to the floor because she knows it will fail.

Yes! She knows the reaction by the voting public will see it as a totally political attack on Trump.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:41:01 PM
It appears that for Nixon, investigations were performed before any House floor vote took place.

Investigations were performed, but were there hearings before the vote of the House?  We're already doing hearings this time around.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 09, 2019, 11:42:40 PM
No Victoria it's not going by the book as I just explained.  I know you want it to go the one sided way Pelosi is doing it because its self serving on your part towards your well known dislike for Trump...but there is historical precedent for not doing it this way.
@txradioguy

tx, thought you knew me better than that.  This has nothing to do with Trump - this is about facts - the law. The last two times there was an impeachment inquiry, a vote was taken but not required - it did not set precedent since it can't as the constitution is the law, not a suggestion.  You cannot take away or add to the constitution just because you want to do it.  Take a million votes for impeachment inquiry and that does not add a vote into constitutional law - this law is our bedrock law and meant to be so it could not be changed on a whim. 

I have made many posts on this thread about the law, the facts.  Read them for factual information.  I also think Trump has a serious personality disorder and should not be president but that has nothing to do with law/facts.  I have no opinion about Pelosi - she is who she is, and the law is the law no matter who is House Leader - Republican or Democrat, law doesn't care who it is.  Neither do I when it comes to law/facts.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 09, 2019, 11:43:18 PM
The fact that a floor vote isn’t required isn’t the point, but rather that the investigation lacks a clear and understandable predicate to even raise suspicion of Trump wrongdoing, plus it lacks bipartisan support. lacking those, any impeachment inquiry would appear to the neutral observer to be nakedly political and a cynical move designed only to damage Trump for the upcoming election.

I think Pelosi actually wants it to appear nakedly political.  It's for the benefit of the broad Rat base, who would assassinate Trump if they could.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Victoria33 on October 10, 2019, 12:01:52 AM
I think Pelosi actually wants it to appear nakedly political.  It's for the benefit of the broad Rat base, who would assassinate Trump if they could.
@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy

"...plus it lacks bipartisan support."

This inquiry investigation does not require a vote of the entire House - and every committee has Democrats and Republicans on it - once the investigation is done and presented to the full House - that is when the entire House, every Republican, every Democrat, every Independent (if there is one in the House), WILL VOTE.  If more vote not to impeach, that is it.  If more vote to impeach, he is impeached (same as indicted in the real world).

If impeached, Trump gets a full trial in the Senate.  Through his lawyers, he can present any evidence to the full Senate as they are the Jury.  This is his due process, present anything he wants.

Am done with this subject.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 10, 2019, 02:26:22 AM
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378684.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,378684.0.html)

A Louisiana Republican congressman introduced a resolution Tuesday to expel Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., from the House of Representatives, the latest sign that frustration in the GOP is building as Democrats continue their impeachment inquiry against President Trump.

"Nancy Pelosi's vicious crusade against our lawfully-elected President is nothing more than a politically-motivated witch hunt and it must be stopped," Abraham said in a statement. "She has disgraced the people's House and weaponized the Speaker's gavel for her party’s political gain."

Nancy's fans will be incensed! :silly:
Dang! (Yes, that is one way to get her out, and Constitutional).
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 10, 2019, 02:33:43 AM
@Cyber Liberty
@txradioguy

"...plus it lacks bipartisan support."

This inquiry investigation does not require a vote of the entire House - and every committee has Democrats and Republicans on it - once the investigation is done and presented to the full House - that is when the entire House, every Republican, every Democrat, every Independent (if there is one in the House), WILL VOTE.  If more vote not to impeach, that is it.  If more vote to impeach, he is impeached (same as indicted in the real world).

If impeached, Trump gets a full trial in the Senate.  Through his lawyers, he can present any evidence to the full Senate as they are the Jury.  This is his due process, present anything he wants.

Am done with this subject.
Are those committee votes recorded, and if so, can they be exposed? I would wager that partisan lines are drawn, but GOP defectors might hurt their chances for reelection, depending on where they are from.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 10, 2019, 03:23:05 AM
Dang! (Yes, that is one way to get her out, and Constitutional).
Seriously?
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 10, 2019, 03:35:54 AM
Seriously?
Seriously, though unlikely with a Dem majority.

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

No way her ongoing witch hunt isn't disorderly behaviour interfering with the normal business of the Government. (Of course what keeps them chasing their tails up on the Hill only costs us money, not so much our Liberty).
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 10, 2019, 03:40:11 AM
Seriously, though unlikely with a Dem majority.

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."

OK then.  Dream the dream, and keep hope alive. Don't forget to contact your representative to support this.  happy77
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Smokin Joe on October 10, 2019, 03:47:04 AM
OK then.  Dream the dream, and keep hope alive. Don't forget to contact your representative to support this.  happy77
He's a 'pubbie, so he might. but a 2/3 majority to unseat her is highly unlikely.
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Once-Ler on October 10, 2019, 04:06:45 AM
He's a 'pubbie, so he might. but a 2/3 majority to unseat her is highly unlikely.
Really?
Now you're sounding pessimistic like me.  Pick that chin off the ground and sing along.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=S94Bh3Qez9o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S94Bh3Qez9o#)
Title: Re: State Department blocks ambassador from speaking to Congress in Trump impeachment inquiry
Post by: Cyber Liberty on October 10, 2019, 10:03:27 AM
"High" is just as good a theory as any. :shrug: