News (FoxNews) White House announces it will not comply with 'illegitimate and unconstitutional' impeachment inquiry

[blackangst1]

Heh. When you figure it out, let us know. Either way, I'm sure you'll find a way to disparage the Dems.

I did figure it out, and stated my opinion as to why they wont.

 

[blackangst1]

The impeachment vote happens at the impeachment. Nothing now needs to satisfy your sensibility as Pelosi is playing by the Constitution, not imagined and false requirements.

So tell me what more is needed for a vote? Obviously its not evidence.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So tell me what more is needed for a vote? Obviously its not evidence.

In an investigation, it is wise to gather sufficient and overwhelming evidence to support forthcoming charges. Certainly impeachment is certain but then what? When passing something onto the Senate, who has someone like Graham calling for a not guilty vote in advance of the facts shows that the fix is in with many powerful members. At least the impeachment article currently being investigated was admitted to by Trump, and I defined the legal issues by the law itself. Merely breaking the law isn't sufficient for those who have Trump cleared, however providing the background and depth of corruption and potentially other crimes gives the Senate more to think about when excusing criminality, which I believe has limits when risk vs benefit is weighed in supporting Trump no matter what. It would be in Graham's and Mitch's interests to have this done ASAP and I see no reason to accommodate them in an effective conspiracy with Trump and his backers.

"Do it now" is playing into the hands of the anti-Constitutional, pro-crime people of Trump.

Nope nope nope.

 

[blackangst1]

In an investigation, it is wise to gather sufficient and overwhelming evidence to support forthcoming charges. Certainly impeachment is certain but then what? When passing something onto the Senate, who has someone like Graham calling for a not guilty vote in advance of the facts shows that the fix is in with many powerful members. At least the impeachment article currently being investigated was admitted to by Trump, and I defined the legal issues by the law itself. Merely breaking the law isn't sufficient for those who have Trump cleared, however providing the background and depth of corruption and potentially other crimes gives the Senate more to think about when excusing criminality, which I believe has limits when risk vs benefit is weighed in supporting Trump no matter what. It would be in Graham's and Mitch's interests to have this done ASAP and I see no reason to accommodate them in an effective conspiracy with Trump and his backers.

"Do it now" is playing into the hands of the anti-Constitutional, pro-crime people of Trump.

Nope nope nope.

So nothing has been gathered from the many house investigations they have been going on for 2+ years? Is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Brainonska511]

So nothing has been gathered from the many house investigations they have been going on for 2+ years? Is that what you're suggesting?

Why do you have this idea in your head that the House has investigated for 2+ years? The Democrats have only controlled the house since January.

 

[soundforbjt]

So nothing has been gathered from the many house investigations they have been going on for 2+ years? Is that what you're suggesting?

Not too much since Trump & Co. deny any document requests made by those investigations.
Republicans held 8 investigations into Benghazi, how much did they find?

 

[blackangst1]

Why do you have this idea in your head that the House has investigated for 2+ years? The Democrats have only controlled the house since January.

House investigations of Trump and his administration: The full list

The president says it's "harassment." Democrats say they're playing catch-up after two years with virtually no oversight from Republicans.

www.nbcnews.com

Here's one of the first ones

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Key moments in the FBI probe of Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election

www.factcheck.org

I mean, you know what Google is, right?

 

[fskimospy]

So where's the impeachment vote? Or maybe they need more evidence. Or maybe it's like i said.

One of those is definitely coming at this point, that much is certain. They will vote to impeach Trump, probably before the end of the year.

I suspect their goal now is to either successfully convict him (something I thought was impossible until recently) or more likely make the vote to acquit something they will hang around the neck of vulnerable Republicans senators. The more that comes out, the worse for them.

If Democrats can take the Senate in 2020, not an easy task, then if we have a president like Warren who will be really aggressive, we could be in for a golden age of progressive legislation, restoring balance to the courts, etc, so making Senate Republicans as bad off as possible is in all our best interests.

 

[fskimospy]

House investigations of Trump and his administration: The full list

The president says it's "harassment." Democrats say they're playing catch-up after two years with virtually no oversight from Republicans.

www.nbcnews.com

Here's one of the first ones

Timeline of Russia Investigation - FactCheck.org

Key moments in the FBI probe of Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election

www.factcheck.org

I mean, you know what Google is, right?

You realize the House investigation was a sham until Democrats took over, right?

I mean did you forget how the Republican in charge of it was caught actively working with the White House to undermine it?

Remember, the Republicans in Congress have exactly zero interest in actually engaging in oversight of Trump’s corruption. They are actively enabling it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So nothing has been gathered from the many house investigations they have been going on for 2+ years? Is that what you're suggesting?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you how this inquiry works, and during evidence what happened before and what is occuring now are fair game. Trump admitted to a crime and will be examined to where it leads.

You ought to know by now I'm not going to become angry and blow up, I'll do more damage than that by metaphorically burning comments and see what of value remains, and the fuel for that fire is contextual facts. 2+ years is kindling for that process and now you are locking yourself in a burning house of speciousness. If that works for you personally then I'm OK with that, but don't assume it will stand the light of day.

If you wish to continue I will ask you for the date the impeachment investigation was announced and it won't be 2+ years. You might try the talking point strategy of "they've been trying to impeach Trump for 2+ years" and I'll reply that there was justification shown for an investigation, that ties have been demonstrated but not sufficient for charges and there was obstruction as defined by Mueller.

Yet even so the threshold for impeachment was higher than that, in this case an admission of criminality by Trump, which reached the demanded by some of "high crimes" etc, which isn't what Trumpettes want that to be.

As such you haven't presented any defense at all and pointing to anything else you don't like won't save Trump or his beloved although Republicans so far embrace crimes of the administration wholeheartedly.

No fantasy changes the past short of Orwell and we're not having that.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you how this inquiry works, and during evidence what happened before and what is occuring now are fair game. Trump admitted to a crime and will be examined to where it leads.

You ought to know by now I'm not going to become angry and blow up, I'll do more damage than that by metaphorically burning comments and see what of value remains, and the fuel for that fire is contextual facts. 2+ years is kindling for that process and now you are locking yourself in a burning house of speciousness. If that works for you personally then I'm OK with that, but don't assume it will stand the light of day.

If you wish to continue I will ask you for the date the impeachment investigation was announced and it won't be 2+ years. You might try the talking point strategy of "they've been trying to impeach Trump for 2+ years" and I'll reply that there was justification shown for an investigation, that ties have been demonstrated but not sufficient for charges and there was obstruction as defined by Mueller.

Yet even so the threshold for impeachment was higher than that, in this case an admission of criminality by Trump, which reached the demanded by some of "high crimes" etc, which isn't what Trumpettes want that to be.

As such you haven't presented any defense at all and pointing to anything else you don't like won't save Trump or his beloved although Republicans so far embrace crimes of the administration wholeheartedly.

No fantasy changes the past short of Orwell and we're not having that.

I mean he fired the head of the FBI because he wouldn’t stop investigating crimes by Trump associates.

Any rational and objective person should have wanted him removed from office right then.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You realize the House investigation was a sham until Democrats took over, right?

I mean did you forget how the Republican in charge of it was caught actively working with the White House to undermine it?

Remember, the Republicans in Congress have exactly zero interest in actually engaging in oversight of Trump’s corruption. They are actively enabling it.

All of this is now irrelevant. What matters is that Trump has doused himself and others with gasoline and struck a match. We just need to watch it burn down and see the whole plague of DC locusts ignite themself. Every day something damning comes out, like pus from the boil which is Trump. Good riddance.

 

[NWRMidnight]

Im suggesting you can think whatever you want. But the Democrats have been screaming impeachment for 3 years, especially in the last year. So are they just posturing? I think so, but if theyre serious, why not cast the vote? Its because of what I said earlier about their reasons not to. And its not for lack of evidence.

Because they have to build a solid case that makes it so the GOP controlled senate has no choice but to hold a legitimate trial, and have no choice but to impeach or end their career.

 

[fskimospy]

All of this is now irrelevant. What matters is that Trump has doused himself and others with gasoline and struck a match. We just need to watch it burn down and see the whole plague of DC locusts ignite themself. Every day something damning comes out, like pus from the boil which is Trump. Good riddance.

I agree it matters less but we can’t forget it going forward.

I mean nearly half the country is still voting for people who actively attempted to thwart an investigation into criminal behavior. People on this board, likely blackangst included didn’t bat an eye at returning people to Washington who were helping Trump commit crimes. That’s bonkers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree it matters less but we can’t forget it going forward.

I mean nearly half the country is still voting for people who actively attempted to thwart an investigation into criminal behavior. People on this board, likely blackangst included didn’t bat an eye at returning people to Washington who were helping Trump commit crimes. That’s bonkers.

IMO I would like a statue reflective of Trump's nature with citizens beating him with the Constitution and a motto, one used properly this time- "Sic Semper Tyrannis".

 

[sandorski]

I OBJECT, your Honour. If the Prosecution is confident in the Charges, we should proceed post haste to the Verdict!

 

[Jhhnn]

I did figure it out, and stated my opinion as to why they wont.

Which seems to be an attitudinal problem on your part rather than cognition of events as they have unfolded. Dems seized the initiative with the whistle blower complaint & Trump Co Implicates the lot of themselves more every time they open their mouths, like Mulvaney. It's remarkable how the GOP line is now to speed it up even as they try to slow it down by refusing subpoenas & claiming it's illegitimate because Pelosi didn't hold a vote she didn't need to hold because they changed the rules themselves.

Either way, it's all hogwash from them. It's a deep dive into the post truth realm inhabited by all too many of my fellow Americans.

 

[interchange]

Im suggesting you can think whatever you want. But the Democrats have been screaming impeachment for 3 years, especially in the last year. So are they just posturing? I think so, but if theyre serious, why not cast the vote? Its because of what I said earlier about their reasons not to. And its not for lack of evidence.

Vote for what? This investigation is extremely active and going at a very fast pace. Shit or get off the pot seems a very strange argument here. It's like they are shitting profusely and you're begging to flush mid-log.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

That would be the official White House transcript of the call to Zelensky confession.

404 confession not found by any reasonable person.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

The impeachment vote happens at the impeachment. Nothing now needs to satisfy your sensibility as Pelosi is playing by the Constitution, not imagined and false requirements.

The Constitution calls for the whole "House" not the Speaker and not a committee.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Constitution calls for the whole "House" not the Speaker and not a committee.

Actually it does not. The House sets the rules per the Constitution and those give leadership authority. Note that if your thinking were valid then Mitch has a hell of a lot more to answer for as Garland didn't get a vote and Mitch uses his authority to get his picks in courts. You wouldn't like all that undone I wager. But Mitch like Pelosi has that power as the Constitution permits it. Trump will get a full vote when impeached. Constitutionally? You have no basis for your claim except to beg the question and say the statement is the proof.

That won't work any more than saying Trump didn't break the law when I cited the very law he admitted to.

Now please find "whole house" when dealing with inquiries of impeachment in the Constitution. No, I'll not let that pass so easily.

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
— Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

As you likely know from MItch, leadership positions do not need the approval to act by a whole Congressional division. This comes down to established rules

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

All you have to do (and I will make you work for this one) is show the rule that explicitly states that beginning an impeachment inquiry requires a vote by the entire House and is immutable but of course there aren't any and there's no Constitutional mandate as I've demonstrated. In fact, the Constitution is entirely silent on the matter even if Trumpettes try to put words in its mouth.

Your argument does not withstand direct scrutiny in light of reality. Merely saying "It's illegal and unconstitutional" like Trump is plain evidence that Stable Genius and Great and Unmatched Wisdom is, in fact, contrary to reality.

 

[interchange]

The constitution is quite limited in what it describes. It says the House has the sole power of impeachment. Nothing is said about an impeachment inquiry. It stands to reason that the inquiry is whatever the House wants it to be. The President couldn't be impeached, though, without a vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

404 confession not found by any reasonable person.

Other than asking Zelensky to spread the FUD about Joe Biden, a political rival, and to coordinate that with Barr & Giuliani. It's right there in black & white. That's a thing of value to Trump's campaign & it's illegal for any candidate to solicit such a thing from any foreign govt.

Read Trump's phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky | CNN Politics

President Donald Trump repeatedly pushed for Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, during a July 25 phone call, according to a transcript of the conversation released by the White House.

www.cnn.com

[USC02] 52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

It was also highly improper for Trump to direct the Director of National intelligence to withhold a credible & urgent whistleblower complaint from Congress. Only the integrity of IG Atkinson prevented it from being buried. It's the only reason any of this came to light.

And then there's Rudy, who admitted that Trump sent him to Ukraine to sleaze his way around normal protocols to advance purely political ends. That's been confirmed by two ambassadors & our former special envoy to Ukraine. And there's Mulvaney telling us to get over it, even though they say it never happened.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

404 confession not found by any reasonable person.

I posted the law and Trump violated it then released the facts. Technically he didn't use the word "confess" any more than a thief who robbed someone does when he admits to stealing.

Reasonable people would see this as a distinction without a difference.

 

[Jhhnn]

The Constitution calls for the whole "House" not the Speaker and not a committee.

For a final vote to send impeachment to the Senate, for sure. As it applies to the current inquiries, no, that's a specious argument-

During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.
But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.

Why Democrats aren't planning to vote on an impeachment inquiry | CNN Politics

The latest standoff between House Democrats and the Trump administration over the testimony of State Department officials has the White House questioning in a new letter sent Tuesday why the House is not voting to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry.

www.cnn.com

If HOR Republicans have an honest beef with Dems not following proper procedure they can take it up with the Parliamentarian rather than in the media. They won't, of course, because they don't have a leg to stand on..