Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
    Totally false.

    The House rules do not have any kind of automatic provision for minority party subpoena power during impeachments, and there is nothing that would be triggered by a vote to formally begin impeachment proceedings.

    You're confusing this with the fact that past resolutions to begin impeachment proceedings themselves had language in the resolution itself granting temporary subpoena powers to committees for the duration of the impeachment proceeding. They did this because committees back then did not have run-of-the-mill powers to issue subpoenas in general, but that has changed over time and these days committees already have subpoena powers, and so do not need to be granted such powers by special resolution.

    Those historic temporary grants of subpoena power to committees in previous impeachment proceedings never gave the minority party equal subpoena power. The minor party's ability to issue subpoenas was always subject to veto by the major party, while the major party could issue subpoenas without the minor party being able to stop them.

    So none of what you said is true. There was never equal subpoena power. There are no House Rules that would be triggered by a vote to begin impeachment proceedings.

    If you want to read more about the details of it all, some links for further reading.
    Again, you don't know what you're talking about (and Lawfare is not a reliable source). Judicial precedent says that a committee only has subpoena power if granted it by its chamber, which in this case means a House vote. Current rules on record for impeachment grant the minority party subpoena power and give the President's counsel the opportunity to question witnesses, and those rules can only be changed with a House vote. This is why Pelosi is desperate to avoid making the impeachment inquiry official, and this new resolution is nothing but a sham based on the lie that the House has already authorized an inquiry (it hasn't).
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      And yet we have a transcript of this call and it simply does not match up to Vindman's recollections.
      No, we have a summary of the call that Trump had written and released. He hid the full verbatim transcript in a special safe that's not supposed to be used for that purpose, and that verbatim transcript has not been released. We've always known there was a lot missing in the summary that Trump released. This veteran has now testified under oath as to what the bits Trump hid were, and testified that at the time he took steps to try to not have them dropped from the summarized version.

      While true that the Democrats are not required to allow Republicans to call witnesses or cross-examine the ones that are called, it is equally true that if the Democrats deny these things
      Literally nobody is suggesting that Republicans would be unable to ask questions of witnesses. It is standard practice in all committees for Republicans and Democrats to take turns to ask questions of witnesses.

      If Republicans believe they have some witnesses that would exonerate Trump (I can imagine who, but let's imagine for a moment that they found someone), they can of course public ask the Democrats for that witnesses testify. Indeed if Democrats were to refuse to allow a relevant witness to testify, that would look questionable.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Judicial precedent says that a committee only has subpoena power if granted it by its chamber, which in this case means a House vote.
        Because of House votes in the past, the committees all have existing subpoena powers. No further house votes are necessary. In case you haven't noticed, the committees have all been issuing numerous subpoenas during the last month.

        Subpoena rules differ slightly between different committees as to whether the chairman alone can issue the subpoena or whether a majority vote is needed or whether the ranking minority member has to be consulted: Full current subpoena rules summary is here

        Current rules on record for impeachment grant the minority party subpoena power
        No. Read my previous links. That is just not true. There are currently no rules relevant to impeachment. During past impeachments the House of those times passed a bunch of temporary rules that applied to those individual impeachments alone. The primary purpose of which was to grant subpoena powers to committees because the committees back in the day didn't usually have those powers. That's not applicable in today's world because all committees have standard subpoena powers under current House rules, so there is no need to have a special granting of subpoena powers for the duration of impeachment.

        and give the President's counsel the opportunity to question witnesses
        Calling these people witnesses is unhelpfully confusing. They will perhaps be witnesses later when a formal trial is held in the Senate. It is when a formal trial is held that a person is entitled to confront and question witnesses. However, when police are initially investigating a crime and gathering evidence and taking statements there is no right whatsoever for future possible defendant(s) to be represented or present in such proceedings. The defendant gets to be present and see witnesses at trial, not during an investigation, which is the stage that's currently occurring.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dimbulb View Post
          So this honored veteran has now testified under oath that he personally heard the call, and that Trump asked for additional favors not present in Trump's doctored version of the call, and that this veteran repeatedly expressed his concerns at the time that Trump's words were being removed from the summary of the call.

          And so the right-wingers are trying to discredit him. Because their loyalty to Trump and to covering up his crimes is more important to them their respect for the troops.
          Yeah that's not actually what happened. Vindman said that he tried to alter the official transcript by adding the word "Burisma" somewhere in it, but it was conceded that this alleged omission did not impact the overall accuracy of the transcript. The rest of his testimony was short on facts and long on emotionally charged language like "it seemed to me" and "I was concerned that".

          Despite the whooping and hollering from liberals, Vindman's testimony is looking like another bust, and we still have zero evidence that Ukraine was aware that funds had been delayed or felt pressured to investigate Biden's possible crimes. In fact, President Zelinsky has repeatedly affirmed the opposite.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Dimbilbt View Post
            During past impeachments the House of those times passed a bunch of temporary rule...
            Yep...

            and those "temporary" rules remain in effect until the House votes to change them, which hasn't happened because Pelosi knows it's an uphill battle with a slim chance of victory. That's why she refuses to make the impeachment inquiry official, because she doesn't want those rules automatically kicking in.
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              And yet we have a transcript of this call and it simply does not match up to Vindman's recollections. Sounds like a simple case of faulty recollection and again raises the question why are the Democrats so eager to bury the transcript.
              It means that the WH published an edited version of the phone call. You should trust Vindman at least 1000 times more than you trust Trump, based on past performance.

              I think you need to stop defending criminality or making excuses for it. Get on the right side and fight for justice and the American way.
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                You should trust Vindman at least 1000 times more than you trust Trump...
                Even if we assume that's true, it doesn't change the fact that Vindman presented not a single fact that contradicts the official White House transcript. He disputed one or two words, but it was conceded in the hearing that this did not affect the accuracy of the transcript. The rest of his testimony was just him unloading his emotional baggage and was almost entirely without substance. There's a reason Schiff won't allow for a public hearing and real cross examination, because any competent attorney would rip that kind of testimony to shreds.
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Even if we assume that's true, it doesn't change the fact that Vindman presented not a single fact that contradicts the official White House transcript. He disputed one or two words, but it was conceded in the hearing that this did not affect the accuracy of the transcript. The rest of his testimony was just him unloading his emotional baggage and was almost entirely without substance. There's a reason Schiff won't allow for a public hearing and real cross examination, because any competent attorney would rip that kind of testimony to shreds.

                  Well, it’s not about what a lawyer can do to get his criminal client off the hook but whether Trump is fit to be POTUS. All this is showing that Republicans have astonishingly low standards and it is about time they got together with the Democrats to boot this creep out of office. The prize is POTUS Pence!
                  “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                  “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                  “not all there” - you know who you are

                  Comment


                  • Rep. Jim Jordan:

                    There are four fundamental facts that have never changed, never changed: Mr. Vindman is not the first one we've talked to who has been on the call. We've heard from President Trump and President Zelensky. We've got the transcript. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have said no conditions, no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. We've got the transcript that shows that. We know that the Ukrainians did not know at the time of the call that aid had been withheld and, tell me, what actions the Ukrainians or President Zelensky took to get the aid turned back on.

                    Did he say he was going to investigate and do certain things? None of that happened. Those four facts have never changed.

                    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...facts-n2555546
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by dirtfloor View Post
                      Well, it’s not about what a lawyer can do to get his criminal client off the hook but whether Trump is fit to be POTUS. All this is showing that Republicans have astonishingly low standards and it is about time they got together with the Democrats to boot this creep out of office. The prize is POTUS Pence!
                      You have perfected the art of saying a lot of words without really saying anything at all.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Rep. Jim Jordan:

                        There are four fundamental facts that have never changed, never changed: Mr. Vindman is not the first one we've talked to who has been on the call. We've heard from President Trump and President Zelensky. We've got the transcript. Both President Trump and President Zelensky have said no conditions, no pressure, no pushing, no quid pro quo. We've got the transcript that shows that. We know that the Ukrainians did not know at the time of the call that aid had been withheld and, tell me, what actions the Ukrainians or President Zelensky took to get the aid turned back on.

                        Did he say he was going to investigate and do certain things? None of that happened. Those four facts have never changed.

                        https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...facts-n2555546
                        As Joe Biden aptly put it "We choose ‘truth’ over facts."

                        I'm always still in trouble again

                        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          You mean the ones where Hillary testified in public and infamously snarled "What difference does it make?" when asked about why she didn't try to help or at least communicate with those trapped in the embassy?

                          And tell me little jimmy, were Democrats denied the right to call witnesses?

                          Were Democrats shut down when they tried to question the witnesses?

                          Do you want to fail better next time?
                          First of all, stupid, after years of private, not public testimony, and millions of taxpayer dollars in the sham Benghazi hearings, no wrong doing was found. Second, as stated, the testimoney of witnesses was held in private. In the final report itself it's stated "The committees preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned." But don't worry yourself, stupid, Trump will get to testify if he wishes, and his lawyers will get to call their own witnesses and everything. Won't that be fun? And btw, just as an aside, your republican members on the committees haven't even been showing up for the hearings, so how about you stop the feigned concern about them getting shut down from asking questions.
                          Last edited by JimL; 10-30-2019, 09:33 AM.

                          Comment


                          • And the charade continues...

                            Neither of the two State Department officials testifying — Catherine Croft and Christopher Anderson — have any evidence to offer about any laws that the president might have broken in his July phone call with newly elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky or at any other time. They are merely part of the parade of witnesses that Democrats have assembled in a pantomime apparently aimed at convincing the public Trump did something wrong.

                            https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...disagreements/

                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              First of all, stupid, after years of private, not public testimony, and millions of taxpayer dollars in the sham Benghazi hearings, no wrong doing was found. Second, as stated, the testimoney of witnesses was held in private. In the final report itself it's stated "The committees preference for private interviews over public hearings has been questioned." But don't worry yourself, stupid, Trump will get to testify if he wishes, and his lawyers will get to call their own witnesses and everything. Won't that be fun? And btw, just as an aside, your republican members on the committees haven't even been showing up for the hearings, so how about you stop the feigned concern about them getting shut down from asking questions.
                              IOW, unlike with the Republicans now the Democrats were not prohibited from calling witnesses. And unlike with the Republicans now the Democrats were not shut down when they tried to question the witnesses. And there definitely was public testimony or how else could we have seen her callousness exhibited in the notorious "What difference does it make?" dismissal.
                              Last edited by rogue06; 10-30-2019, 04:52 PM.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • About Trump "hiding" the "real" transcript, and telling his minions what to include in, and exclude from, the "public" version -- Does a "real" transcript even exist? I got the impression that there is really no such thing, not even a recording. My understanding was that many people listen to the original conversation simultaneously and take notes, then later compare those notes and create essentially a pseudo-transcript, and that is as close to the "real" conversation as we will ever get.

                                If there is a "real" transcript, then I agree, it should be released.
                                Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                                Beige Federalist.

                                Nationalist Christian.

                                "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                                Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                                Proud member of the this space left blank community.

                                Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.

                                Justice for Ashli Babbitt!

                                Justice for Matthew Perna!

                                Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                116 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                318 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X