Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obstruction of justice is what they impeached Clinton for. Let's see how the Trump supporters talk their way out of why that was justified, but ordering people involved in possible illegal behavior to disobey a subpoena by Congress is somehow different.
You didn't follow. I'm saying if they claim to be holding an official impeachment inquiry and the white house doesn't cooperate, in theory that's obstruction of justice....if you want to convict on those charges, you have to prove it. Well, you can't really prove it if the fact that an official impeachment inquiry was taking place is disputed and it comes down to a he said she said situation. What concrete evidence is there that an official impeachment inquiry is taking place? You just have the word of the speaker that it is taking place rather than it just being something else they are doing.
Sorry but that's not going to cut it, and she knows it.
There's simply no way the house can compel the white house to cooperate without an official vote or legitimately attempt to charge the president with obstruction of justice if he doesn't cooperate.
Pelosi is sacrificing legitimacy to retain complete control of the process and prevent it from being more fair.
Good thing it wont be a "he said/she said" situation as the process is quite clearly outlined in the constitution.
Good thing it wont be a "he said/she said" situation as the process is quite clearly outlined in the constitution.
You are failing to follow along somehow, and that's unfortunate. It really is a "he said/she said" situation. The executive branch says that no official impeachment inquiry is taking place, the Speaker says that it is taking place and there's no evidence one way or the other. How is that not a "he said/she said" situation?
You didn't follow. I'm saying if they claim to be holding an official impeachment inquiry and the white house doesn't cooperate, in theory that's obstruction of justice....if you want to convict on those charges, you have to prove it. Well, you can't really prove it if the fact that an official impeachment inquiry was taking place is disputed and it comes down to a he said she said situation. What concrete evidence is there that an official impeachment inquiry is taking place? You just have the word of the speaker that it is taking place rather than it just being something else they are doing.
You are like a dog chasing its tail. It's an official impeachment inquiry because the Speaker of the House, who has the power vested to her per the Constitution, has declared it is an official impeachment inquiry. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state she has to hold a vote first. NOWHERE.
We get it, you don't like it. Too bad, that's the reality as set by the Constitution. You not liking it has no bearing on what the framers put in place.
You are like a dog chasing its tail. It's an official impeachment inquiry because the Speaker of the House, who has the power vested to her per the Constitution, has declared it is an official impeachment inquiry. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state she has to hold a vote first. NOWHERE.
We get it, you don't like it. Too bad, that's the reality as set by the Constitution. You not liking it has no bearing on what the framers put in place.
So the Speaker can simply declare that at any point then right? Why wouldn't that happen at the start of every presidency with divided government so that the president can be harassed?
If no vote is required for legitimacy when it comes to authorizing an official impeachment inquiry of the president, why has one always happened in the past?
You can go on forever talking about how technically it's not necessary, but realistically it is if you want the process to be deemed legitimate and you want to be able to prove that the process has officially begun.
So the Speaker can simply declare that at any point then right? Why wouldn't that happen at the start of every presidency with divided government so that the president can be harassed?
If no vote is required for legitimacy when it comes to authorizing an official impeachment inquiry of the president, why has one always happened in the past?
Because it would be politically catastrophic to do so without a clear reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
You can go on forever talking about how technically it's not necessary, but realistically it is if you want the process to be deemed legitimate and you want to be able to prove that the process has officially begun.
The process has officially begun. The proof is that congress, who has sole power of impeachment as per the constitution, has said it has begun.
He probably lied for the president in that text message about Donald being "crystal clear" about no Quid pro Quo. Trump....crystal clear about something? I doubt it. He will have to go down for the President like all the other president's little men. They are going ask him about a specific conversation he and the President had. Trump is going to run out of political capital and collateral soon and won't be able to buy off little men anymore.
So the Speaker can simply declare that at any point then right? Why wouldn't that happen at the start of every presidency with divided government so that the president can be harassed?
Because presidents can't be impeached for offenses committed in office before they get into office? Wow, kind of sad that such an obvious truth needs to be explained to you, but you are a Trump supporter, so I get why you need to be spoonfed such basic concepts. You're welcome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
If no vote is required for legitimacy when it comes to authorizing an official impeachment inquiry of the president, why has one always happened in the past?
Because that's the way those particular Speakers of the House chose to do so. It was a choice, since nowhere in the Constitution is there a mandated way to do it set forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
You can go on forever talking about how technically it's not necessary, but realistically it is if you want the process to be deemed legitimate and you want to be able to prove that the process has officially begun.
The process has officially begun because the Speaker has declared it begun. Again, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
