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.
This response is a non sequitur. What relevance does the fact that the "trial" would be in the Senate have to anything you are allegedly responding to?
Trump can have his defense in the Senate trial. The House is responsible for a fact finding investigation of which trump is obstructing.
Quote:
The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts.
Trump can have his defense in the Senate trial. The House is responsible for a fact finding investigation of which trump is obstructing.
So you are fine with a biased "fact finding investigation" that is only interested in finding anything they can use against the president than actually attempting to find a fair assessment of the facts?
I mean, that's quite the interesting view...do you expect many to agree with it? Is it what you'd want to happen if the tribes were reversed?
Also, until you prove that an official impeachment inquiry is truly taking place, you can't very well accuse anyone of obstructing it....which was one of my main points. If you have no vote officially authorizing the inquiry, you can't actually prove that one is taking place. You don't want to do that because you are afraid of what a legitimate fact finding investigation would turn up.
So you are fine with a biased "fact finding investigation" that is only interested in finding anything they can use against the president than actually attempting to find a fair assessment of the facts?
I mean, that's quite the interesting view...do you expect many to agree with it? Is it what you'd want to happen if the tribes were reversed?
Also, until you prove that an official impeachment inquiry is truly taking place, you can't very well accuse anyone of obstructing it....which was one of my main points. If you have no vote officially authorizing the inquiry, you can't actually prove that one is taking place. You don't want to do that because you are afraid of what a legitimate fact finding investigation would turn up.
At least Bill Clinton had the courage to testify. Hell, even Hillary testified for over eight hours. If trump wants to clear himself, he needs to stop acting like a guilty person and cooperate with the investigation.
Pelosi has followed the Constitution to the letter. The "law and order" president, not so much. Trump is hiding something about his "perfect" call.
Quote:
The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.
So, you are in favor of Trump's actions in opposition to McConnell, Graham, Haley, the rest of the House and Senate, and the Pentagon. Even Pat Robertson is threatening him with hell (which could mean spending eternity in a room with Pat). You are, indeed, a rare breed, Comrade.
They actually had a real and legitimate official impeachment inquiry of President Bill Clinton backed by a house vote to authorize it.
Who knows what might happen if this house actually authorizes a real and legitimate official impeachment inquiry? Hasn't happened yet, might not ever happen if Pelosi has her way.
At this point, all Trump is doing is digging his own grave even deeper. He's just giving the House even more reasons to impeach him. In addition to whatever they can get him on his phone call(s), they can also add obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress to the list.
He probably says that there isn't an impeachment inquiry going on right now...because congress never voted to authorize one meaning that there's no proof that one ever started.
I took it as if I was writing about my girlfriend telling me the story of when she was sexually assaulted in college and me commenting about how she was "visibly shaken" when telling the story.
The wording is weird, but I think the intent was that the person described the call as “crazy” and “frightening”
and then there is an editorial comment about how the person appeared “visibly shaken” while they were telling the story.
The fact that the "visibly shaken" part was in quotes confuses things, but it's also possible that the source wasn't the actual person telling the story and that the "visibly shaken" quote came from the middle man telling the story to the author of the person that told the story to them.
So if you look at it quickly, the first quotes of "crazy" and "frightening" would have come from the alleged "white house staffer" and the final "visibly shaken" quote would have come from the person that alleged staffer told the story to who then told the story to the author of the article.
Disagree, how can the person who is writing something state, they are visibly shaken?
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.
