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.
They absolutely have that option, and that's the option they are going with. The only way to break the deadlock between the two is with an official vote, Pelosi knows that but she is afraid of a more fair process so she won't go that route. If you were honest, you'd just admit this.
When it comes to "elections have consequences", just keep that in mind after the upcoming election.
I mean, I know they have chosen "We will just gaslight the rule process for impeachment and confuse our low information base" as their strategy, and it is true that that is technically one option they can take. What remains to be seen is how legally viable that particular strategy is.
As for "elections have consequences" of course, I keep that in mind in all elections.
I mean, I know they have chosen "We will just gaslight the rule process for impeachment and confuse our low information base" as their strategy. What remains to be seen is how legally viable that particular strategy is.
As for "elections have consequences" of course, I keep that in mind in all elections.
And just recently Trump tried to shake down Ukraine by holding up arms shipments Ukraine needed to defend itself from Putin's Russia. Do you think maybe Trump got a "good job" call from Vlad?
I mean, I know they have chosen "We will just gaslight the rule process for impeachment and confuse our low information base" as their strategy. What remains to be seen is how legally viable that particular strategy is.
Well, if you want to punish wrongdoing, you first have to prove it. There is no proof that an official impeachment inquiry is taking place other than the Speaker of the House simply saying so. What would stop that office from declaring that at just any point to get what they want? If you had a Republican speaker and Democrat president, why not just declare that you are holding an official impeachment inquiry from day 1 so that at any point you could compel them to go along with just anything you wanted for no reason whatsoever? Is that really the precedent you want to set?
Sorry, that kind of situation wouldn't hold up in court and would be an absolutely moronic precedent to set if it did. For that kind of situation to have any teeth, you'd have to be able to prove it rather than just say it. The only way to do that is with a house vote.
The white house forcing the house to do the right thing and hold a vote so that a more fair process plays out is exactly what they should be doing, but I do understand why you are afraid of that.
And just recently Trump tried to shake down Ukraine by holding up arms shipments Ukraine needed to defend itself from Putin's Russia. Do you think maybe Trump got a "good job" call from Vlad?
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.
Well, if you want to punish wrongdoing, you first have to prove it.
Yep, first they have an inquiry to gather evidence, then they present charges to congress that will vote on whether or not to proceed, then it goes to the senate for trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
There is no proof that an official impeachment inquiry is taking place other than the Speaker of the House simply saying so. What would stop that office from declaring that at just any point to get what they want? If you had a Republican speaker and Democrat president, why not just declare that you are holding an official impeachment inquiry from day 1 so that at any point you could compel them to go along with just anything you wanted for no reason whatsoever? Is that really the precedent you want to set?
Lol, no it is not just that the speaker says so. It is funny you think that is all it is though. Impeachment is a political process, misusing the process can backfire on the party leveling charges as we saw with Bill Clinton. That is what stops it from being misused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
Sorry, that kind of situation wouldn't hold up in court and would be an absolutely moronic precedent to set if it did. For that kind of situation to have any teeth, you'd have to be able to prove it rather than just say it. The only way to do that is with a house vote.
We aren't in court yet, that is the senate trial. That will be later on in the process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
The white house forcing the house to do the right thing and hold a vote so that a more fair process plays out is exactly what they should be doing, but I do understand why you are afraid of that.
The white house is gaslighting and that may work on the low information Trump base but it won't work on congress or most of the country for that matter.
Yep, first they have an inquiry to gather evidence, then they present charges to congress that will vote on whether or not to proceed, then it goes to the senate for trial.
Lol, no it is not just that the speaker says so. It is funny you think that is all it is though. Impeachment is a political process, misusing the process can backfire on the party leveling charges as we saw with Bill Clinton.
We aren't in court yet, that is the senate trial. That will be later on in the process.
The white house is gaslighting and that may work on the low information Trump base but it won't work on congress or most of the country for that matter.
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.
The Trump administration directed a top American diplomat involved in its pressure campaign on Ukraine not to appear Tuesday morning for a scheduled interview in the House’s impeachment inquiry. For a man with nothing to hide, Trump sure acts like he does.
Eventually the democrats will have to end their fishing expedition and give reasons why the president is impeachable. Why help them? Remember this is one branch, the legislative, trying to exert authority over a separate branch. No subpoena powers. The dems can ask but not compel.
Remember too this is a rogue political operation. The Full House (as required by the Constitution0 has not voted or authorized impeachment.) The Dems a**es are hanging out. If this doesn't work (and they have failed so far) the Dems will have a lot of "plaining to do."
They may get "spy vs. spy" points for their scheme but not for their desperation when it collapses.
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.
Two reasons I can think of ...
