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.
If Democrats thought that would help them they wouldn't be doing things in secret completely breaking from the way these things have literally always been handled in the past.
They fear honesty and transparency because they know this nonsense wouldn't stand up to an ounce of scrutiny.
Um, no.
Any investigation in its first stages may be kept secret, to protect the people offering evidence and to make sure that vital secrets are not casually given up. And much of what is alleged to be happening with Trump involves foreign governments and national security, which is a first in the history of presidential impeachment. Let me emphasize that - no other impeachment proceedings have involved suspicions that the president has had improper dealings with foreign countries.
The House has to decide which accusations can be fully substantiated. They're not going to want to violate national security unnecessarily in their efforts to see what the evidence is.
When the articles do finally come out, they will reference the evidence that they are based on.
The Framers didn't intend for there to be parties at all, and the constitution is not written that way. The current meaning of bipartisanship has nothing at all to do with what they wrote a couple centuries ago.
They did intend that both houses of Congress had to agree to impeach.
And the purpose of impeachment is exactly "...to overturn the results of a free and fair election." Because voters can have second thoughts about an elected official, and any elected official can turn out to be incompetent or worse.
It's pretty obvious that Congress doesn't do impeachment on a whim. Or they'd do it a lot more often.
The Framers did't need to " intend " there to be parties. They already existed. It was their reality.
The Constitution is written so that one Branch of Government can't overpower the other two. That's what Democrats are attempting to do.
It has EVERYTHING to do with how they wrote the Constitution.
The purpose of Impeachment is to remove a Government Official not to " overturn " at all, but to " correct " a decision of the people that later on is shown to be a potential serious harm to the Republic, or seriously affects the Official from doing their job.
In this specific case , the reality is that on record , in public, Democrats , elected Government leaders , have been saying they were going to impeach Trump from Day one, and even before. They have been going non stop .
If ever the Framers wanted a system to protect against such a display of undemocratic behavior r and
horrible principles, this is exactly it.
It doesn't require it legally, it requires authorization for legitimacy though. It requires it to be able to compel cooperation.
Sorry guy, there's just a difference between an inquiry with the authorization of the House and an off the cuff inquiry conducted on a whim without formal House authorization by a House committee. I'm sure on some level you realize that even if you can't admit it for political reasons
If Congress has followed the Constitutional process (which you acknowledge), then it is legitimate and the cooperation is required. Getting the full House to authorize it would not make it any more "legitimate" than getting TEPLimey to authorize it. Whether you or Trump characterize as "legitimate" is not relevant insofar as the questions of the investigation's legality and being authorized by the Constitution are concerned.
And, again, this is hardly an "off the cuff" inquiry. It was one that was prompted by the Trump-appointed IG's "credible" whistleblower that was corroborated not only by recent testimony from Hill and Volker (and perhaps Sonderland today) but also by the White House's own documents. If they believe that this is just a baseless witch hunt, the GOP can always make that argument to the public to gain favorability (as the Democrats did with Clinton).
Again, the investigation is "legal" and "authorized" in the sense that it has been authorized by the people Constitutionally required to authorize it in order to conduct it in accordance with all Constitutional requirements. While you may want the House to further bolster its "legitimacy" in your subjective (and irrelevant) opinion by holding a House vote, there is no requirement that anyone do so.
Any investigation in its first stages may be kept secret, to protect the people offering evidence and to make sure that vital secrets are not casually given up. And much of what is alleged to be happening with Trump involves foreign governments and national security, which is a first in the history of presidential impeachment.
The House has to decide which accusations can be fully substantiated. They're not going to want to violate national security unnecessarily in their efforts to see what the evidence is.
When the articles do finally come out, they will reference he evidence that are based on.
An impeachment inquiry into the president had literally never been secret before. No one conducting such an inquiry ever feared openness and honesty when it comes to how the process was conducted. No one conducting such an inquiry has ever refused the minority party subpoena power before.
Again, this is not the normal process. It's obvious Democrats fear a process that is open, honest, and bipartisan because their goal is not really an objective fact finding mission, this is a partisan effort to influence an election by using congressional power to dig up dirt on rivals and nothing more.
Any investigation in its first stages may be kept secret, to protect the people offering evidence and to make sure that vital secrets are not casually given up. And much of what is alleged to be happening with Trump involves foreign governments and national security, which is a first in the history of presidential impeachment.
The House has to decide which accusations can be fully substantiated. They're not going to want to violate national security unnecessarily in their efforts to see what the evidence is.
When the articles do finally come out, they will reference he evidence that are based on.
" evidence"
There will not be any " evidence"
There will be an " opinion" given by a partisan group of liars who from Day One announced in public, over and over that they will Impeach the President.
This type of sneaky . behind closed doors nonsense is banana republic. This would set a precedent to use these tactics to Impeach ANY OTHER government Official , like a Federal Judge.
That's ' why Impeachment is rare. That's why tradition calls for a vote .
It is a serious matter, that calls for serious action.
By talking about grand juries you are implying that secrecy is normal, that could not be further from the truth. It's just a lie intended to give cover to House Democrats who are breaking from precedent and conducting an unauthorized, secretive, and fundamentally unfair process in order to try to dig up dirt on the president with as little transparency and scrutiny as possible.
Repeating myself, AGAIN:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Who is required to authorize this inquiry that has not done so?
As to "unfair" - fair is a place where they judge livestock.
If Congress has followed the Constitutional process (which you acknowledge), then it is legitimate and the cooperation is required. Getting the full House to authorize it would not make it any more "legitimate" than getting TEPLimey to authorize it. Whether you or Trump characterize as "legitimate" is not relevant insofar as the question of its legality and being authorized by the Constitution.
And, again, this is hardly an "off the cuff" inquiry. It was one that was prompted by the Trump-appointed IG's "credible" whistleblower that was corroborated not only by recent testimony from Hill and Volker (and perhaps Sonderland today) but also by the White House's own documents. If they believe that this is just a baseless witch hunt, the GOP can always make that argument to the public to gain favorability (as the Democrats did with Clinton).
You simply don't know what you are talking about here. Without official authorization by the house, this of the cuff inquiry cannot override executive privilege and compel cooperation like the officially authorized impeachment inquiries of the past could and did.
The only reasons to skip that step and lose out on the power to do so would be either lacking the votes or a substantial fear of a proper process.
There will be an " opinion" given by a partisan group of liars who from Day One announced in public, over and over that they will Impeach the President.
This type of sneaky . behind closed doors nonsense is banana republic. This would set a precedent to use these tactics to Impeach ANY OTHER government Official , like a Federal Judge.
That's ' why Impeachment is rare. That's why tradition calls for a vote .
It is a serious matter, that calls for serious action.
And America never switches gears and does something different going forward, eh?
If there is no evidence for foreign misdealing, that will become evident, won't it?
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.
