Null



Elephant Tipper

Verified Member
  • Content Count

    7,112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Elephant Tipper

  1. Poor ICHY. Looks like he has no voice these days. At least you graduated from the face palm to a thumbs down. Did you have a hormone shot today ?
  2. I'm citing the Constitution and historical precedent. And what do you have in response ? Nothing apparently except that you're demonstrating the DK effect.
  3. Wrong answer. Our form of government, a Constitutional Republic, operates from what authority is given to our leaders. You must be thinking of the Marxist form of authority that Speaker Pelosi is using where they use the "I have that authority because I said so" rule. You seem to be more comfortable with the latter version. Impeachment = Vote by the House which permits the House to investigate + Investigation + Impeachment vote. They are all of the impeachment process, not separate. This has been the practice in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
  4. You, like Pelosi, are attempting to make a distinction without a difference. The Constitution says "impeachment", not impeachment investigation nor impeachment proceeding. Those two descriptions are of the impeachment process, part and parcel. Stick to that. There is no separation of the two. What she has done with her faux "impeachment inquiry" is to attempt to impeach the President without either authority or accountability, that is, with NO VOTE of permission by the House. There is NOTHING in the Constitution which permits Speaker Pelosi's "impeachment inquiry" apart from a vote of the House. Please show otherwise how she obtains this ad hoc power you have so generously attributed to her because I want to get in on that action. Only the Constitution permits such, no rule generated by the Speaker does. The Speaker cannot confer powers upon herself, otherwise, by your logic, since nothing restricts her, then it's game on for whatever else she might want to empower herself to do. (Maybe Pelosi is reminiscing about the television program Queen for Day when she's remembering that she is third in line to the President ?) The House has not given itself, nor her, impeachment authority over the President. Again, by your logic that nothing prevents the Speaker from initiating an impeachment investigation, she could then initiate an impeachment of Vice President Pence, or any number of Justices or Judges....or whomever and without accountability. Man oh man. Pelosi could rack up the hits, couldn't she ? The process of impeachment is established by the clause in the Constitution stating that process belongs to the House, not the Speaker and it states, "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." This has been upheld by precedent in the impeachment hearings of both President Nixon (HR 803, 1974) and President Clinton (forgot that HR off hand). A vote was held in both proceedings to give the House the ability to investigate and to establish the rules of such. NO VOTE, NO IMPEACHMENT INVESTIGATION. Your counter argument is that the Speaker may initiate the impeachment process because she is the Speaker. Really ? That's your logic ? But if what you say is really true, that "there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the Speaker or committee from initiating a fact finding investigation", then there was no legitimate reason for the Speaker to capitulate to the Republicans' demands, was there ? She could continue with Schiff's "secret" investigations. Right ? According to your logic, yes, but in reality, NO, otherwise we would be having impeachments every four years because the next Speaker granted himself that authority. Let's carry your illogical reasoning a step further. If the Speaker may initiate an impeachment investigation without authorization, then why couldn't the Senate Majority Leader try the impeachment on his own initiative also ? He could be the Plaintiff, Jury and Judge of the Senate all at the same time. Nothing prevents that either, right ? Wrong. The Constitution also spells out the Senate's duties regarding impeachment. Sooooo Charlie Brown. Are you going to pick up your football and go home when Lucy jerks it from under your feet again on Thursday ? Hang on Snoopy, hang on. And I wonder what the excuse de jour will be for Madame Speaker. Will it be, We have 50 more whistle blowers to interview or maybe 50 Cent is in concert that day ? What Speaker Pelosi can't stand is that Rep. Nadler will have to take over. This has been a hoot under bald-faced liar Schiff but under Nadler it will be like a clown juggling plates of food when he starts smacking into that microphone as he scarfs down his hoagie like he's done in other proceedings. What a joke.. Moot argument after Thursday ? Why do I doubt that ? lol
  5. Cite the Constitution. It never says the Speaker of the House has such authority, ONLY the House does. So show me where she derives her authority.
  6. To further illustrate this practice of deception by the Dems I mention an interview of Jose Aristimuno, Former DNC Deputy National Press Secretary on Fox News by Jon Scott. The following is verbatim: Jon Scott: "Up 'til now, uh, Speaker Pelosi has said that such a vote is not necessary. What changed her mind ? Jose Aristimuno: "Well, look, I think that it's very simple. She knows that such a vote is not necessary. She's got the Constitutional power , uh, to go into this inquiry. But, you know what, if she wants......she's calling out the Republicans' bluff. If they're, if they're, if they're obsessed with the procedure not being transparent enough, if they're obsessed that a vote has not happened in the House, then let them have it. The vote will happen on Thursday and we will reaffirm what we already know, that the majority of Americans understand that this "impeachment inquiry" continues and should continue." There was a bit more to the interlocution but I don't have time to include. The purpose for transcribing (ugh) this interview is to demonstrate that sheer ignorance and/or deception is being manipulated by the Dems regarding their faux "impeachment inquiry" in order to justify Speaker Pelosi's actions. A former press secretary for the Dems stated that Speaker Pelosi has the "Constitutional power". In fact, Speaker Pelosi does not have such power, PERIOD. Again, Aristumuno is either lying or just plain stoooooopid. Take your pick. The House vote on Thursday would not confer power upon Speaker Pelosi either. It would confer power upon the House to begin the inquiry. Aristimuno says that "she's calling out the Republicans' bluff". Calling for transparency of an unauthorized faux "impeachment inquiry" is a bluff ? A bluff of what ? That truthfulness and transparency might prevail ? If so, then America needs more of such "bluffing" for transparency in all matters, including this "impeachment inquiry". Who would make such an ignorant argument ? Only in the effort to deceive the American public. Aristimuno says, "if they're obsessed with the procedure not being transparent enough, if they're obsessed that a vote has not happened in the House, then let them have it." More transparency is better, correct ? The answer is always, YES. And why has a vote not been taken of the House ? To prevent transparency of those who would support an "impeachment inquiry". Schiff's "secret" depositions must be made public. As Schiff has himself stated at the beginning of those meetings, there is no secret intelligence being discussed so why shouldn't the depositions be made public ? Because the testimony of these faux "witnesses" would be discovered as being 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand information, ie., unreliable. Today the WSJ, Editorial Board: Pelosi Concedes on Inquiry Vote. "The Speaker's letter asserts that no such vote is needed but nonetheless says the House will have one. This is what you say when you know your critics have been right but you don't want to admit it." By the way Mr. Aritimuno, if the Speaker's "got the Constitutional power" for her own "impeachment inquiry", then what is her authority ? What rule has Congress written that gives the Speaker such sole authority to impeach the President of the United States ? The answer is NONE. Jon Scott missed a golden opportunity by asking Mr. Aristimuno that one question which no one in the Press has, By what authority has the Speaker initiated her "impeachment inquiry". For you Dems, the Speaker has slid a fast one right by you. Are you okay with being outright deceived by your leadership to satisfy your blood thirst for DJT ? Enough said.
  7. With what authority has the Speaker initiated her "impeachment inquiry" ?
  8. House Resolution 803, 1974- "Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States." https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/house-resolution/803 This House vote is what gave the House itself the ability to initiate the Impeachment process (inquiry) against Nixon. The Impeachment Inquiry was not started by Speaker Albert as Speaker Pelosi is doing. The Impeachment Inquiry is the first phase of the Impeachment process. The two are not separate but co-exist as parts of the one process of Impeachment. Speaker Pelosi is attempting to make a distinction between the two when no such distinction exists in order to circumvent having the House vote (which would make the Dems vulnerable in the 2020 election). They are part and parcel the SAME. A proper comparison would be the function of a grand jury. A grand jury convenes to discover whether a trial should be held, or not. This grand jury is a part of the trial process, just as an Impeachment Inquiry is to the Impeachment Process. The two are integral to one another.
  9. Rep. Nunes stated that Schiff's Intelligence Committee is only about impeachment and that the Intel Committee has not had a briefing in over a month. In over a month !
  10. You're misunderstanding the conversation AUDub. First, impeachment is not a "rule". "Rules" are those guidelines of administering legislative action/duties and are revised and established by each new Congress. The new Congress is not required to follow the rules of the previous Congress, although most rules remain in place. Speaker Pelosi changed the Rules of the Committees which has directly affected how the Minority Party may participate. She has grossly limited/restricted the abilities of the Minority Party, including the President and his representation in the faux "impeachment inquiry". I'll come back to this in a moment to describe how this is being implemented by the Majority Party.......which is being unfairly and deceptively done. Second, Impeachment is a process established by the Constitution, not the Congress. The Constitution itself, not Speaker Pelosi, explicitly describes how the Impeachment process starts, which is with a vote of ALL of the Members of the House, yet Speaker Pelosi has stated that she has started an "impeachment inquiry". Hogwash, because she doesn't have that power, only the full House by vote does. Once the House votes, then the whole House establishes the rules for the Impeachment Process. The distinction between these terms is vitally important because Speaker Pelosi and other Representatives are playing with semantics in hopes that they may build momentum against the President before you, the public, understand what is happening and by then they hope that resentment against them won't be as strong. These are the actions of a banana republic, not the United States of America. What she is doing is un-American. Full transparency and representation is a must, which IS American. Okay, so for the practical application of how these semantic games erode the Impeachment process and the rights of the Minority Party. I'll mention two instances that I have seen in interviews with Dems who are actively engaged in deceiving the public. The first instance is with Rep. Dan Kildee (MI). See the link below. In two different interviews, one print and one television, he stated that there is "no rule requiring an impeachment vote". Well, he is correct in one sense but also he is wrong because he is misleading the viewers/readers. He is correct in that there is "no rule requiring an impeachment vote" which is because the Congress, as I stated above, does not make the rule about the impeachment vote, the Constitution does. How he is misleading the public by his statement is that he is implying that the Speaker may institute "impeachment inquiry" rules at her discretion. She cannot do that, PERIOD. The Constitution does not give the Speaker that power. Only a vote by the House Members gives the whole House itself that power. [EDIT]: In the other interview of Rep. Kildee (sorry, no video) he stated that there is no "precedent" for an "impeachment inquiry". No precedent ? He is outright deceptive. With both Nixon and Clinton the House voted to begin the Impeachment process (the impeachment process includes/starts with the inquiry...see my post below re: House Resolution 803). There has been plenty of precedent for how the impeachment inquiry/process starts. Again, this is about semantics and what the Dems can slide by the public. The second instance was in a television interview with a female Dem Representative. Forgot her name but not the bilge she stated. She was asked about the rules changes made by Speaker Pelosi and don't the changes prevent the President from having legal representation in these Committee meetings, which it does. The Representative's response was "that the President already has representation by those Republicans on the Committees" (paraphrase...but very close). This is wrong, very wrong. The President in these instances always, as any American citizen, has due process rights of legal representation, yet the Dems are denying this key right of the President because of Speaker Pelosi's rules changes for this Congress. No Congressman represents the President, only his duly-appointed legal counsel does. To protect those Dems in Trump districts in the 2020 election, Speaker Pelosi is doing whatever she can to prevent a vote on Impeachment, even if it means removing the due process rights of the President and also misleading the public. If a judge in a court proceeding told you that you could not have a lawyer to represent you but you may have someone from your family do so, then would that be fair ? NO, and neither is it for the President. She and Rep. Schiff should both be censured and removed from office for these actions. Their actions are highly unethical. Rep. Dan Kildee's interview: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rep-kildee-no-rule-requiring-impeachment-inquiry-vote/vi-AAIxbv7
  11. Congressman Jason Chaffetz has stated that the rules were changed by Speaker Pelosi in January, 2019..
  12. Salty, I don't have a clue. The Intelligence Committee is extremely secretive even without Schiff being Chairman. Probably less than 20% of their hearings are open in any one year and they haven't had an open hearing since 5/01/19. Schiff strikes me more of a Hallmark guy than poker.
  13. I'm with you brother. I'm a conservative and when Obama was elected I called him my President. He was properly elected. I disagreed with the majority of his policies to the Nth degree and believed that he was causing great economic harm to America, yet he was MY President. I prayed earnestly for him that God would give him great wisdom and that he and his family would be well protected. Perhaps his mind could be changed through dialogue. If Warren were elected, then I would call her my President. She would have earned it. And, as with Obama, I would pray equally diligently for her. This current effort of impeachment is because of political differences only. No treason, no bribery, no misdemeanors, no high crimes, yet the push from the far Left is that DJT has committed every conceivable crime while President. The current diatribe is that impeachment is a "political decision" (which I think is what you say you fear if Warren were elected). No, it isn't. That is dumbing down the purpose of impeachment and the very idea of such was contradicted by Hamilton in Federalist 65. Impeachment isn't a political decision because a grand jury is convened (the House) and a trial is conducted by the Senate and administered by the Chief Justice. A verdict is rendered. Impeachment is a real trial and the President would be facing real consequences but for what would the President be tried ? Because Dems dislike his policies ? A very poor choice and contrary to American values.
  14. To quote DKW, "Setting up the backdrop for a theatrical campaign that will surely mesmerize all their constituents..." BINGO ! Rep. Schiff is deposing witnesses as he has stated. The problem with these witnesses is that the majority are 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hand, not primary, ie., they heard a rumor. And their testimony is really moot because DJT released the transcript of his phone call to the public which undercut Schiff's efforts to discredit the President. For the past 2+ years Schiff has promoted DJT being guilty of "colluuuuuusion" with the Russians and that he had evidence beyond a doubt, yet nothing ever materialized. He's proved that he is willing to mislead the public with smoke and mirrors. So what is Schiff doing in the SCIF ? Apparently creating more smoke and mirrors to impugn the President's character. To disprove this assertion he should make the testimony public so that Americans may decide for themselves, but until then Schiff is creating a narrative against DJT aimed at the 2020 re-election of DJT. No secret info is being discussed so why shouldn't the testimony and cross examination be made public ? My understanding is that Rep. John Radcliffe's cross examination of Charges d' Affaires Bill Taylor destroyed his assertions against DJT. But this is behind closed doors. Make the testimony public. For those who would decry making public the testimony for situations like the "whistleblower" and protecting his/her identity, the protection of a whistleblower's identity is only temporary and the primary reason for such protection is against job reprisals. The purpose of secrecy for the "whistleblower" before Schiff is without foundation. Smoke and mirrors. The whistleblower is supposedly under death threats. I call bs. When a hearing is concluded the Dems surface to give their version of how "devastating" the testimony was then the Republicans respond with a counter version. Make the testimony public so that Americans may decide.
  15. Here is the kicker DKW. IF an impeachment by the House is successful, then the Senate will conduct the trial which would begin in 2020, an election year. Senate Rules dictate that no Senator may campaign while an impeachment trial is underway. Six Dem Senators are campaigning, Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Bennett. Campaign attrition will be a factor, but of those remaining active campaigners who will be willing to forgo up to a month's time of campaigning to participate in a Senate trial ? There will be resistance to do so. A conviction requires a super majority, 67. 45 Dems, 2 Independents, 53 Republicans. How does that math configure a conviction ? A long stretch at best. This "impeachment inquiry" is doomed for failure. By design ? The "impeachment inquiry" is designed for the 2020 campaign, not a conviction. Is this what Americans want the House to be pursuing with their tax dollars rather than solving problems ?
  16. Judge Napolitano is correct about the rules governing an "impeachment inquiry" being changed but the problem for you Dems is that the "investigation" being conducted by Rep. Adam Schiff is NOT an "impeachment inquiry". The rules governing the Intelligence Committee "investigation" are the Rules of Deposition which are different. The manner in which Schiff is conducting his "investigation" reflects such. On 9/24/19 Nancy Pelosi announced the following: “Therefore, today, I’m announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I’m directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.” The Speaker cannot confer upon herself the power to convene an impeachment inquiry when she states, "I'm directing". ONLY the full House, as directed by the Constitution, may confer this power upon itself and this is accomplished by a vote of the Members of the House. No such vote has been taken of the House Members, therefore, no "impeachment inquiry" officially exists.and no "impeachment inquiry" will exist until such a vote is determined. There are no exceptions. Under Deposition Rules, Rep. Schiff (Intelligence Committee Chairman) may conduct these secret depositions exactly as he has. Under a REAL Impeachment Inquiry he would not have such powers because an Impeachment Inquiry is conducted by that Committee which governs impeachment which is the Judiciary Committee. Under the Judiciary Committee in an Impeachment Inquiry there would not be secret depositions and the Minority party's rights would be enacted as well as those of the President. Only by conducting this "investigation" under the auspices of the Intelligence Committee may Rep. Schiff deny those rights and by doing so keep the Republicans from having a voice. Those House Members who would break from this rule would be under penalty of House Rules, consequently you do not hear any public dissent regarding direct testimony. Rep. Schiff has conducted his secret hearings in the SCIF to give the appearance that real secrets are being discussed, yet at the opening of each meeting convened he announces that no secret intelligence is being discussed. He is required to make that distinction. Speaker Pelosi may call her "investigation" an 'impeachment inquiry" until she is blue in the face but it isn't such. She is placating those to the far left who are calling for impeachment with the hopes that maybe something will break in her favor, mainly bipartisan public opinion turning against President Trump which isn't happening. It's a dangerous wire act that Speaker Pelosi is walking. As this charade proceeds the public will see Speaker Pelosi's actions for what they are, a FAKE impeachment. Once those who have pushed for this impeachment realize that this is not an actual impeachment there will be Hell to pay and once the public at large realize what Speaker Pelosi has done the chance for the Dems to hold the House will begin to disintegrate, rapidly. The House will most likely return to the Republicans in 2020.
  17. Moon's info about "escape hatch" for AU re: GM's contract. Reduce/void the contract. http://www.alreporter.com/2018/11/27/analysis-could-auburn-actually-fire-gus-malzahn/
  18. Analysis: Could Auburn actually fire Gus Malzahn ?, Josh Moon http://www.alreporter.com/2018/11/27/analysis-could-auburn-actually-fire-gus-malzahn/ JM's info on how AU voids/reduces GM's contract.
  19. And the FBI would be receiving 100 times more fake information from those individuals who can/should perform due diligence and JM was more than capable. McCain pursued a fake agenda against DJT. He promoted fake intelligence.
  20. And again, McCain chose to not perform due diligence. Only an idiot would not do so.
  21. You're full of nonsense, complete nonsense. There is no expansion to include "all", but only in your imagination there is. Again, you keep stating that I said "all", I didn't, YOU did. It doesn't matter the number, McCain's denigration was of fellow Arizonan Trump supporters, McCain's own voting base. And Arizonans remember JM's colorful description of them. Again, you're the idiot who keeps trying to put words in my mouth.
  22. Who said it was the committee's primary role ? I certainly didn't, but responsible intelligence means performing due diligence. McCain did not do so. Again, no one, I repeat NO ONE (of JM's standing) just picks up "intelligence" and says to the FBI, "Lookey here what I found when I was overseas. Hey Mr. Comey how about checking this out ?" McCain was either complicit or turned a blind eye. Due diligence is mandatory of person in his position. HE FAILED ! Miserably so, on purpose.
  23. See, you write fiction, again. I didn't say "all" as you claim I did. Trump voters are American voters, or does that simple fact escape you ? Apparently it does. McCain was referring to the Trump voters in Phoenix (pay attention), McCain's own voters........“This performance with our friend out in Phoenix is very hurtful to me”. McCain was very specific, direct and made no bones about it. JM didn't like the attitude of the Trump supporters because it directly harmed his campaign. You should stop while you are losing this argument. You can't follow a 1 with a 2 in common sequential logic. You should stop typing now.
  24. John McCain had the proper authority to investigate this before presenting it to the FBI. As a US Senator on the AS and Homeland Security Committees he had the necessary resources to give this fake dossier a more than thorough examination. He chose to introduce this document in order to legitimize a prosecution of DJT, and that he accomplished. Then, with the extreme, you get the point. Imagine, a duly-elected president being called Hitler, fascist, or even "batshit crazy teenager" every day by enemies such as yourself, everyday. Only a fool welcomes a fake investigation. I'm sure you're open arms to being investigated.