a fox news judge released this little dandy........

[Elephant Tipper 430]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

There's nothing wrong with the process.  As Dub and Brad said, all of this Republican BS about the process simply reflects a lack of a rational defense based on the facts.

And it shouldn't be a surprise.  It's not like Trump has changed from what he always was.

In fact, this is less about Trump than it is about them - Republicans who continue to support Trump - facts, principles and integrity be damned. 

With what authority has the Speaker initiated her "impeachment inquiry" ?

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

17 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

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.

If there are so many "facts", as claimed,  why not go ahead with phase II of the process and get rid of this guy? If dems are using this as a political campaign they have no principles or integrity. Big disservice to the American voters. Most are sick of it and pay no attention anyway.

[homersapien 11,366]

15 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

With what authority has the Speaker initiated her "impeachment inquiry" ?

The same authority that Republican speakers have used to initiated their inquiries - the constitution.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

On 10/28/2019 at 1:02 AM, Elephant Tipper said:

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

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.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

The same authority that Republican speakers have used to initiated their inquiries - the constitution.

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.

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

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.

An impeachment investigation is meant to uncover the facts. 

It is not the same as an impeachment proceeding (which is undoubtedly coming).

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the Speaker or committee from initiating a fact finding investigation to determine if impeachment is justified.  And both political parties are represented on the respective committees.

This is all a Republican tactic to change the argument from addressing the actual facts of Trump's actions to the investigatory process, and it's bogus.  It's a classic case of arguing process when the facts are against you.

Regardless, it will be a moot argument after Thursday

[homersapien 11,366]

1 hour ago, Elephant Tipper said:

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: 

  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.

Wrong question. 

First, the inquiry or hearing does not constitute an impeachment proceeding in itself.  It's an investigation that examines whether or not a formal impeachment hearing is justified.

So the question is: what "authority" prevents the Speaker from initiating such an inquiry into the actions of the president - which may "constitute high crimes and misdemeanors" and may lead to a formal impeachment proceeding?

 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

An impeachment investigation is meant to uncover the facts. 

It is not the same as an impeachment proceeding (which is undoubtedly coming).

There is nothing in the constitution that prevents the Speaker or committee from initiating a fact finding investigation to determine if impeachment is justified.  And both political parties are represented on the respective committees.

This is all a Republican tactic to change the argument from addressing the actual facts of Trump's actions to the investigatory process, and it's bogus.  It's a classic case of arguing process when the facts are against you.

Regardless, it will be a moot argument after Thursday

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
 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Wrong question. 

First, the inquiry or hearing does not constitute an impeachment proceeding in itself.  It's an investigation that examines whether or not a formal impeachment hearing is justified.

So the question is: what "authority" prevents the Speaker from initiating such an inquiry into the actions of the president - which may "constitute high crimes and misdemeanors" and may lead to a formal impeachment proceeding?

 

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.

[AUDub 11,147]

ET is proof positive that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Literally a walking Dunning-Kruger effect. 

[Elephant Tipper 430]

22 minutes ago, AUDub said:

ET is proof positive that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Literally a walking Dunning-Kruger effect. 

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.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

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 ?

[DKW 86 7,419]

I got to say to the FacePalm Crowd:

1) We already know the FPs are coming.

2) We could not care less. 

3) Save Rob the server space and stop giving out brainless facepalms.

[AUDub 11,147]

14 minutes ago, Elephant Tipper said:

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.

No, you're spouting ex cathedra bull**** while saying the Constitution and precedent support said bull****.

It's nothing more than a ham-handed ass-pull. 

[homersapien 11,366]

16 hours ago, Elephant Tipper said:

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.

That's a stupidly vacuous thing to say. 

It's a perfect accompaniment to your BS argument.