Do the people not vote to elect these officers? In simple terms, that a dolt like you can understand...ALL representatives of the people should put to a vote to begin formal impeachment. Hell, the House even bypassed the Judicial Committee against their own House rules. Right now, this dog and pony is a one sided [BLEEP] show the likes of SNL!

1998 was on the straight and narrow compared to this hack job.

Ferocious said it better than me, above.
The House can form committees without a floor vote. It's happened before.
And oh by the way,  if they had a vote, the motion would pass, so I don't understand why you want to die on that hill, other than Twitter or talk radio fed you that talking point this morning.
I would prefer they do this by yays and nays too.  I like to know who is for what.  But it's not required.
If this inquiry were not really the will of the house majority, Pelosi could be discharged by petition at any time.  That's the remedy. If Republicans in Congress thought your argument was serious and worthwhile, they would be putting that petition together.

Care to venture what House rules state? Congress works off of resolutions, not some weird facebook petition. Do you think Rep. Gaetz's resolution to remove Schiff will pass? What about Abraham's to expel Pelosi? The Dems haven't followed the rules up to this point or have changed them, which makes trying to remove Pelosi per those rules difficult at best.
How'd the last vote go? Looked like a pretty lopsided failure to me. So what makes you so sure it would pass? FYI, everything I have stated is backed up by the documented bi-partisan fact that you refuse to read. This isn't Dem or Rep as much as a Congressional free for all that we all suffer for. While you may sit in your mom's basement clapping Cheeto stained hands at this impeachment fantasy, the lack of order and partisan evil will set terrible precedence. Try to formulate a valid opinion outside of your emotional grip on some weird Lemon and Schiff (insert emotional buzzword here) talking points.

---

B2hibry, I stand by my comments in post #314. The comments added in post #319 seem specious to me, having a false look of truth or genuineness.

This is a fluid situation. All of us are watching it with interest.

In case you are uncertain, be advised.
The Impeachment Inquiry is under way.

Regards,

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

I may be wrong on this, but I think that it comes down to this.  The democrats including Pelosi don't want to hold a vote for an "official" impeachment inquiry since doing so (should it pass) allows the President's legal team to subpoena witnesses and other evidence to the claim (which they can't do right now).  They (democrats) also don't want to expose members of certain "battleground states" to make a definitive decision one way or another.  They (the democrats) also don't have enough votes to push it through.

It seems to me that the refusal to bring this up for a vote in the HoR is more political than actual facts.  The current "impeachment inquiry" is nothing more than playing this out into election season.  There is nothing "official" regarding this current "impeachment inquiry", though you wouldn't know that if you watch the MSM and/or social media.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

In 98 the independent prosecutor came back and made affirmative declarations that clinton was guilty on multiple FELONIES inclyding perjury, suborning perjury paid a settlement on sexual assault, was disbarred etc.  He should have been removed.

In this case there is no such declaration.  You have an anonymous complaint that doesn't meet the rules of evidence for a criminal proceeding and doesn't point to any criminal or illicit activity. Even still in 1998 the Republican majority in the house still allowed a floor vote to officially authorized the impeachment proceeding and gave the minority certain representation rights is for is issuing subpoenas interviewing Witnesses Etc. In this particular case the Democratic majority has not called for a floor vote to officially authorized and impeachment inquiry. Have also block the president's attorneys and certain members of the minority from participating in witness interviews. There is no comparison between the two processes.

Facts Check (Hmmmm let's get the popcorn ready.)

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury before a grand jury and for obstruction of justice.

My post was based on the circumstances surrounding the initiation of an impeachment inquiry.  I stated, correctly, that the independent counsel report (Starr Report) illustrated more than 10 instances where it was found that there was sufficient evidence to potentially prosecute then sitting president Clinton for more than ten instances of felony Misconduct.  I never stated that all ten were adopted in the formal articles of impeachment voted out of the house.  I also pointed out the ancillary penalties incurred by the president (settlement in a civil case, being disbarred, etc.) as further evidence to support the fact that there was, in fact, THERE there in 1998.  

There was no felony committed. The federal government defines a felony as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.

18 U.S. Code § 1621

Perjury is punishable by up to 5 years in prison.  


The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The practice of not prosecuting sitting presidents in criminal courts in no way invalidates my basic characterization of illicit activity as felonious.  

Now, as to the second paragraph of your post.

"There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a full House vote to launch an impeachment inquiry," Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky told Newsweek. "That has been done before, but it is not a constitutional requirement. President Trump is wrong in saying that it is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry without a floor vote."

The courts will ultimately decide the validity of THE PRESIDENT (And His counsels) reasoning on the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry in the absence of a Floor vote.  That has ZERO BEARING on my statement that in 98 The republican majority allowed one.  

As far as being present for witness interviews, whistleblowers have protections afforded to them under the law.

I didn't say anything about the "whistleblower," I said witnesses-as it relates to the inquiry as a whole.  As we speak members of the administration are being asked to testify.  Under the circumstances the presidents attorneys and the minority should have the ability to a.) be present, b.) cross examine witnesses, c.) call witnesses of their own, d.) compel the disclosure of any and all evidence found beneficial to the president e.) present evidence, and f.) see all evidence being presented against the president.  In a democracy there's a term for that.  DUE PROCESS.  


The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

But, now that you bring it up.  This guy isn't a whistleblower.  Why you may ask?  Because under our system of government, the president is a Unitary Executive.  He is the top of all chains of command in the executive branch, including but not limited to the intelligence agency.  He is also delegated sole authority over our foreign policy.  That's why the DNI found that the complaint didn't meet the requirements of the whistleblower statute because he, nor anyone in the executive branch has jurisdiction over the presidency-and for simple reason: NO ONE HAS ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION, OR THE AUTHORITY THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS!!!  As an example from this case, the Leaker alleges that the president Abused his power in asking the president of Ukraine to aid in the investigation of the Biden's.  Was he read into the Durham investigation?  The president is.  Did he have access to the Defensive investigative notes cultivated by the presidents legal team during the Mueller Defense?  The president does.  So how in the world is he going to sit in judgment to determine if there is or is not a reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden committed a crime or corrupt act (The standard to establish corrupt intent.)  The Leaker also alleges that the president COVERED UP the phone call by having it classified as special access program.  Does the leaker have access tot he classification practices of the white house since the leak of the call with the Australian ambassador?  The president does.  Does the leaker have the unilateral authority to classify or declassify ANYTHING THEY WANT?  The president does!  How are they supposed to a.) determine if that act is out of the ordinary, or b.) even understand that classifying something and preserving it isn't destruction of evidence or an obstructive act?

The White House is trying to obfuscate the facts, and it isn't working well. (Well, it's working with some of us). And in fact the irony is that in addition to his (alleged) high crimes and misdemeanors with respect to Ukraine, he is also, by all appearances, guilty of the same obstruction of justice that Clinton was impeached for. In fact, it is far worse because it involves national security. Also, the President may be guilty of violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act by threatening to take retaliatory action.

This is a fluid situation. Do not obfuscate. There is enough of that already.

Respectfully,

OBSTRUCTION?  They released the Darn TRANSCRIPT!   My Gosh.  Is Maddows show really that good?  I mean honestly.  

you can call it whistleblower, santa clause, Marry poppins or the avon lady.  If the left tries to carry this to actual articles of impeachment and a trial in the senate and never give the president the right to face his accuser the streets will run read with rural turnout.  

#MAGA
#ALPHAMAGA
#LOLFACTCHECK
#LETMEGUESSUWORKFORPOLITICO
#GETONMYLEVEL
#DONTTRYMELIKETHAT

---

#notwhistleblower had "professional tie" to a 2020 democrat... wow...

---

#notwhistleblower had "professional tie" to a 2020 democrat...  wow...

It was obvious they are a left winger when they were "visibly shaken" by a phone conversation. A normal person doesn't get visibly shaken by a phone conversation between 2 countries leaders, even if one of them was pressuring the other to look into corruption for more aid money.

How wimpy are these people?



I'm still not sure that Trump didn't orchestrate this whole thing knowing the left winger was listening in and hoping they took the bait. It's just going to make the left even crazier when they can't get him and that will drive away the centralist democrats even further away.

---

If they impeach Trump his team gets to subpoena Obama, Biden, and Shilldog. This is going to be epic.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

If they impeach Trump his team gets to subpoena Obama, Biden, and Shilldog. This is going to be epic.

The right to call witnesses in your own defense is not unlimited. The judge has to believe that those witnesses actually have relevant testimony. Impeachment trials are different of course. The Chief Justice could rule that certain questions are out of order, but there is precedent that a majority of senators present may overrule him on that.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If they impeach Trump his team gets to subpoena Obama, Biden, and Shilldog. This is going to be epic.

The right to call witnesses in your own defense is not unlimited. The judge has to believe that those witnesses actually have relevant testimony. Impeachment trials are different of course. The Chief Justice could rule that certain questions are out of order, but there is precedent that a majority of senators present may overrule him on that.

But I think all people of good conscience should acknowledge that it should EXIST and someone should tell the house majority!

---

Oh, how about that...House Rules changed Aug. 12th!

https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/2...ab96b.html

---

The right to call witnesses in your own defense is not unlimited. The judge has to believe that those witnesses actually have relevant testimony. Impeachment trials are different of course. The Chief Justice could rule that certain questions are out of order, but there is precedent that a majority of senators present may overrule him on that.

But I think all people of good conscience should acknowledge that it should EXIST and someone should tell the house majority!

The house plays the role of prosecutor.
The rights to call witnesses in defense does not kick in until the trial begins.
A wise prosecutor will question the accused informally and check in on any witnesses that the accused mentions, but these are matters of wisdom, not rights.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

If they impeach Trump his team gets to subpoena Obama, Biden, and Shilldog. This is going to be epic.

The right to call witnesses in your own defense is not unlimited. The judge has to believe that those witnesses actually have relevant testimony. Impeachment trials are different of course. The Chief Justice could rule that certain questions are out of order, but there is precedent that a majority of senators present may overrule him on that.

Lol. If you think Son of a [BLEEP] Biden evades a subpoena when the Senate calls for questions, and that line of questioning doesn't go to the others then you are very naive. Pelosi knows this is a losing game for the Dems, too bad the radicals are in charge now. Well...not too bad as far as I'm concerned, actually more like, "please, take all the rope you want!"

---

But I think all people of good conscience should acknowledge that it should EXIST and someone should tell the house majority!

The house plays the role of prosecutor.
The rights to call witnesses in defense does not kick in until the trial begins.
A wise prosecutor will question the accused informally and check in on any witnesses that the accused mentions, but these are matters of wisdom, not rights.

Giuliani said last night that no one from the Admin is going to talk to them. He wont engage until it goes to the Senate, he's putting it on the Dems to formally act on the record before they respond. He's gonna destroy them, even a poster like you knows that the Dems in the House are the polar opposite of "wise."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I think all this talk about the whistleblower is moot. Irrelevant. What the whistleblower reported is backed up by the transcript that the White House released.

The Republican strategy will be to confuse, obstruct, delay, find various people on the other side they can attack, and generally just throw as much [BLEEP] against the wall as they can and see what sticks.

What the Democrats need to do is point to the transcript and say, "There it is. He used taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign country."

---

The right to call witnesses in your own defense is not unlimited. The judge has to believe that those witnesses actually have relevant testimony. Impeachment trials are different of course. The Chief Justice could rule that certain questions are out of order, but there is precedent that a majority of senators present may overrule him on that.

Lol. If you think Son of a [BLEEP] Biden evades a subpoena when the Senate calls for questions, and that line of questioning doesn't go to the others then you are very naive. Pelosi knows this is a losing game for the Dems, too bad the radicals are in charge now. Well...not too bad as far as I'm concerned, actually more like, "please, take all the rope you want!"

---

The house plays the role of prosecutor.
The rights to call witnesses in defense does not kick in until the trial begins.
A wise prosecutor will question the accused informally and check in on any witnesses that the accused mentions, but these are matters of wisdom, not rights.

Giuliani said last night that no one from the Admin is going to talk to them. He wont engage until it goes to the Senate, he's putting it on the Dems to formally act on the record before they respond. He's gonna destroy them, even a poster like you knows that the Dems in the House are the polar opposite of "wise."

Typically an accused person has a right to refuse to answer a prosecutor's questions up until the point that the prosecutor issues a subpoena.  At that point, if the accused refuses to show, they will be arrested by the police. The House doesn't have that kind of police force, but they have arrested and held people before, and could again.  That said, no one is going to evade any subpoena once things are in front of the Chief Justice and the Senate majority agrees.  The US Marshalls will be compelling people to appear at that point.  

I think it would be a fair process for the House to try to get all their questions answered, fail, and then bring articles of impeachment anyhow.  Let the questions be answered at the trial if they won't answer during investigation.

As for whether Biden would be called, Trump's lawyer probably will call him.  It would be up to the Senate and the Chief Justice to agree on if he has to come, and which questions he has to answer.  I don't think Trump's lawyers will get much of a leash in that area, if they even let Biden be called at all.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I think all this talk about the whistleblower is moot.  Irrelevant.  What the whistleblower reported is backed up by the transcript that the White House released.  

The Republican strategy will be to confuse, obstruct, delay, find various people on the other side they can attack, and generally just throw as much [BLEEP] against the wall as they can and see what sticks.  

What the Democrats need to do is point to the transcript and say, "There it is.  He used taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign country."

And the Republican (read: Trumpette) response will be that what we saw and heard Trump say it not what we saw and heard Trump say.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Oh, how about that...House Rules changed Aug. 12th!

https://www.everycrsreport.com/changes/2...ab96b.html

It's more accurately described as a description of the impeachment process than rules, but which change in particular has your panties in a wad?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I think all this talk about the whistleblower is moot.  Irrelevant.  What the whistleblower reported is backed up by the transcript that the White House released.  

The Republican strategy will be to confuse, obstruct, delay, find various people on the other side they can attack, and generally just throw as much [BLEEP] against the wall as they can and see what sticks.  

What the Democrats need to do is point to the transcript and say, "There it is.  He used taxpayer money to extort a personal political favor from a foreign country."

I'd stop calling them a whistleblower, because they aren't. Also, it is known the leaker has ties to a 2020 democratic candidate. 

There is literally nothing to see here. You are on the wrong side of history Marty.

---

I will create an analogy for you to help you understand the process.. Maybe it will help for you to look at it like this.
You know, keep it simple.

The role of the House of Representatives is essentially to take a look at this to see whether indictment (impeachment) is warranted.
Think of them as the "Grand Jury" in this process. A simple majority of 218 votes is needed to impeach.
If impeached, there will be a trial.
The trial takes place in the Senate and the Senators are the jurors. Removal takes a two-thirds vote (67 yea votes).

It is more probable than not that Trump will be impeached by the House of Representatives.
It is more probable than not that Trump will be acquitted by the U.S. Senate.

If Trump is not re-elected, perhaps we will see some further actions in the courts against him.
If Trump is re-elected, the statute of limitations more probably than not will prevent this from happening.

On impeachment, take the over.
On removal, take the under.
Criminal action in the courts against Donald Trump is Pick 'Em at this point.

Glad to be of help.

---

"Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something."        --Plato

Not sure why some of you are okay with a VP taking money from a foreign power illegally.... is it because he was Obama's pet?

Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Prosecuting or investigating a single person, rather than a whole group of people, is not a valid foreign policy objective. 
Using foreign policy tools to further a personal or partisan interest is a naked abuse of power.
Trump's cabinet have plenty of tools at their disposal to try to investigate Biden - but only if probable cause for a violation of US law exists.
But they have skipped over using the tools they legitimately have, and have tried to use illegitimate tools. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not there is probable cause the Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke US law.

The difference is we acknowledge when there is a wrong.

The left just plugs their ears and screams LALALALALALALALAL TRUMP BAD WE GOOD!

---

Since when do two wrongs make a right?
Prosecuting or investigating a single person, rather than a whole group of people, is not a valid foreign policy objective. 
Using foreign policy tools to further a personal or partisan interest is a naked abuse of power.
Trump's cabinet have plenty of tools at their disposal to try to investigate Biden - but only if probable cause for a violation of US law exists.
But they have skipped over using the tools they legitimately have, and have tried to use illegitimate tools. That should tell you all you need to know about whether or not there is probable cause the Joe Biden or Hunter Biden broke US law.

The difference is we acknowledge when there is a wrong.

The left just plugs their ears and screams LALALALALALALALAL TRUMP BAD WE GOOD!

You're shadow boxing.
Playing with puppets made of straw.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.