I don't follow.

You don't want to admit that internal government resources (the so called Deep State) have been actively working to entrap the President since the day he took the oath and this House action is the accumulation of all that work. So you "don't follow."

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

---

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

You don't want to admit that internal government resources (the so called Deep State) have been actively working to entrap the President since the day he took the oath and this House action is the accumulation of all that work. So you "don't follow."

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

It's painfully obvious the previous administration was corrupt to its very core...

And it's killing you all that Trump, big bad meanie that he is, is trying to expose it all.

---

Blocking mikesez has made some of my brain cells grow back. Seeing his responses in quotes is making me lose them again.

Mods, please help.

---

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

It's painfully obvious the previous administration was corrupt to its very core...

And it's killing you all that Trump, big bad meanie that he is, is trying to expose it all.

The heart of man is corrupt at its core, generally speaking.  Obama and Biden certainly have corruption on their hearts, as do Trump and Pence.

But in the context of government, "corruption" has a very specific meaning.  It is using government authority in the pursuit of private or partisan wealth, power, or goods, in opposition to the public good or national interest.

The national interest of the United States includes many overlapping ideas.  One is that citizens of the United States should not be molested, fined, or imprisoned by foreign governments.  This is the simple, polite request found on every US passport.

There are many instances of Obama pursuing unwise or counterproductive policies.  But I don't recall any examples of him doing so to advance his own bank account or reelection chances, and I especially don't recall him trying to get a foreign government to investigate a US citizen.

---

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

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

It's painfully obvious the previous administration was corrupt to its very core...

And it's killing you all that Trump, big bad meanie that he is, is trying to expose it all.

But laying aside all that fancy talk about "what is corruption"...
I'm just a dingus living in Orlando trying to make a career in engineering. I didn't vote for Obama. I think one of my dad's cousins used to be a district attorney in California, but she's retired, and I never met her. That's the only politician anywhere on the whole family tree. I don't have any friends in politics. 
Why would it be "killing me" that he is trying to expose anything about what some folks who used to be in power in Washington are doing?

---

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

It's painfully obvious the previous administration was corrupt to its very core...

And it's killing you all that Trump, big bad meanie that he is, is trying to expose it all.

The heart of man is corrupt at its core, generally speaking.  Obama and Biden certainly have corruption on their hearts, as do Trump and Pence.

But in the context of government, "corruption" has a very specific meaning.  It is using government authority in the pursuit of private or partisan wealth, power, or goods, in opposition to the public good or national interest.

The national interest of the United States includes many overlapping ideas.  One is that citizens of the United States should not be molested, fined, or imprisoned by foreign governments.  This is the simple, polite request found on every US passport.

There are many instances of Obama pursuing unwise or counterproductive policies.  But I don't recall any examples of him doing so to advance his own bank account or reelection chances, and I especially don't recall him trying to get a foreign government to investigate a US citizen.

Someone PLEASE tell Manafort's lawyers!!!!

---

The heart of man is corrupt at its core, generally speaking.  Obama and Biden certainly have corruption on their hearts, as do Trump and Pence.

But in the context of government, "corruption" has a very specific meaning.  It is using government authority in the pursuit of private or partisan wealth, power, or goods, in opposition to the public good or national interest.

The national interest of the United States includes many overlapping ideas.  One is that citizens of the United States should not be molested, fined, or imprisoned by foreign governments.  This is the simple, polite request found on every US passport.

There are many instances of Obama pursuing unwise or counterproductive policies.  But I don't recall any examples of him doing so to advance his own bank account or reelection chances, and I especially don't recall him trying to get a foreign government to investigate a US citizen.

Someone PLEASE tell Manafort's lawyers!!!!

Obama's DoJ publicly accused Manafort of FARA violations, but didn't indict him.  FARA is a US law, not a Ukrainian law.
Obama's administration specifically did not ask any other country make any sort of move against Manafort.
Manafort is in jail today because Trump's DoJ got him for US tax evasion.

---

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

You don't want to admit that internal government resources (the so called Deep State) have been actively working to entrap the President since the day he took the oath and this House action is the accumulation of all that work. So you "don't follow."

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

Entrap? Maybe you forgot about Michael Flynn? He was entrapped merely as a victim of the deep state hatred for Trump.

And you are such a liar! Trump never made a foreign-led investigation of Biden an objective of American foreign policy. If you read the transcript (which BTW, none of the anti-Trump witnesses claimed was incorrect) Trump only asked Ukraine to share any information they had with Barr, and it was a side issue from the main request for information on Crowdstrike. That's a lot different from requesting Ukraine to start an investigation into Joe Biden.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Someone PLEASE tell Manafort's lawyers!!!!

Obama's DoJ publicly accused Manafort of FARA violations, but didn't indict him.  FARA is a US law, not a Ukrainian law.
Obama's administration specifically did not ask any other country make any sort of move against Manafort.
Manafort is in jail today because Trump's DoJ got him for US tax evasion.

Once again caught in a lie. It was not "Trump's DoJ." The Manafort investigation was being run by Mueller independent of the DoJ. Rosenstein, a career deep state bureaucrat, appointed Mueller.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

Entrap? Maybe you forgot about Michael Flynn? He was entrapped merely as a victim of the deep state hatred for Trump.

And you are such a liar! Trump never made a foreign-led investigation of Biden an objective of American foreign policy. If you read the transcript (which BTW, none of the anti-Trump witnesses claimed was incorrect) Trump only asked Ukraine to share any information they had with Barr, and it was a side issue from the main request for information on Crowdstrike. That's a lot different from requesting Ukraine to start an investigation into Joe Biden.

The transcript is not the only piece of evidence out there.  Try to keep up.

---

Obama's DoJ publicly accused Manafort of FARA violations, but didn't indict him.  FARA is a US law, not a Ukrainian law.
Obama's administration specifically did not ask any other country make any sort of move against Manafort.
Manafort is in jail today because Trump's DoJ got him for US tax evasion.

Once again caught in a lie. It was not "Trump's DoJ." The Manafort investigation was being run by Mueller independent of the DoJ. Rosenstein, a career deep state bureaucrat, appointed Mueller.

One finger at me, three at you, buddy.

"President Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017.[33][34] He was one of the 46 United States Attorneys ordered on March 10, 2017, to resign by Attorney General Jeff Sessions; Trump declined his resignation.[35] Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate on April 25, 2017, by a vote of 94–6.[36][37]"

---

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

You don't want to admit that internal government resources (the so called Deep State) have been actively working to entrap the President since the day he took the oath and this House action is the accumulation of all that work. So you "don't follow."

Entrap? That's an interesting version of events.  Are you trying to say that Trump had no choice but to make new, foreign-led investigations into Joe Biden and his family an objective of American foreign policy?

"Since the day he took the oath" the left/dems/MSM have been grasping at anything they can possible use to impeach the President or, since they can't seem to do that right, to turn the public against him to prevent his reelection (which they really aren't going to be able to do either). They've lost, what you see now are merely the death throes of their 2020 presidential campaign.

---

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

The origins of the Manafort case were during the 2016 election. Ukrainian officials leaked information about Manafort after Obama's administration directed their prosecutors to look into him. The guy who set up the meeting? Ur whistleblower.

---

The origins of the Manafort case were during the 2016 election.  Ukrainian officials leaked information about Manafort after Obama's administration directed their prosecutors to look into him.  The guy who set up the meeting?  Ur whistleblower.

"Leak" implies that the info wasn't supposed to get out.
Per the treaty that was posted on this very board earlier, Ukraine's ministry of Justice is supposed to provide information requested by the US DoJ so long as certain conditions are met.
But the US DoJ is only supposed to request information regarding probable violations of US law, not fishing for stories that might be embarrassing to domestic political opponents.

---

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

The origins of the Manafort case were during the 2016 election.  Ukrainian officials leaked information about Manafort after Obama's administration directed their prosecutors to look into him.  The guy who set up the meeting?  Ur whistleblower.

"Leak" implies that the info wasn't supposed to get out.
Per the treaty that was posted on this very board earlier, Ukraine's ministry of Justice is supposed to provide information requested by the US DoJ so long as certain conditions are met.
But the US DoJ is only supposed to request information regarding probable violations of US law, not fishing for stories that might be embarrassing to domestic political opponents.

They were convicted of election interference and got off bc the statute of limitations had run.  We have taped confessions for crying out loud.  How much clearer do u people need?

---

What has been voted on and how does it differ from the past impeachment process?

Explain this rule.  The majority party can subpoena any witness of their choosing.  The minority party must submit a detailed explanation for any subpoena.

Passing a subpoena is the same as passing a bill. In theory, the minority can do it, but they need members of the majority to either defect to their side or abstain during the vote.

No, it isn't. You don't "pass" subpoenas. You can set rules that require the committee to agree on the issuance of one, but Adam Schiff can send his own subpoenas. In fact, he refuses to allow the minority members to do the same. He doesn't even want the committee to vote for or against the issuance of subpoenas. That alone should be concerning to you. Subpoenas aren't like bills, and their purpose is to compel people or businesses to disclose evidence. You wouldn't be OK with prosecutors allowing only those that agree with their decisions to testify, so why are you OK with Democrats doing the same?

---

Passing a subpoena is the same as passing a bill. In theory, the minority can do it, but they need members of the majority to either defect to their side or abstain during the vote.

No, it isn't. You don't "pass" subpoenas. You can set rules that require the committee to agree on the issuance of one, but Adam Schiff can send his own subpoenas. In fact, he refuses to allow the minority members to do the same. He doesn't even want the committee to vote for or against the issuance of subpoenas. That alone should be concerning to you. Subpoenas aren't like bills, and their purpose is to compel people or businesses to disclose evidence. You wouldn't be OK with prosecutors allowing only those that agree with their decisions to testify, so why are you OK with Democrats doing the same?

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

---

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

No, it isn't. You don't "pass" subpoenas. You can set rules that require the committee to agree on the issuance of one, but Adam Schiff can send his own subpoenas. In fact, he refuses to allow the minority members to do the same. He doesn't even want the committee to vote for or against the issuance of subpoenas. That alone should be concerning to you. Subpoenas aren't like bills, and their purpose is to compel people or businesses to disclose evidence. You wouldn't be OK with prosecutors allowing only those that agree with their decisions to testify, so why are you OK with Democrats doing the same?

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

How many impeachment inquiries were launched between 2011 & 2019?

---

No, it isn't. You don't "pass" subpoenas. You can set rules that require the committee to agree on the issuance of one, but Adam Schiff can send his own subpoenas. In fact, he refuses to allow the minority members to do the same. He doesn't even want the committee to vote for or against the issuance of subpoenas. That alone should be concerning to you. Subpoenas aren't like bills, and their purpose is to compel people or businesses to disclose evidence. You wouldn't be OK with prosecutors allowing only those that agree with their decisions to testify, so why are you OK with Democrats doing the same?

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

Sometimes I think you start typing before you know what you want to say. 
Do you honest believe the partisan House would vote to censor Schiff? Both sides are voting down party lines, and it’s completely naive to think the Dems would do anything to stop him even if they disagree with what he’s doing. 
You do know many people can issue a subpoena, right? 
Judges, prosecutors, private attorneys, State Clerks, notary public, businesses, and even private citizens can have a subpoena signed and delivered. There are more, too. I can’t speak for your county, but I doubt your’s is much different.
What you’re telling me is that you’re OK with one person having unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case to impeach the President. You wouldn’t be OK with this in any other situation.

---

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

Sometimes I think you start typing before you know what you want to say. 
Do you honest believe the partisan House would vote to censor Schiff? Both sides are voting down party lines, and it’s completely naive to think the Dems would do anything to stop him even if they disagree with what he’s doing. 
You do know many people can issue a subpoena, right? 
Judges, prosecutors, private attorneys, State Clerks, notary public, businesses, and even private citizens can have a subpoena signed and delivered. There are more, too. I can’t speak for your county, but I doubt your’s is much different.
What you’re telling me is that you’re OK with one person having unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case to impeach the President. You wouldn’t be OK with this in any other situation.

Private attorneys, private citizens, notaries, and businesses can only issue subpoenas to defend themselves against a legal proceeding. Usually only after they are indicted or subpoenaed themselves.

I'm telling you that "unfettered subpoena power to compile potentially biased witnesses to build a one-side case" is the typical situation in the US from the time an investigation is opened to the time that an indictment is presented.

---

if the members of the house do not like schiff issuing subpoenas at will and refusing to let them have the same privilege, they can vote to stop him.
if the majority of the house supports what you are doing you can continue to do it.
Democratic members of the house did not issue any subpoenas from January 2011 to January 2019.  You know why.
In general, in the United States, for a given subject matter and place, there is only one authority that can issue subpoenas. if my favorite candidate for Orlando area district attorney doesn't win their election, he or she cannot issue subpoenas. If a state criminal law is violated in orange or Osceola County, there is only one officer can issue a subpoena to investigate that, unless the governor or attorney general decide to appoint a special prosecutor to a certain case.
I'd be open to changing to a system where there are always two competing prosecutors/investigators, but that is not the system we have, and never has been the system we have.

How many impeachment inquiries were launched between 2011 & 2019?

Seven BenGhazi investigations... The rules for those were the same.

---

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

Entrap? Maybe you forgot about Michael Flynn? He was entrapped merely as a victim of the deep state hatred for Trump.

And you are such a liar! Trump never made a foreign-led investigation of Biden an objective of American foreign policy. If you read the transcript (which BTW, none of the anti-Trump witnesses claimed was incorrect) Trump only asked Ukraine to share any information they had with Barr, and it was a side issue from the main request for information on Crowdstrike. That's a lot different from requesting Ukraine to start an investigation into Joe Biden.

The transcript is not the only piece of evidence out there.  Try to keep up.

---

Once again caught in a lie. It was not "Trump's DoJ." The Manafort investigation was being run by Mueller independent of the DoJ. Rosenstein, a career deep state bureaucrat, appointed Mueller.

One finger at me, three at you, buddy.

"President Trump nominated Rosenstein to serve as Deputy Attorney General for the United States Department of Justice on February 1, 2017.[33][34] He was one of the 46 United States Attorneys ordered on March 10, 2017, to resign by Attorney General Jeff Sessions; Trump declined his resignation.[35] Rosenstein was confirmed by the Senate on April 25, 2017, by a vote of 94–6.[36][37]"

I call you a liar because I don't think you're that stupid. Trump was a political outsider, he didn't have any direct knowledge of likely candidates needed for his many appointments. Rosenstein was chosen because someone recommended him to Trump. Rosenstein, like most of the political appointments by every president, had a history of government work; he was a deep stater. But even if you want to make the ridiculous claim that Rosenstein was a Trump supporter, once Mueller was appointed Rosenstein (and the DoJ) was out of the loop when Manafort was investigated.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"