Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How will Impeachment play out?


RavenHawk

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, F3SS said:

If I'm wrong I'll let you guys point and gloat and go about my life wondering what it means. If I'm right you'll either riot or condone the riots. On that, I take solice in our stark differences.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, hacktorp said:

Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Executive branch is legally obligated to provide anything subpoenaed by Congress.  Nowhere.

If Congress doesn't get what they want, they can sue.

Yeah man thats kind of like nowhere in the Constitution does it say POTUS has executive privilege , or has the right to take congress' control of the purse strings. There is ample settled law around the case.

Quote

Although the U.S. Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s array of enumerated powers.[8] The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the Militia; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate); and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.

The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit”.[9]

Statutes

The “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution also allows Congress to enact laws that mandate oversight by its committees, grant relevant authority to itself and its support agencies, and impose specific obligations on the executive to report to or consult with Congress, and even seek its approval for specific actions.

Broad oversight mandates exist for the legislature in several significant statutes.

  • The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (P.L. 79-601), for the first time, explicitly called for “legislative oversight” in public law. It directed House and Senate standing committees “to exercise continuous watchfulness” over programs and agencies under their jurisdiction; authorized professional staff for them; and enhanced the powers of the Comptroller General, the head of Congress’s investigative and audit arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
  • The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510) authorized each standing committee to “review and study, on a continuing basis, the application, administration and execution” of laws under its jurisdiction; increased the professional staff of committees; expanded the assistance provided by the Congressional Research Service; and strengthened the program evaluation responsibilities of GAO.
  • The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) allowed committees to conduct program evaluation themselves or contract out for it; strengthened GAO’s role in acquiring fiscal, budgetary, and program-related information; and upgraded GAO’s review capabilities.

Besides these general powers, numerous statutes direct the executive to furnish information to or consult with Congress. For example, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62) requires agencies to consult with Congress on their strategic plans and report annually on performance plans, goals, and results. In fact, more than 2,000 reports are submitted each year to Congress by federal departments, agencies, commissions, bureaus, and offices. Inspectors General (IGs), for instance, report their findings about waste, fraud, and abuse, and their recommendations for corrective action, periodically to the agency head and Congress. The IGs are also instructed to issue special reports concerning particularly serious problems immediately to the agency head, who transmits them unaltered to Congress within seven days. The Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-531), moreover, instructs the IGs to identify and describe their agencies’ most serious management and performance challenges and briefly assess progress in addressing them. This new requirement is to be part of a larger effort by individual agencies to consolidate their numerous reports on financial and performance management matters into a single annual report. The aim is to enhance coordination and efficiency within the agencies; improve the quality of relevant information; and provide it in a more meaningful and useful format for Congress, the President, and the public.

The fact that congress' right to impeach is written in the constitution also  kind of tells you your argument is bunk. Cant impeach without the ability to oversee.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, F3SS said:

That letter was fantastic.

Man even if you agree with the sentiment the language, the content, the .....the everything is embarrassing

and OMG SO FACTUALLY WRONG

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Also for some reason I don't understand he also refuses to standup to Putin personally.

He hasn't done that wil any other Head of State since he was elected, only Vladimir. I suspect you don't agree with that, and that's ok with me but that's where I stand on this issue

Manwon, I don't agree.  I think it is a pattern.  He has been tough and rude to our allies, and some people love that.  Consistently he has backed down and tried to suck up to to adversarial heads of state.  That includes Putin, Xi, Kim, MBS, and Erdogan.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Were you now?

Yeah I definitely am more worried about right wing violence post election than I am from the left. Im also worried about it if the Senate happens to find a conscience and votes to remove him from office.

Quote

"By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy."

Those are dangerous words from POTUS

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tatetopa said:

Manwon, I don't agree.  I think it is a pattern.  He has been tough and rude to our allies, and some people love that.  Consistently he has backed down and tried to suck up to to adversarial heads of state.  That includes Putin, Xi, Kim, MBS, and Erdogan.

Because like all silver spooned bullies he tends to get real quiet when in the room with someone who is actually tough.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Were you now?

Well, once in a while, but for me its complicated.

As all of us are interacting here on this thread, I notice two things about people.

1) What they believe.

2) How they react to what they believe.

A few are as far out as antifa or white supremacists, but not so many.  it is hard to understand why people believe some of the things they do on either side.  It is disturbing how easy it is to disguise and drown out truth from either side..

Reactions are another story.  Some are just waiting for the chance to pull out the guns and show the rioting traitorous other side who are the real Americans.  Others might think there is a better way to at least coexist in tolerance under a government that offers equal justice for all. Even if we don't get our way sometimes, over the long term we might make it work for all without starting a riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly this was my thought as I read the letter. He is making it awfully hard for adults in the senate to defend him with this kind of behavior.

Trump's wild tantrum shows his unfitness

Quote

President Donald Trump on Tuesday added another wild document to the mountain of evidence that will be used against him when the verdict of history inevitably concludes he was unfit for office.

In a rambling six-page letter addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Trump weaved together a tapestry of lies, self-pity and warped allusions to history, in an effort to craft for himself a mantle of innocence on the eve of his likely impeachment.

As ever, one wonders whether he believes all the crass nonsense he promotes or whether he's consciously, brazenly trying to deceive the public on all counts. And that leads to the next question: Which would be worse?

Above all, and in the most serious claim in a missive that is difficult to take seriously, Trump rejected the legitimacy of the impeachment process, an indispensable element of accountability, the key tool to prevent democracy from drifting into tyranny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Tomorrow  is going to be epic. 

Merry Christmas!!!

The world tonight:

 

Quote

Irrespective of how things turn out in the Senate trial, the impeachment articles will record for all time that this president is “a threat to national security and the Constitution ... and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.” 

History will forever instruct posterity that Donald Trump “has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.”

 

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

The Constitution says and the Supreme Court has upheld that both Houses of Congress have the right to subpoena documents from the executive branch.  If Congress, in its oversight function, discovers something that requires a legislative fix, then that means that all documents subpoenaed in an oversight activity are, in truth, legislative in nature.  The argument that subpoenas can only be issued pursuant to legislative activities is invalid.

Doug

And for every action, a remedy exists in reaction.  Presidents have an absolute right of Executive privilege.  It has been a bipartisan tradition until the Left lost every battle with Trump.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Doug1029 said:

You're right that Trump doesn't have to present evidence, but that only means the House proceeds on the basis of the evidence it has.  It does not need his input to proceed.

Then why is Schumer wailing on about calling yet more witnesses?  It sounds like Mitch is going to deny that, as he should.  It is the House's duty to investigate and if sufficient cause is established then they draft their charges and elect managers to present them to the Senate jury.  The Senate's duty is to weigh the charges and supporting evidence and render a decision, NOT be complicit with what amounts to yet another investigation of uncertain length.  

It sounds like when the House submits their evidence, the opening argument, a call by the Leader to vote to dismiss is a legitimate move.  I had wanted an extensive witness list to be called and deposed under oath but I now realize that it wouldn't matter to the verdict  or change a single media talking point so why waste the time.  Slap this partisan hit job down and move on.

It's becoming clearer that the Dems have decided that any verdict short of removal is reason for them to keep fishing until they find something.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, and then said:

It's becoming clearer that the Dems have decided that any verdict short of removal is reason for them to keep fishing until they find something.

Its also become clear that no fact will make the GOP act as impartial jurors so it will be interesting to see where they line up during the second impeachment trial after SCOTUS forces Bolton et al to testify. If he doesnt get removed this time around which is looking likelier than I ever thought , not likely, but definitely better odds now than before.

Edited by Farmer77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Some are just waiting for the chance to pull out the guns and show the rioting traitorous other side who are the real Americans

The only action I've seen like that has been from the far Left.

Some of them have already promised to continue the Impeachment investigation unless he is removed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Its also become clear that no fact will make the GOP act as impartial jurors so it will be interesting to see where they line up during the second impeachment trial after SCOTUS forces Bolton et al to testify. If he doesnt get removed this time around which is looking likelier than I ever thought , not likely, but definitely better odds now than before.

Not sure where you get the idea that he'll be removed.  Mitch basically told Schumer that the Senate doesn't DO investigations at the behest of the House.  It's THEIR task to provide a list of charges and the evidence to convince a jury.  Schumer seems to think he can use the media drumbeat to force the majority to cave and he knows better by now.  Polling is not showing a benefit for the Dems so I think if they choose to keep their word and just have an endless investigation, they may be doing it on their own dime after 11/2020.  If they lose the House, all the authority and funding goes away.

In January when they come back from recess, Mitch can gavel in start of the proceedings then call for a simple majority vote to dismiss.  Two days maybe and the Left can pull the trigger on whatever scandal they have warming up in the bullpen.

The House brings no evidence, only rumor and supposition and that's grounds enough to dismiss or even to summarily call for a verdict.  The Left will wail and gnash teeth and their 5th column can go wall to wall with mourning for the loss of our Republic.  In the end, he wins, again.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, and then said:

Mitch basically told Schumer that the Senate doesn't DO investigations at the behest of the House.  It's THEIR task to provide a list of charges and the evidence to convince a jury. 

Meh Mitch said he's working with the WH and Graham flatly said he isnt trying to be impartial. Cant blame Chuck for trying to get them to do something since they arent doing their part as jurors.

14 minutes ago, and then said:

The House brings no evidence, only rumor and supposition and that's grounds enough to dismiss or even to summarily call for a verdict.  The Left will wail and gnash teeth and their 5th column can go wall to wall with mourning for the loss of our Republic.  In the end, he wins, again.

Nah in the end he is most likely forever branded as corrupt :tu:  

The House has the evidence you simply refuse to recognize it. Honestly he really could end up being the first POTUS impeached twice.

14 minutes ago, and then said:

Not sure where you get the idea that he'll be removed. 

By the lack of public support from the rank and file GOP Senators. There is a handful out there willing to face the media but very few. I believe that is because there are still conservatives who care about the Constitution and the sanctity of our representative democracy above the sanctity of Trumpism and "winning".

Every day Trump's behavior grinds against the moral sensibilities of folks like that and each day his behavior degenerates. Obviously purely conjecture on my part but I think Trumps letter today, while being a homerun with the base, has most likely done great damage with those folks. Calling impeachment illegal, claiming those murdered as witches were treated more fairly, claiming that Pelosi is declaring war on democracy in a letter he states he wrote for posterity.  That is wildly dangerous behavior from POTUS that only strengthens the argument that the man needs to be reined in for the sake of the Constitution.

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^^^ Dont get me wrong I still dont think hell actually be removed, I just think theres a better chance today than a month ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, F3SS said:

That letter was fantastic. I only wish he'd interrupt live TV and read it aloud. I'm fairly confident that he's right. The left wing of politics is going to get crushed in 2020. If I'm wrong I'll let you guys point and gloat and go about my life wondering what it means. If I'm right you'll either riot or condone the riots. On that, I take solice in our stark differences.


https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives/
 

just read it and I agree it is very good.... covering everything that needs to be covered...
and putting on historic record what needs to be put on historic record..

This sham impeachment truly is mind numbingly pathetic and deceitful play acting ...
pure electioneering for 2020 - using the offices of State for partisan, political purposes.. 

quote from the letter (my link is the official White House one and can be copy / pasted)

 

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity.  You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.  No intelligent person believes what you are saying.  Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever.  There is no reticence.  This is not a somber affair.  You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.  The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.

 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, and then said:

In January when they come back from recess, Mitch can gavel in start of the proceedings then call for a simple majority vote to dismiss.  

Yeah the simple majority is FOR SURE in question. Ole Mitch may not be making the rules like he thinks.

Schumer weaponizes impeachment trial debate

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On permanent record....

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives/

You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.  You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice.  You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the letter - it will go down in history to be poured over by students long after we've all gone. Just like his twits, future generations will have first hand evidence of the type of president and individual he is.

No need for 3rd hand MSN (or whatever the abbreviation is) reports.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How many of the American Public are going to allow the Impeachment Sham to define politics
at the beginning of the 21st century....?

Letter - Whitehouse link
 

"History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade.  Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution."

 

and good to see this on historical record from the 45th President of the US... clearly outlining how the
Zelensky phone conversation was just cynically used and twisted for the ongoing '''Impeachment Agenda'''....
 

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for “two and a half years,” long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine.  Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”  Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.”  House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country’s best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports)—who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen.  A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the mother*****r.”  Representative Al Green said in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”  Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine.  As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president.  It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!"[/b]

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

Yes the letter - it will go down in history to be poured over by students long after we've all gone. Just like his twits, future generations will have first hand evidence of the type of president and individual he is.

No need for 3rd hand MSN (or whatever the abbreviation is) reports.


exactly so....

but it will not be perceived in the negative way that you are suggesting........... (IMO)

although no doubt debate will rage on :) 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.