Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 82

Thread: Schiff's Star Chamber

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default Schiff's Star Chamber



    secret hearings / secret transcripts ( except cherry picked leaks) and no due process.

    And please don't post such horseshit that "this is just a inquiry" - it's functioning as an impeachment hearing
    ~~

    hold the vote, give process and transparency to the American people

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    Everything wrong with progressives today is playing out in the Star Chamber that Democrats are running as an “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives.
    The Democrats’ have dispensed with due process, precedent, and Constitutional limitation to create a juggernaut designed not to reach a just conclusion, but to ensure a vote impeaching the sitting President and bringing this nation half way to overturning the 2016 election.
    Today’s progressives feel themselves above the law and believe the rest of us, including very much President Donald Trump, are unworthy of its protection. Nowhere is that more apparent at the moment then in this impeachment farce.

    The issues are two-fold.
    First, may the House exercise the power to conduct an impeachment inquiry without formal authorization voted upon by the full House?

    Second, is Nancy Pelosi constitutionally able to manipulate the House rules of impeachment to deny any due process or procedural protection to President Trump and to the minority members of the House? In other words, is it true that Impeachment is nothing more than a particularly one-sided Grand Jury investigation?

    A bit of background first.
    A formal decision to investigate for impeachment is not a meaningless decision or a mere label.
    At a minimum, once the House formally decides upon impeachment, the House accrues powers beyond that which it normally possesses.
    Thus, it is a substantive legal question whether a House impeachment inquiry requires a House vote or whether the Speaker of the House can unilaterally announce the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. I know of no precedent in American or British history supporting Nancy Pelosi’s contention that she can accrue these formal powers of impeachment by simple fiat.
    The House of Representatives normally only has “legislative” authority. Thus House members are limited to investigating and holding hearings on matters that relate directly to producing legislation.
    As with so much in our Constitution, this is not a thing of bright line clarity.
    But as is almost always the case, the fact that there’s no bright line does not mean that there is no line.
    Perhaps the clearest example of line drawing outside of the impeachment context comes from recent House efforts to use a subpoena to force the IRS to release Trump’s tax returns.
    When Trump refused to honor the subpoena, his attorneys pointed out that the House, while its members may have a political interest in reviewing Trump’s tax returns, have no legitimate legislative interest.

    The House of Representatives accrues an additional power (i.e., “judicial power”) only when conducting an impeachment action.
    That gives the House the power to overcome many claims of executive privilege for materials; to subpoena materials and testimony on topics beyond the House’s inherent legislative interests; and to access materials to which it otherwise has no legal right, such as grand jury testimony.
    When the House authorizes an impeachment, the question is no longer whether the House has a legitimate legislative purpose for its subpoenas, but whether the matter is relevant to its exercise of a judicial power on the specific matter before it.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (10-19-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    The Constitution, Article I, Sec. II, Clause 5, states that “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
    Note that the language on its face establishes unambiguously that the power belongs to the House of Representatives collectively, not to the Speaker of the House and not to a House Committee Chairman.
    This makes sense because, to the extent impeachment overturns the People’s will, it’s important for the next election cycle that the People’s representatives go on record with their stand on the issue.

    True, the Constitution does not set forth the precise procedure the House must follow for impeachment.
    That said — and I know you will find this surprising history does not support initiating a presidential impeachment using anything other than a resolution voted upon by the full House.

    In our nation’s history, only three sitting presidents have been subject to impeachment proceedings.
    The House initiated Andrew Johnson’s impeachment after voting on a Resolution to Impeach, and only after that vote was counted did the House order the Judiciary Committee to meet and draw up articles of impeachment which the House then voted to approve and send to the Senate.
    Over a century later, the process to impeach Richard Nixon began when the entire House voted on a resolution to send the matter for investigation to the Judiciary Committee.
    And Bill Clinton’s impeachment likewise began when the full House voted on a resolution to begin the impeachment process.
    ~~

    the Founders adopted the impeachment process from Britain’s historical practice, which dates back to the 14th century.
    For instance, in the 19th century series Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol. IV (Relating to Conference, and Impeachment), the author traces all of the impeachment proceedings in the House of Commons over a period of centuries, none of which, to the extent it can be ascertained, support initiating proceedings by anything other than a full vote of the body.
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/10/...r-impeachment/

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (10-19-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    14,754
    Thanks
    5,025
    Thanked 7,041 Times in 4,606 Posts
    Groans
    1,083
    Groaned 943 Times in 872 Posts

    Default

    They aren't hearings. They're taking depositions.

    From WSJ...

    Democrats counter that the inquiry, which is being conducted by three House committees, is in its early, fact-finding stage. They point to previous House investigations that have had closed-door depositions and said they intended to make the testimonies public.

    The depositions are taking place in a secure area in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building. Mr. Schiff, who is leading the inquiry, along with the leaders of the Foreign Affairs and Oversight panels, said Wednesday the reason for the closed-door interviews was to prevent witnesses coordinating their testimony to line up a description of events.


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-...gs-11571423200

  8. The Following User Groans At Nomad For This Awful Post:

    Earl (10-19-2019)

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Nomad For This Post:

    domer76 (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Trumpet (10-19-2019)

  10. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    The Democratic House wants to deny President Trump anything resembling due process.
    It seems to view its role as akin to a grand jury with the Senate acting as a regular jury.
    A suspected criminal has very few rights before the grand jury. His opportunity for due process is afforded at the trial stage.

    This model has very little to recommend it, either by way of precedent or common sense, in the impeachment context. The two modern impeachment proceedings — of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton — weren’t handled this way. In both instances, the House adopted procedures that afforded the president due process.

    The procedures approved by the Judiciary Committee for the Nixon and Clinton impeachments stated “[t]he President’s counsel may question any witness called before the Committee.”
    President Clinton’s attorney questioned Ken Starr when he appeared before the Judiciary Committee and President Nixon’s attorney questioned each of the nine witnesses that appeared before the Judiciary Committee.

    The procedures approved by the Judiciary Committee for the Nixon and Clinton impeachments stated “[t]he President and his counsel shall be invited to attend all hearings, including any held in executive session.”
    President Clinton’s attorneys were allowed to call and question 14 expert witnesses before the Judiciary Committee.

    Finally, it’s my understanding that in every prior presidential impeachment inquiry in American history, the full House voted to authorize the inquiry.

    Our Founders knew the problems of this rule by tyranny of the majority and it is why they designed a Constitution to minimize its impacts everywhere they could foresee it as a problem. As John Adams wrote, democracy unchecked by rules to protect the minority produces naught but “fraud, violence and cruelty.” Alexander Hamilton wrote of it that its “very character” is “tyranny,” its very “figure deformity.” And as Madison wrote, “A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.” Marvin Simkin, writing in the Los Angeles Times in 1992, gave those sentiments a more modern cast:

    Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.

    More openly than ever before in our Nation’s history, progressives desire pure democracy — at least so long as they hold a numerical majority by fair means or foul — for this country.
    We are seeing it at the micro level in this impeachment proceeding, but we are seeing it at the macro level in everything else progressives do.
    Whenever they achieve a majority, then they want the rules changed to a pure democracy so they can exercise unfettered power.
    And with those rule changes come such things as Court packing, so that they will tie the hands of non-progressives and always rule over this country, even when out of the majority.

    Our system of government is designed to respect the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority and the individual.
    It is why our government is designed as a Republic rather than a democracy.
    In the legal sense, “due process” exists to insure that the individual does not unfairly become the victim of the passions of someone cloaked in the power of government.
    In the political sense, “checks and balances” exist to insure that, while the majority will is respected, the rights of the minority party are protected.
    Are all of those to be tossed out now
    , sacrificed on the progressive altar of “orange man bad” and the belief that only progressives have an inherent and moral right to rule over the rest of us?

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019)

  12. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    They aren't hearings. They're taking depositions.

    From WSJ...

    Democrats counter that the inquiry, which is being conducted by three House committees, is in its early, fact-finding stage. They point to previous House investigations that have had closed-door depositions and said they intended to make the testimonies public.

    The depositions are taking place in a secure area in the basement of the U.S. Capitol building. Mr. Schiff, who is leading the inquiry, along with the leaders of the Foreign Affairs and Oversight panels, said Wednesday the reason for the closed-door interviews was to prevent witnesses coordinating their testimony to line up a description of events.


    https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-...gs-11571423200
    so what? it's a distinction without a difference until there is a full House vote to Impeach.
    abd "dispostion"is a fake argument as well until there is an enumerated crime ( like prosecutors take dispositions)
    AFTER a crime is uttered

  13. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    Nomad (10-18-2019)

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Havana Moon (10-19-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)

  15. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    The Constitution, Article I, Sec. II, Clause 5, states that “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
    Note that the language on its face establishes unambiguously that the power belongs to the House of Representatives collectively, not to the Speaker of the House and not to a House Committee Chairman.
    This makes sense because, to the extent that impeachment overturns the People’s will

  16. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    Nomad (10-18-2019)

  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Havana Moon (10-19-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)

  18. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    3,749
    Thanks
    2,018
    Thanked 2,993 Times in 1,966 Posts
    Groans
    106
    Groaned 121 Times in 119 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post


    secret hearings / secret transcripts ( except cherry picked leaks) and no due process.

    And please don't post such horseshit that "this is just a inquiry" - it's functioning as an impeachment hearing
    ~~

    hold the vote, give process and transparency to the American people
    Stalin's BASTARD CHILDREN....the House POLITBURO....
    De Oppresso Liber

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grokmaster For This Post:

    Earl (10-19-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)

  20. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    18,275
    Thanks
    19,655
    Thanked 11,177 Times in 7,760 Posts
    Groans
    201
    Groaned 756 Times in 718 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    The Constitution, Article I, Sec. II, Clause 5, states that “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
    Note that the language on its face establishes unambiguously that the power belongs to the House of Representatives collectively, not to the Speaker of the House and not to a House Committee Chairman.
    This makes sense because, to the extent that impeachment overturns the People’s will
    "establishes unambiguously that the power belongs to the House of Representatives collectively, not to the Speaker of the House and not to a House Committee Chairman."

    Exactly. Right now it's like a bunch of little kids playing dress-up or make-believe. It will
    continue though because THIS is their campaign strategy...and a losing one at that.
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Stretch For This Post:

    dukkha (10-18-2019), Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  22. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    14,754
    Thanks
    5,025
    Thanked 7,041 Times in 4,606 Posts
    Groans
    1,083
    Groaned 943 Times in 872 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    so what? it's a distinction without a difference until there is a full House vote to Impeach.
    abd "dispostion"is a fake argument as well until there is an enumerated crime ( like prosecutors take dispositions)
    AFTER a crime is uttered
    Which Walmart did you get your law degree from?

    You're so full of crap.

  23. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,928
    Thanks
    7,578
    Thanked 13,363 Times in 9,402 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,214 Times in 1,149 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Which Walmart did you get your law degree from?

    You're so full of crap.
    so you got nothing,,duly noted

  24. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    5,702
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 2,465 Times in 1,742 Posts
    Groans
    825
    Groaned 788 Times in 725 Posts

    Default

    They are not secret hearings. The Repubs who are on the committees attend every one of them and have equal time for questioning. They are simply not public. That is not the same thing. However, Schiff said they will have public ones soon and you will like that a lot less. Then you will start threads about why they should not be in conference and not on CSPAN.

  25. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,970
    Thanks
    7,470
    Thanked 9,263 Times in 6,993 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 3,017 Times in 2,619 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post


    secret hearings / secret transcripts ( except cherry picked leaks) and no due process.

    And please don't post such horseshit that "this is just a inquiry" - it's functioning as an impeachment hearing
    ~~

    hold the vote, give process and transparency to the American people
    Be patient, bitch. You’ll get to see all the transcripts at impeachment

  26. The Following User Groans At domer76 For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  27. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,970
    Thanks
    7,470
    Thanked 9,263 Times in 6,993 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 3,017 Times in 2,619 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    Everything wrong with progressives today is playing out in the Star Chamber that Democrats are running as an “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives.
    The Democrats’ have dispensed with due process, precedent, and Constitutional limitation to create a juggernaut designed not to reach a just conclusion, but to ensure a vote impeaching the sitting President and bringing this nation half way to overturning the 2016 election.
    Today’s progressives feel themselves above the law and believe the rest of us, including very much President Donald Trump, are unworthy of its protection. Nowhere is that more apparent at the moment then in this impeachment farce.

    The issues are two-fold.
    First, may the House exercise the power to conduct an impeachment inquiry without formal authorization voted upon by the full House?

    Second, is Nancy Pelosi constitutionally able to manipulate the House rules of impeachment to deny any due process or procedural protection to President Trump and to the minority members of the House? In other words, is it true that Impeachment is nothing more than a particularly one-sided Grand Jury investigation?

    A bit of background first.
    A formal decision to investigate for impeachment is not a meaningless decision or a mere label.
    At a minimum, once the House formally decides upon impeachment, the House accrues powers beyond that which it normally possesses.
    Thus, it is a substantive legal question whether a House impeachment inquiry requires a House vote or whether the Speaker of the House can unilaterally announce the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. I know of no precedent in American or British history supporting Nancy Pelosi’s contention that she can accrue these formal powers of impeachment by simple fiat.
    The House of Representatives normally only has “legislative” authority. Thus House members are limited to investigating and holding hearings on matters that relate directly to producing legislation.
    As with so much in our Constitution, this is not a thing of bright line clarity.
    But as is almost always the case, the fact that there’s no bright line does not mean that there is no line.
    Perhaps the clearest example of line drawing outside of the impeachment context comes from recent House efforts to use a subpoena to force the IRS to release Trump’s tax returns.
    When Trump refused to honor the subpoena, his attorneys pointed out that the House, while its members may have a political interest in reviewing Trump’s tax returns, have no legitimate legislative interest.

    The House of Representatives accrues an additional power (i.e., “judicial power”) only when conducting an impeachment action.
    That gives the House the power to overcome many claims of executive privilege for materials; to subpoena materials and testimony on topics beyond the House’s inherent legislative interests; and to access materials to which it otherwise has no legal right, such as grand jury testimony.
    When the House authorizes an impeachment, the question is no longer whether the House has a legitimate legislative purpose for its subpoenas, but whether the matter is relevant to its exercise of a judicial power on the specific matter before it.
    Dumbfuck, due process does not exist in the impeachment stage. The House can impeach without a single fucking interview or hearing. Due process occurs in the Senate.

    There is NOTHING in the Constitution about the process of impeachment. Only that the House has the power to impeach. They can use whatever process they like.

  28. The Following User Groans At domer76 For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  29. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,970
    Thanks
    7,470
    Thanked 9,263 Times in 6,993 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 3,017 Times in 2,619 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    The Constitution, Article I, Sec. II, Clause 5, states that “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
    Note that the language on its face establishes unambiguously that the power belongs to the House of Representatives collectively, not to the Speaker of the House and not to a House Committee Chairman.
    This makes sense because, to the extent impeachment overturns the People’s will, it’s important for the next election cycle that the People’s representatives go on record with their stand on the issue.

    True, the Constitution does not set forth the precise procedure the House must follow for impeachment.
    That said — and I know you will find this surprising history does not support initiating a presidential impeachment using anything other than a resolution voted upon by the full House.

    In our nation’s history, only three sitting presidents have been subject to impeachment proceedings.
    The House initiated Andrew Johnson’s impeachment after voting on a Resolution to Impeach, and only after that vote was counted did the House order the Judiciary Committee to meet and draw up articles of impeachment which the House then voted to approve and send to the Senate.
    Over a century later, the process to impeach Richard Nixon began when the entire House voted on a resolution to send the matter for investigation to the Judiciary Committee.
    And Bill Clinton’s impeachment likewise began when the full House voted on a resolution to begin the impeachment process.
    ~~

    the Founders adopted the impeachment process from Britain’s historical practice, which dates back to the 14th century.
    For instance, in the 19th century series Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol. IV (Relating to Conference, and Impeachment), the author traces all of the impeachment proceedings in the House of Commons over a period of centuries, none of which, to the extent it can be ascertained, support initiating proceedings by anything other than a full vote of the body.
    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2019/10/...r-impeachment/



    Your desperation is amusing

    Bookwormroom. Just another extreme RW hack site

  30. The Following User Groans At domer76 For This Awful Post:

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. BIG BOY CHAMBER
    By Getin the ring in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-28-2018, 11:40 AM
  2. Seething Echo Chamber
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-22-2013, 06:37 PM
  3. Liberal echo chamber
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-20-2013, 06:28 PM
  4. Chamber of Commerce
    By ZappasGuitar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 12-13-2012, 03:35 PM
  5. US chamber of commerce?
    By Never forget Christchurch in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-12-2008, 01:28 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •