Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 82

Thread: Schiff's Star Chamber

  1. #61 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    16,591
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 7,696 Times in 4,911 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 1,081 Times in 1,013 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    yes there is you moron. why do you think the other impeachments has due process?
    just for fun?
    It's recognized this is a most weighty effort by the House.

    Why the full House votes before starting proecedings
    Why the POTUS has due process

    Nancy doesn't give a damn about due process or passing trade agreements or anything else.
    All she cares about is feeding her member's TDS
    If you are saying "other impeachments" meaning past Presidential impeachments, Johnson didn't even have an inquiry investigation, and in Clinton's case, there was no House inquiry investigation, they used Starr's report. Impeachments of judges and other Gov't officials were done without a formal vote on commencing impeachment inquires. Your precedent arguement isn't applicable

    The House is doing an investigation, reviewing relevant information to determine facts, similar to what a prosecutor does before introducing evidence to a Grand Jury. They are not litigating, the concept of due process you are importing doesn't relate at this point in the process.

    As far as being done in secret, also not accurate, every GOP member of that Committee is, or has the right to, attend everyone of those testimonies, ask questions just as they do when the hearings are on TV, and that includes FOX "regular contributors as Nunes and Radcliffe.

    And Republicans crying about the Democrats investigating is embarrassing, they spent ten years investigating the hell out of anything and everything Obama/Clinton and now they are complaining after the Democrats have been at it nine and half months?

  2. #62 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,706
    Thanks
    7,515
    Thanked 13,180 Times in 9,302 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,211 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    If you are saying "other impeachments" meaning past Presidential impeachments, Johnson didn't even have an inquiry investigation, and in Clinton's case, there was no House inquiry investigation, they used Starr's report. Impeachments of judges and other Gov't officials were done without a formal vote on commencing impeachment inquires. Your precedent arguement isn't applicable

    The House is doing an investigation, reviewing relevant information to determine facts, similar to what a prosecutor does before introducing evidence to a Grand Jury. They are not litigating, the concept of due process you are importing doesn't relate at this point in the process.

    As far as being done in secret, also not accurate, every GOP member of that Committee is, or has the right to, attend everyone of those testimonies, ask questions just as they do when the hearings are on TV, and that includes FOX "regular contributors as Nunes and Radcliffe.

    And Republicans crying about the Democrats investigating is embarrassing, they spent ten years investigating the hell out of anything and everything Obama/Clinton and now they are complaining after the Democrats have been at it nine and half months?
    Starr was used for fact gathering and presented to the House as a crime.
    But then the full House immediately voted on starting the process (hearings) -where is that vote here?
    If you are going to start the Hearings they need to vote on impeachment hearings

  3. #63 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    yes there is you moron. why do you think the other impeachments has due process?
    just for fun?
    It's recognized this is a most weighty effort by the House.

    Why the full House votes before starting proecedings
    Why the POTUS has due process

    Nancy doesn't give a damn about due process or passing trade agreements or anything else.
    All she cares about is feeding her member's TDS
    There is no designated way for the House impeachment process, you fucking moron. This is in the investigative phase. Read the goddam article, dumbshit.

    He gets due process at trial, idiot. Until then, the House sets its own rules in how they go about their impeachment process.

    Fucking ignorant crybaby

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Nomad (10-19-2019)

  5. #64 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    Impeachment depends on High Crimes and misdemeanors
    It's based on removal for a crime. you keep ignoring the text! lol
    Stupid fucking moron. At the founding, that term had nowhere near the meaning that you’re trying to bullshit us with. Educate yourself, if that’s possible.

    The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

    https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html

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

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  7. #65 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,706
    Thanks
    7,515
    Thanked 13,180 Times in 9,302 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,211 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    There is no designated way for the House impeachment process, you fucking moron. This is in the investigative phase. Read the goddam article, dumbshit.

    He gets due process at trial, idiot. Until then, the House sets its own rules in how they go about their impeachment process.

    Fucking ignorant crybaby
    dumb ass domer repeating the same thing doesn't change the facts that the hearings are held in secret ( no transcripts -just selective leaking) so the American people can't see the full picture just Schiff's narrative

    Then what? the House is going to vote on Schiff's narrative? -which is why due process and transparency is needed for an impeachment vote - not voting on Schiffs report or whatever flim-flam he puts out besides leaks

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

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  9. #66 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,706
    Thanks
    7,515
    Thanked 13,180 Times in 9,302 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,211 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Stupid fucking moron. At the founding, that term had nowhere near the meaning that you’re trying to bullshit us with. Educate yourself, if that’s possible.

    The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.

    https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/...demeanors.html
    WTF? why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? I already shot this down.
    the text is clear -all based on crimes not subjective abuse of Office

  10. #67 | Top
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    1,669
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 865 Times in 631 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 33 Times in 29 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
    Awesome thread title!

  11. #68 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    27,965
    Thanks
    7,469
    Thanked 16,787 Times in 11,379 Posts
    Groans
    5
    Groaned 971 Times in 931 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trumpet View Post
    What about the people who have testified???? They have produced very serious testimony against Trump; are they liars?????
    Would they be the first lol?
    “I would like you to do us a favor, I would like you to find out what happened with the whole situation with Ukraine, with CrowdStrike. The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation.”~verbatim, from Trump’s Perfect Call

  12. #69 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    dumb ass domer repeating the same thing doesn't change the facts that the hearings are held in secret ( no transcripts -just selective leaking) so the American people can't see the full picture just Schiff's narrative

    Then what? the House is going to vote on Schiff's narrative? -which is why due process and transparency is needed for an impeachment vote - not voting on Schiffs report or whatever flim-flam he puts out besides leaks
    They don’t have any right to see the procedings at this point.

    Have you read even one reference that I’ve provided you? If not, that means you choose to remain willfully ignorant. If so, you are one incredibly stupid fuck that you can’t grasp the concept.

    Which is it, dumbfuck?

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

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  14. #70 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    WTF? why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? I already shot this down.
    the text is clear -all based on crimes not subjective abuse of Office
    The only thing you’ve shot, stupid fuck, is your foot.

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

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    Nomad (10-19-2019)

  17. #71 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    dumb ass domer repeating the same thing doesn't change the facts that the hearings are held in secret ( no transcripts -just selective leaking) so the American people can't see the full picture just Schiff's narrative

    Then what? the House is going to vote on Schiff's narrative? -which is why due process and transparency is needed for an impeachment vote - not voting on Schiffs report or whatever flim-flam he puts out besides leaks
    These are crimes? lol What a fucking moron!

    “appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates”

    The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

    Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

    https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html

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

    Havana Moon (10-19-2019)

  19. #72 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    35,620
    Thanks
    7,392
    Thanked 9,184 Times in 6,931 Posts
    Groans
    39
    Groaned 2,767 Times in 2,408 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    WTF? why do you keep repeating the same nonsense? I already shot this down.
    the text is clear -all based on crimes not subjective abuse of Office


    The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

    Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place.There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

    https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html

  20. #73 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    14,730
    Thanks
    5,016
    Thanked 7,033 Times in 4,600 Posts
    Groans
    1,077
    Groaned 937 Times in 867 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    yes there is you moron. why do you think the other impeachments has due process?
    just for fun?
    It's recognized this is a most weighty effort by the House.

    Why the full House votes before starting proecedings
    Why the POTUS has due process

    Nancy doesn't give a damn about due process or passing trade agreements or anything else.
    All she cares about is feeding her member's TDS
    domer provided a link to a legitimate source to back himself up.

    You provide nothing but lies, r/w propaganda and crybaby histrionics.

    You are one of the biggest TDS (Trump Delusion Syndrome) sufferers on this site.

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

    domer76 (10-19-2019)

  22. #74 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,706
    Thanks
    7,515
    Thanked 13,180 Times in 9,302 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,211 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    These are crimes? lol What a fucking moron!

    “appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates”

    The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word "misdemeanor" which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.

    Initially the standard was to be "malpractice or neglect of duty." This was removed and replaced with "treason, bribery, or corruption." The word "corruption" was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term "maladministration." This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.

    https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal...procedure.html
    spamming about Parliament isn't doing you any good.
    all this blather falls apart when you look at the text. the text refers to crimes

  23. #75 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    23,706
    Thanks
    7,515
    Thanked 13,180 Times in 9,302 Posts
    Groans
    173
    Groaned 1,211 Times in 1,146 Posts

    Default

    Adam Schiff Flip-Flopped On Whistleblower Testimony After Reports Of Coordination
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/18...-coordination/

    House Democrats’ top impeachment inquisitor abruptly changed from repeatedly insisting on the testimony of a whistleblower against President Donald Trump to working to prevent it. The change occurred as soon as it was revealed the complainant had secretly worked with Rep. Adam Schiff’s Democratic staff prior to filing his formal complaint on Aug. 12.

    At first, Schiff insisted an anti-Trump bureaucrat sharing allegations against the president must share his story with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. But after news broke that Schiff’s staff had secretly worked with the whistleblower prior to the complaint being lodged, discussions that the whistleblower failed to mention when specifically asked about them as part of the official whistleblower process, Schiff moved to prevent the testimony. The move appears designed to prevent Republican lawmakers from asking the individual under oath about his discussions with House Democrats, media, and others involved in the impeachment effort.

    Schiff announced on Sept. 24 the whistleblower had agreed to speak with the committee

    wo days later, Schiff peppered Joseph Maguire, the director of national intelligence, about the need to hear from the “whistleblower” in an uninhibited fashion:

    ADAM SCHIFF: Director, do I have your assurance that once you work out the security clearances for the whistleblower’s counsel, that that whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts within his knowledge that concern wrongdoing by the president or anyone else, that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee, that there will not be some minder from the White House or elsewhere sitting next to them telling them what they can answer or not answer? Do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of the law?

    “We need to speak with the whistleblower,” Schiff and other Democrats proclaimed, repeatedly.

    On Sept. 29, Schiff talked about the whistleblower coming in “without a minder from the Justice Department or from the White House to tell the whistleblower what they can or cannot say. We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”

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
  •