Schiff's Star Chamber

[dukkha]

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

[dukkha]

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.

[domer76]

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.

[Darth Omar]

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.

But you won’t like due process, if and when, it ever happens lol.

What other nasty precedents will The Resistance set on their perverse mission to overturn the election and subvert the will of 63 million voters? They succeeded in recruiting the FBI in opposition research and now Nancy made it so ‘impeachment inquiries’ can be commissioned by fiat and held in the basement.

What do you have in store next?

[domer76]

But you won’t like due process, if and when, it ever happens lol.

What other nasty precedents will The Resistance set on their perverse mission to overturn the election and subvert the will of 63 million voters? They succeeded in recruiting the FBI in opposition research and now Nancy made it so ‘impeachment inquiries’ can be commissioned by fiat and held in the basement.

What do you have in store next?

Let’s try this again, dumbfuck

THERE EXISTS NO DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT.

Trump has no right to confront his accusers or anything else related to due process. It’s not criminal proceeding

[Darth Omar]

Let’s try this again, dumbfuck

THERE EXISTS NO DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT.

Trump has no right to confront his accusers or anything else related to due process. It’s not criminal proceeding

You’re right about that much at least lol.

What kind of ‘proceeding’ is it though? I would say ‘Witch Hunt’ probably best describes it. Democrats are using the transcript or ‘transcripts’ as a justification to find something/anything they can draft articles of impeachment with.

At this point, they’re not even sure what they’re looking for. Maybe Inquisition is a better term.

Do you goof balls ever think ahead? What do you suppose would happen if The Resistance’s dreams are fulfilled and Trump is impeached and removed? Do you think republicans will be motivated to turn out in 2020? Do you think democrats would be able to keep the House?

Do you ever ask yourselves if it’s really worth it?

[Earl]

Let’s try this again, dumbfuck

THERE EXISTS NO DUE PROCESS IN THE HOUSE IMPEACHMENT.

Trump has no right to confront his accusers or anything else related to due process. It’s not criminal proceeding

Indeed...in secret, behind closed doors. No due process, no confronting his accusers.

[dukkha]

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/

[domer76]

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

[Nomad]

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

[dukkha]

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

[Nomad]

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.

[dukkha]

Which Walmart did you get your law degree from?

You're so full of crap.

so you got nothing,,duly noted

[Nomad]

so you got nothing,,duly noted

Nothing is better than the screwball lies and propaganda that you've got.

If what the House Democrats are doing is in any way illegal or unconstitutional, why isn't Trump or his sycophants in the GOP challenging the proceedings in court?

Why isn't the SCOTUS taking up the case, given the magnitude of the issue?

The answer is easy... there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. You and the rest of Trump's legion of right-wing tools, fools, goons, trolls, willing dupes and apologists, are doing what you always do... muddying the water by deflecting attention away from Trump's own highly questionable and highly suspect activities by concocting, inventing and waving around all manner of false flags which, upon closer inspection, are as artificial and transparent as plastic wrap.

You are truly disgusting and pitiable human beings.

[domer76]

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

Impeachment in the House doesn’t require a crime, dumbfuck