Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)
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
Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)
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.
Earl (10-19-2019)
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/
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
C'MON MAN!!!!
Earl (10-19-2019)
domer76 (10-18-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Trumpet (10-19-2019)
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?
Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019)
Nomad (10-18-2019)
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019), Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)
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
Nomad (10-18-2019)
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019), Darth Omar (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019), Stretch (10-18-2019)
TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..
De Oppresso Liber
"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.
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019), dukkha (10-18-2019), Earl (10-19-2019), Grokmaster (10-18-2019)
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.
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019)
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.
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019)
cancel2 2022 (10-18-2019)
Bookmarks