Welcome to America

[FdxUsmc]

Where exactly in my post did I claim a vote was required?

 

[PoppaJ]

Where exactly in my post did I claim a vote was required?

Sorry, I had you confused with one of the other members of the Treason Trio.
Back to your post. Your concern for being able to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans does not apply.

 

[Lake View Too]

There is a precedent in the house. Clinton and Johnson. Dems have denied POTUS the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. Dems have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives — under the control of either political party — taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Why are Dems so scared to hold a vote? Could it be they are just playing politics?

[/QUOTE]
If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.

 

[PoppaJ]

Here is something you whiny trumpers need to realize, remember the phrase you reap what you sow. House rules have changed. During the Nixon and Clinton eras, House committee chairmen did not have subpoena authority, and needed an inquiry-beginning vote to grant that power. Today, thanks to the GOP, the House majority has unilateral subpoena power, removing a big incentive for such a vote.

Speaker Pelosi may also be holding an impeachment-inquiry vote in reserve, in case she needs it to convince the courts to force the White House to turn over documents or testimony.

I took most of this from the CSM.

 

[Lake View Too]

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

Does genocide and aiding and abetting the enemy (Isis prisoners held by Kurds) count as high crimes and misdemeanors? Asking for a friend (humanity).

 

[FdxUsmc]

If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.[/QUOTE]
Facts come out like the full Volker testimony?

 

[Lake View Too]

If the subpoenaed officials testify before Congress, the Republicans will have plenty of time to question them. That’s the way the system works. The more people that testify, the more the facts will come out. The Republican will have every opportunity to try to undermine them. Same thing with the documents that are subpoenaed : the Republicans get access to them the same as the Democrats. That’s the way the system works.

Facts come out like the full Volker testimony?[/QUOTE]
The full intact transcript. Keep your focus, man! All these leeches aren’t that important.

 

[Lake View Too]

Douglas Spencer, law professor, University of Connecticut
"The Constitution is not clear about a lot of things. When it comes to impeachment, however, the language is clear: The House of Representatives “shall have the sole power of impeachment.” The Constitution is also clear that “each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

The Constitution is clear that the House can follow whatever rules it wants. Congress is engaged in an investigation, not a trial. If the president is impeached (a.k.a. indicted) then he would have the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses as part of his trial in the Senate. It is wrong to conflate an impeachment with a trial.

Finally, is there a legitimate basis for the current inquiry? The Supreme Court has held that congressional oversight is not unlimited. In Watkins v. United States (1957) the Court held that Congressional inquiries “must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.” As a result, the Court in 1957 threw out a conviction against union organizer John Watkins who had been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions by members of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

The Constitution doesn’t explicitly grant the House of Representatives the sole power of rooting out Communism. On the other hand, the Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It’s hard to see how Watkins would apply in this case."

This was an excerpt from a poll of 13 legal scholars (all law professors) who unanimously concluded that the House is conducting this investigation lawfully and correctly, according to the Constitution. They gave extending reasons for their answers. When the House calls for a vote to impeach, and when they do impeach the president*, then it goes to "trial" in the Senate. At that time, witnesses are called, and witnesses are cross-examined and evidence is presented. At that time, of course, the president* can take the stand and testify under oath that he did not say any of those things that approximately 10 people heard him say in the phone call. Hahahahahahaha… sometimes I am so funny!

 

[Emerald Drifter]

Bullshit. Watch what happens and it ain't unicorns and leprechauns. 1000s of years of hate does not have a fairy tale outcome.

OK. I will watch what happens. Let's watch this play out and revisit this in a few months?

What matters to us Americans is that our troops are not in Syria, who has not threatened or attacked America. Nor do we have any kind of treaty with Syria authorizing us to occupy their sovereign land.

 

[Emerald Drifter]

And just like that the Turks already bombing the Kurds. So much for kumbaya.

Trump treats allies like he does his whores, love em and leave em.

Who said it was going to be kumbaya? Who are you saying is our ally? Kurds? Please present any document/treaty showing where America is a Kurdish ally.

There is conflict world wide, "wars and rumors of wars". If said country has not attacked us or one of our allies with whom we have a treaty, we should not be involved.