Welcome to America

[Emerald Drifter]

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!

A poll? with 13 legal scholars? Sure would like to see that poll and who the scholars were. The very liberal professor was going good until he just had to inject his juvenile "we got Trump this time" comment at the end.

This is a "get on TV" faux "let's get Trump" escapade. Take a vote Nancy...

 

[Lake View Too]

A poll? with 13 legal scholars? Sure would like to see that poll and who the scholars were. The very liberal professor was going good until he just had to inject his juvenile "we got Trump this time" comment at the end.

This is a "get on TV" faux "let's get Trump" escapade. Take a vote Nancy...

The last paragraph was mine. So sorry that wasn't clear. What is clear, and you can look this up in the Constitution, is "the House has the sole power to impeach and each House may determine the rules of its proceedings". There is no gotcha going on. The constitution is being used as it should be.

 

[Emerald Drifter]

Turkey, a NATO member country is now invading Syria, which is backed by Iran and Russia. When Syria, Russia, or Iran retaliate against Turkey, we are committed by treaty to retaliate against those countries that attack a NATO country. When we renege, then NATO as a viable entity ceases to exist. Have a happy day.

Do we know yet that Syria, Russia, or Iran are going to retaliate against Turkey.

Perhaps part of the plan is to shuffle the deck regarding NATO, or as you state "NATO as a viable entity ceases to exist". Maybe NATO will be broken up? The USSR no longer exists, which is why NATO was assembled in the first place. Alliances are shifting, the world order is changing..

 

[Emerald Drifter]

The last paragraph was mine. So sorry that wasn't clear. What is clear and you can look this up in the Constitution, "the House has the sole power to impeach and each House may determine the rules of its proceedings"

OK. Understood. Let's see how it plays out.

 

[Lake View Too]

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.

Turkey, a NATO member country is now invading Syria, which is backed by Iran and Russia. When Syria, Russia, or Iran retaliate against Turkey, we are committed by treaty to retaliate against those countries that attack a NATO country. When we renege, then NATO as a viable entity ceases to exist. Have a happy day.

 

[Lake View Too]

Do we know yet that Syria, Russia, or Iran are going to retaliate against Turkey.

Perhaps part of the plan is to shuffle the deck regarding NATO, or as you state "NATO as a viable entity ceases to exist". Maybe NATO will be broken up? The USSR no longer exists, which is why NATO was assembled in the first place. Alliances are shifting, the world order is changing..

Why wouldn't Syria retaliate? Russia and Iran don't have much to lose. It would be a great way to make the United States look like a pathetic loser. Are you really sure dismissing every ally we have ever had is a good idea? Do you really want to buddy up to Russia, Iran, and Syria, which have brutal totalitarian regimes?

 

[Lake View Too]

OK. Understood. Let's see how it plays out.

Lindsey Graham, Trey Gowdy, and Mike Pence have all been shown on television condemning any entity that challenges subpoenas and the withholding of documents relevant to an investigation. Oh wait, that was about the last investigation against the Clintons. Hypocrite is just too polite a term. Lying pigs sounds better.

 

[Emerald Drifter]

Are you really sure dismissing every ally we have ever had is a good idea? Do you really want to buddy up to Russia, Iran, and Syria, which have brutal totalitarian regimes?

Of course I am not suggesting we buddy up to Russia, Iran, Syria. I'm not naive to the point that we trust everyone. My concern is a Russian/Chinese alliance who can not only crash the dollar within 48 hours, but are becoming more aligned militarily. To my knowledge, our defenses are still under a directive called PDD 60, signed in 1997 by Clinton (the Clinton signing is irrelevant) whereby we are to ABSORB a nuclear first strike. No more "launch on warning". I would invite anyone to research this and see if any POTUS has rescinded PDD 60. This transcends politics. Info: Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine | Arms Control Association

There was a time when we went to, fought against, and our guys died in Vietnam. What did we as a country gain by that? Now we trade with Vietnam.
Japan. We fought bitterly against Japan. They attacked us. We just this week signed a comprehensive trade agreement with Japan.

Point is we should "stay out of entangling alliances" like Jefferson advised.

 

[Lake View Too]

Of course I am not suggesting we buddy up to Russia, Iran, Syria. I'm not naive to the point that we trust everyone. My concern is a Russian/Chinese alliance who can not only crash the dollar within 48 hours, but are becoming more aligned militarily. To my knowledge, our defenses are still under a directive called PDD 60, signed in 1997 by Clinton (the Clinton signing is irrelevant) whereby we are to ABSORB a nuclear first strike. No more "launch on warning". I would invite anyone to research this and see if any POTUS has rescinded PDD 60. This transcends politics.

There was a time when we went to, fought against, and our guys died in Vietnam. What did we as a country gain by that? Now we trade with Vietnam.
Japan. We fought bitterly against Japan. They attacked us. We just this week signed a comprehensive trade agreement with Japan.

Point is we should "stay out of entangling alliances" like Jefferson advised.

We had a situation that was working for a minimum amount of manpower on the ground. Now we don't.

 

[Leader of the Banned]

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

Massacre and genocide is in the Turks' blood.