44 minutes ago, atyclb said:

my friends with masters and doctorates in business finance, banking, markets ,trading that do think a tiny bit say the economy is on fire.

My fault for being clearer. I was thinking of the comments that investigating for possible impeachment was nothing than a witch hunt. Yes, my stocks are holding up well for supporting my retirement of $2400.00 a month (1/2 from SS). My concerns are broader extending to those at minimum wage, faced with the outsized medical bills, the treats to Social Security/Medicare. Those with the degrees in finance, banking, markets trading know a lot more than me in their subject area. Mine is limited to history.

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Are you saying that a sub committee can now investigate to impeach without the approval of congress? That doesn't sound very democratic. Impeachment is a very big deal and should require a majority of the house in support.

Thats exactly what im saying. Maybe it should require it. But it doesnt.

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Thats exactly what im saying. Maybe it should require it. But it doesnt.

With that sort of Mickey Mouse rules, I'm not surprised that Trump is refusing to co operate.

 

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Because it isnt a trial, its an investigation.

 

The trial is in the senate.

No it isn't. 

 

The decision to impeach was announced before the first whistleblower testimony was seen. Pelosi clearly announced that there would be impeachment. From that point forward, this has clearly been an impeachment. 

 

Plus - witnesses are being called to testify in front of the people that will hold the impeachment proceedings.

 

That is not an investigation. Investigators are not prosecutors. 

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

With that sort of Mickey Mouse rules, I'm not surprised that Trump is refusing to co operate.

 

He has no choice. It was republicans that changed the rules.

 

If he doesnt comply its an impeachable offence.

4 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

No it isn't. 

 

The decision to impeach was announced before the first whistleblower testimony was seen. Pelosi clearly announced that there would be impeachment. From that point forward, this has clearly been an impeachment. 

 

Plus - witnesses are being called to testify in front of the people that will hold the impeachment proceedings.

 

That is not an investigation. Investigators are not prosecutors. 

There has been no decision to impeach. Thete has been a decision to commence impeachment inquiry. There is a difference.

 

Once the investigation is complete. The evidence is presented to the full house for a vote.

 

If approved it goes to senate for trial.

This explains in detail why Pelosi will not and should not bring a vote to the floor to begin an impeachment inquiry that has already begun. 

 

Quote

Why Democrats aren't planning to vote on an impeachment inquiry

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html

 

 

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There has been no decision to impeach. Thete has been a decision to commence impeachment inquiry. There is a difference.

 

Once the investigation is complete. The evidence is presented to the full house for a vote.

 

If approved it goes to senate for trial.

The decision to impeach Trump was made in 2016.

 

Dems have merely been trying to fit a crime to the punishment since then.

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

There has been no decision to impeach. Thete has been a decision to commence impeachment inquiry. There is a difference.

 

Once the investigation is complete. The evidence is presented to the full house for a vote.

 

If approved it goes to senate for trial.

Who decided? The constitution gives sole authority to impeach to the House, the House, not some democrats, not a committee chairman... By not holding a vote, democrats are tying to exclude the other party, i.e., it is a partisan muckrake. Now read about the vote to initiate impeachment of Bill Clinton.

 

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which were subsequently detailed in two articles of impeachment.

 

The house later voted to adopt the articles of impeachment.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

 

3 hours ago, riclag said:

He was elected POTUS!

Correct, and now there's ample evidence he's both a criminal and a traitor so he has to go post haste.

8 minutes ago, rabas said:

Who decided? The constitution gives sole authority to impeach to the House, the House, not some democrats, not a committee chairman... By not holding a vote, democrats are tying to exclude the other party, i.e., it is a partisan muckrake. Now read about the vote to initiate impeachment of Bill Clinton.

 

The impeachment of Bill Clinton was initiated on October 8, 1998, when the United States House of Representatives voted to commence impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton, 42nd president of the United States, for "high crimes and misdemeanors", which were subsequently detailed in two articles of impeachment.

 

The house later voted to adopt the articles of impeachment.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

 

The republican house decided when it changed the rules.

 

The hose majority has complete control to do it any way they want.

Lindsay back in the day had a quite different view.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

The republican house decided when it changed the rules.

 

The hose majority has complete control to do it any way they want.

reference please.

Back in the day, everyone had a different view, both parties. See Newsweek on hypocrisy. That's how you know it is all partisan muckrake, back then and today. Even Steven, same same.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/hypocrisy-impeachment-lawmakers-stances-ousting-president-change-clinton-trump-1462773

 

 

 

Just now, Sujo said:

Lindsay back in the day had a quite different view.

 

 

 

Lindsay daying simply refusing to comply with subpoena is impeachable.

 

 

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

reference please.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

reference please.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html

 

Sorry that (the article) refers to a more recent rule change about subpoena powers, not the vote to initiate impeachment proceedings. In common parlance partisan muckraking becomes easier but no less so.

what a delight to see the partisan dem impeachment charade fallin apart in fact no floor vote no impeachment inquiry. 

 

wbr

roobaa01

7 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Sorry that (the article) refers to a more recent rule change about subpoena powers, not the vote to initiate impeachment proceedings. In common parlance partisan muckraking becomes easier but no less so.

From the.article.

 

 

In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.

 

During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.

7 hours ago, Sujo said:

This must make trumps supporters sad. They have been saying impeachment is bad for the dems as all the dirty laundry will come out.

 

Now they will have to do backflips.

Democrat dirty laundry is coming out impeachment or not.

1 minute ago, chokrai said:

Democrat dirty laundry is coming out impeachment or not.

What is it.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Because it isnt a trial, its an investigation.

 

The trial is in the senate.

So vote and lets have the trial. Of course that is what the Democrats are afraid of. Scum that they are.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Which is obstruction of justice. An impeachable offence.

So you are the judge now? 

7 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

"...Legal experts said the U.S. Constitution gives the House broad discretion to decide how to conduct an impeachment investigation and that the Supreme Court would not second-guess the procedures Congress adopts.

"They can do the investigation in more or less any order they want," said Frank Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and the author of a book on impeachment..."

 

It is truly stunning to see the continual breaking of Democratic norms occurring in plain sight. It is even more stunning to see it occurring in silence from the Republican party; the Republican party has run for years on a platform of Rule of Law, Limited Government and respect for Law and Order. In one of history's truly great bouts of cynicism, the Republicans wailed against "Executive Over-Reach" by Obama amid concerns over the "Imperial Presidency", yet somehow don't seem to have a problem with it under Trump.

 

While the US does have a written constitution, its system of Governance relies heavily on the implied acceptance of many norms to allow it to function and on the parties/congressmen's pledge to enforce them. Sadly those norms, in this case the right of Congress to provide over-sight and to investigate an Administration, are being ignored and the US judiciary does not have the ability to work rapidly enough to meaningfully arbitrate the disputes. Put another way, the Trump policy of stone-walling each and every action by the Congress renders the US system of Government useless on a practical level, thus depriving Americans of the proverbial 'Check and Balances' they they believe they have, and installing an Administration that is De Facto is un-bound and un-checked. Is the US under Trump still Democratic? That should be a ridiculous question, but give it some thought; without oversight...

 

How does the US deal with this issue? The answer lies with the Republican party in congress stepping up to its constitutional duties and providing a counter-weight to the Trump Administration. However, to date the Republican party has not fulfilled its obligations, but has enabled the shredding of norms in clear contrast to its actions and rhetoric of the Obama years.

 

The actions of several members of the Republican party in the Nixon years have been called "Profiles in Courage" as members stood to put country over party and did the right thing. The current Republican party, with very few exceptions, is not acting in a similar vein.

 

It is a violation of the oath taken by Congressmen.

 

it is a dereliction of duty of the job of a Congressman.

 

It is a display of weapons-grade hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Hasn't the GOP asked for an impeachment vote in the House, doesn't the GOP have a right to bring in defence witnesses who can be questioned and cross-examined by trained staff, doesn't the house majority want a convincing majority based on "fact" and "truth" to come to a reasonable decision? You've a pretty one-sided view!

1 minute ago, chokrai said:

So you are the judge now? 

It is whatever congress says it is.

2 minutes ago, chokrai said:

So you are the judge now? 

Poster is pointing out a fact. Facts are Kryptonite to Trump supporters.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

He has no choice. It was republicans that changed the rules.

 

If he doesnt comply its an impeachable offence.

So impeach him already.

15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

From the.article.

 

In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.

 

During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.

Correct! Now read it again, carefully.  She does not need the vote (solely and only) for subpoena powers. Nothing specific to impeachment proceedings. As I said they can more easily muckrake without formally starting the impeachment proceedings.

 

The article is poor reporting that leaves readers blurred.

4 minutes ago, chokrai said:

So vote and lets have the trial. Of course that is what the Democrats are afraid of. Scum that they are.

Why? Dont u want an investigation to see if the president is a corrupt traitor? 

 

Wouldnt you want to know he is a fine upstandng man?

1 minute ago, rabas said:

Correct! Now read it again, carefully.  She does not need the vote (solely and only) for subpoena powers. Nothing specific to impeachment proceedings. As I said they can more easily muckrake without formally starting the impeachment proceedings.

 

The article is poor reporting that leaves readers blurred.

Read the first paragraph. She already has the power so no vote needed.

 

In previous proceedings there was no such power so a vote was needed.

 

Thats why no vote is needed.