How Many Republicans will Back the Pelosi Resolution?

[BDKJMU]

So..the Republicans vote against the rules. The openness that they wanted..they just voted against.

Because the rules in this democrat shampeachment are a complete sham. They go against precedence of past impeachment proceedings by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses? This whole farce will be nothing more than a 3 ring political circus..

[Ivytalk]

So..the Republicans vote against the rules. The openness that they wanted..they just voted against.

Because the rules in this democrat shampeachment are a complete sham. They go against precedence of past impeachment proceedings by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses? This whole farce will be nothing more than a 3 ring political circus..

This vote was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. — Fielding BDKJMellishU

[Skjellyfetti]

What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses?

Hey Beavis, this isn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate.

This is akin to a grand jury. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses.

[CAA Flagship]

Because the rules in this democrat shampeachment are a complete sham. They go against precedence of past impeachment proceedings by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses? This whole farce will be nothing more than a 3 ring political circus..

This vote was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. — Fielding BDKJMellishU

phpBB [video]

[AZGrizFan]

What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses?

Hey Beavis, this isn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate.

This is akin to a grand jury. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses.

Yeah, because if the defense got to call witnesses this fucking charade would be over in a week.

[UNI88]

What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses?

Hey Beavis, this isn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate.

This is akin to a grand jury. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses.

How did it work when Clinton was impeached?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Hey Beavis, this isn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate.

This is akin to a grand jury. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses.

How did it work when Clinton was impeached?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

The same damn way.

Cliff's Notes: The chair or ranking member can request a subpoena. If they both agree - the subpoena is issued. If one agrees and the other disagrees - it goes to the full committee for a vote. And.... you guessed it... the majority is gonna win that.

From Clinton's:

SECTION 2. (b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised:

�(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision

http://movies2.nytimes.com/library/poli ... -text.html

From Trump's: (sorry the formatting sucks. Copy and pasting from PDF on my phone isn't easy)

(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the
2 Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the
3 concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed nec-
4 essary to the investigation—
5 (i) by subpoena or otherwise—
6 (I) the attendance and testimony
7 of any person (including at a taking
8 of a deposition); and
9 (II) the production of books,
10 records, correspondence, memoranda,
11 papers, and documents; and
12 (ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of
13 information.
14 (B) In the case that the chair declines to con-
15 cur in a proposed action of the ranking minority
16 member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking
17 minority member shall have the right to refer to the
18 committee for decision the question whether such
19 authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall
20 convene the committee promptly to render that deci-
21 sion, subject to the notice procedures for a com-
22 mittee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of
23 rule XI.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... resolution

[Ibanez]

So..the Republicans vote against the rules. The openness that they wanted..they just voted against.

Because the rules in this democrat shampeachment are a complete sham. They go against precedence of past impeachment proceedings by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses? This whole farce will be nothing more than a 3 ring political circus..

This isn’t a trial. This occurs in the Senate not the house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Because the rules in this democrat shampeachment are a complete sham. They go against precedence of past impeachment proceedings by requiring the consent of Democratic chairs to subpoena witnesses. What kind of trial allows only 1 side to subpoena witnesses? This whole farce will be nothing more than a 3 ring political circus..

This vote was a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. — Fielding BDKJMellishU

Hahaha. That made me laugh out loud on the train.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

How did it work when Clinton was impeached?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

The same damn way.

Cliff's Notes: The chair or ranking member can request a subpoena. If they both agree - the subpoena is issued. If one agrees and the other disagrees - it goes to the full committee for a vote. And.... you guessed it... the majority is gonna win that.

From Clinton's:

SECTION 2. (b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised:

�(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone, except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be convened promptly to render that decision

http://movies2.nytimes.com/library/poli ... -text.html

From Trump's: (sorry the formatting sucks. Copy and pasting from PDF on my phone isn't easy)

(4)(A) The ranking minority member of the
2 Permanent Select Committee is authorized, with the
3 concurrence of the chair, to require, as deemed nec-
4 essary to the investigation—
5 (i) by subpoena or otherwise—
6 (I) the attendance and testimony
7 of any person (including at a taking
8 of a deposition); and
9 (II) the production of books,
10 records, correspondence, memoranda,
11 papers, and documents; and
12 (ii) by interrogatory, the furnishing of
13 information.
14 (B) In the case that the chair declines to con-
15 cur in a proposed action of the ranking minority
16 member pursuant to subparagraph (A), the ranking
17 minority member shall have the right to refer to the
18 committee for decision the question whether such
19 authority shall be so exercised and the chair shall
20 convene the committee promptly to render that deci-
21 sion, subject to the notice procedures for a com-
22 mittee meeting under clause 2(g)(3)(A) and (B) of
23 rule XI.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.or ... resolution

If that's true then the Republicans are being hypocrites. I'd like to be outraged by it but I've come to expect it from Congress critters.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

a lot of smoke and memory loss from the Republicans on this whole process...

[Skjellyfetti]

They can't argue the substance. It's almost a daily deposition for the past week+ confirming or elaborating on the substance.

Their only way to fight it is to attack the process. It is a political process. Every impeachment has been. But, it's the process in the Constitution so, it's what we got.

[SDHornet]

Hey Beavis, this isn't a trial. The trial is in the Senate.

This is akin to a grand jury. The defense doesn't get to call witnesses.

How did it work when Clinton was impeached?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Did the House intel committee and not the House judicial committee also hold the reigns during the Clinton impeachment? Also are the rules that were just voted on the same as those during the Clinton impeachment?

Maybe Ivy or one of the CS.com lawyers (the real life version, not the internet version) can inform us of the difference.

[89Hen]

They can't argue the substance. It's almost a daily deposition for the past week+ confirming or elaborating on the substance.

Their only way to fight it is to attack the process. It is a political process. Every impeachment has been. But, it's the process in the Constitution so, it's what we got.

However, it is really hard to ignore that Dems are on record saying they would basically do anything they had to do to impeach him, even before he was sworn in.

[Ibanez]

They can't argue the substance. It's almost a daily deposition for the past week+ confirming or elaborating on the substance.

Their only way to fight it is to attack the process. It is a political process. Every impeachment has been. But, it's the process in the Constitution so, it's what we got.

However, it is really hard to ignore that Dems are on record saying they would basically do anything they had to do to impeach him, even before he was sworn in.

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

[CAA Flagship]

However, it is really hard to ignore that Dems are on record saying they would basically do anything they had to do to impeach him, even before he was sworn in.

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

Why wouldn't that mean that they want him to lose the next election?

[89Hen]

However, it is really hard to ignore that Dems are on record saying they would basically do anything they had to do to impeach him, even before he was sworn in.

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

You might want to read about that quote a little more before commenting again.

[89Hen]

Why wouldn't that mean that they want him to lose the next election?

It did.

[Ibanez]

Why wouldn't that mean that they want him to lose the next election?

Goes to the idea that Republicans can obstruct and work against a President just as easily as the Democrats. They all do it. It's the status quo, unfortunately.

[89Hen]

Why wouldn't that mean that they want him to lose the next election?

Goes to the idea that Republicans can obstruct and work against a President just as easily as the Democrats. They all do it. It's the status quo, unfortunately.

They do. Both sides do. But that quote is not an example of that.

https://www.journalgazette.net/news/fac ... -statement

[Ibanez]

Goes to the idea that Republicans can obstruct and work against a President just as easily as the Democrats. They all do it. It's the status quo, unfortunately.

They do. Both sides do. But that quote is not an example of that.

https://www.journalgazette.net/news/fac ... -statement

It was the first thing I thought of. Both sides are a pox.

[Ibanez]

BTW - I don't deny the staggering amount of butthurt that Dems have had since 2016. It's undeniable.

[AZGrizFan]

They do. Both sides do. But that quote is not an example of that.

https://www.journalgazette.net/news/fac ... -statement

It was the first thing I thought of. Both sides are a pox.

Wanting to make a president a one-term president (what party NOT occupying the white house doesn't want that?) and attempting to impeach a president simply because you can't beat him at the polls are not even remotely the same thing.

Beat him on policy. Beat him on personality. Oh, you can't? Well then fuck it. Let's just find something to try and impeach his ass....