The Impeachment Thread

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Nice country we had here once upon a time.

[DoneMessedUp]

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bang]

**** yes!

I am never showing up to court again.

 

Time to commit me some CRIMES!

 

 

Arrest these people. Like they were citizens and not royalty.

 

Disgusting.

 

~Bang

[Cooked Crack]

 

So Gowdy won't be on the Fox payroll, right.

[Burgold]

We really need Republicans to stand up. There must be a line somewhere, right?

[Larry]

1 hour ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

1) WP seems to have a funny definition of "breaking news". 

 

2). I'm thinking the correct response is for Nancy Wilson call a vote, TONIGHT, on an article of impeachment for Donald Trump, and Bill Barr, for this particular count of obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Investigation on other counts will continue. 

 

[StillUnknown]

 

searching for them republicans who claimed to love the constitution

[twa]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1) WP seems to have a funny definition of "breaking news". 

 

2). I'm thinking the correct response is for Nancy Wilson call a vote, TONIGHT, on an article of impeachment for Donald Trump, and Bill Barr, for this particular count of obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Investigation on other counts will continue. 

 

 

Nancy doesn't seem fond of voting, which is what the administration is objecting to.

 

Let's get the party started.

[Burgold]

7 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1) WP seems to have a funny definition of "breaking news". 

 

2). I'm thinking the correct response is for Nancy Wilson call a vote, TONIGHT, on an article of impeachment for Donald Trump, and Bill Barr, for this particular count of obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Investigation on other counts will continue. 

 

White House just delivered an 8 page letter to the effect so it is breaking.

[Renegade7]

Add Constitutional Crisis to his list of accomplishments.  Dems need use every piece of the constitution they got to stop this guy, otherwise they might as well set the thing on fire for him.

[RedskinsFan44]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Nancy doesn't seem fond of voting, which is what the administration is objecting to.

 

Let's get the party started.

LOL, so if they vote to "start the impeachment inquiry' (which has already started, and doesn't require a vote) tomorrow, the WH will cooperate?

[Cooked Crack]

26 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

searching for them republicans who claimed to love the constitution

 

OJ has a better chance of finding the real killers.

[LadySkinsFan]

The WH isn't going to cooperate under any circumstance, they may even try to circumvent the impeachment process in the House by going to the Supreme Court. 

 

Democrat need to start arresting people who refuse to testify (even if they take the Fifth), and/or produce documents.

[twa]

22 minutes ago, RedskinsFan44 said:

LOL, so if they vote to "start the impeachment inquiry' (which has already started, and doesn't require a vote) tomorrow, the WH will cooperate?

 

That or find another excuse.

 

A vote does give it better legal standing, and removes House R's complaint..

 

Either vote or the court will decide.

[mistertim]

I think it's time for Inherent contempt of Congress to make a comeback. 

 

Start arresting people. 

[twa]

3 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I think it's time for Inherent contempt of Congress to make a comeback. 

 

Start arresting people. 

 

Hillary?

Holder?

 

People is so generic. 

[Mooka]

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

 2). I'm thinking the correct response is for Nancy Wilson call a vote, TONIGHT, on an article of impeachment for Donald Trump, and Bill Barr, for this particular count of obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress. Investigation on other counts will continue. 

 

Its not 100% concrete that Trump has to cooperate. (at any stage) Certainly not at this stage yet. 

 

US vs Nixon ruled that Nixon couldn't use executive privilege and had to release the tapes. But that was Watergate and at that stage the tapes were crucial evidence in the indictments of Nixon's aides. 

 

Its also much easier for Trump to claim executive privilege on this current issue because it deals with a conversation with a foreign leader. 

 

Congress will have to do this on their own; that's without a complaint justice department or FBI. (and obviously WH) 

[Mooka]

14 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I think it's time for Inherent contempt of Congress to make a comeback. 

 

Start arresting people. 

 

And who is going to do the arresting?

 

Look at our FBI and justice department atm. Judicial too. 

[Larry]

5 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Start arresting people. 

 

Along with my "there should be a vote tonight on articles of impeachment for just this latest item on the list, I think there's a few others I'd do:  

 

Whereas, Congressional subpoenas and similar instruments are not requests, but are a necessary function of Congress' constitutionally granted powers and duty of oversight of government, including the other two branches of the federal government.  And as such, compliance with said instruments is not an optional act to be performed or ignored based on convenience, the desire to conceal multiple ongoing crimes, the political party involved, or personal whim.  

 

Resolved:  Henceforth, any appropriations bills voted on by this House will contain the following language:  

 

Should any federal agency funded by this appropriation ever be more than 30 days late in complying with any congressional subpoena. then all funds appropriated by this measure will be instantly cut off, for any purpose other than compliance with said subpoena.  (Congress, and only Congress, shall have the authority to temporarily delay enforcement of this clause, by passing a resolution, by simple majority vote.  Said vote shall consist solely of said exemption, and shall be by a roll call vote.  Said exemption may choose to make said funds fully available, or for only essential functions, or for other limitations as said resolution shall specify at that time.  And may be for whatever time period specified at said time.)  

 

In addition, appropriations for the Department of Justice shall contain an additional clause, triggering the cutoff of funds if said Department chooses not to enforce Congressional subpoenas or other similar warrants or orders.  

 

The House recognizes that appropriations bills for the upcoming fiscal year have already been passed by the House, and therefore will not contain such clauses, unless Senate modifications to said appropriations (or any other action) should require the House to re-approve said appropriations.  If the House is required to re-approve such appropriations, then the above resolution will apply to said resolutions.  

 

 

[twa]

Sweet. I like reducing the deficit.

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, Mooka said:

Its not 100% concrete that Trump has to cooperate. (at any stage) Certainly not at this stage yet. 

 

Really?  Trump has the authority to order the entire executive branch to simply ignore any and all congressional subpoenas "at this stage"?  

 

Could you tell me what "at this stage" is?  At which point do congressional subpoenas, for documents or testimony, stop being mere requests that can be ignored with impunity?  And if you could, based on what legal reasoning?  

 

 

Just now, twa said:

Sweet. I like reducing the deficit.

 

No you don't.  You like the Republican Party, and every crooked thing they stand for.  

 

[JCB]

Jesus, so they’re going with the old “things that are in the Constitution aren’t constitutional” defense. There is no norm they won’t break, no tradition they won’t sully, no decency they haven’t defiled. Stop claiming you love America and just admit you care only about power and cash. Oh wait, Republicans can’t be honest. My bad.