JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[MDlaxfan76]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

wishful thinking.

[HooDat]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

[Typical Lax Dad]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

[old salt]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

The Constitution works. The President is being held accountable.

[jhu72]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

The Constitution works. The President is being held accountable.

… and that IS THE POINT. So why so much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right? I thought all you guys were big time supporters of the constitution.

[Typical Lax Dad]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

The Constitution works. The President is being held accountable.

Not sure I disagreed anywhere but thanks for pointing out the obvious, Captain.

[old salt]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

The Constitution works. The President is being held accountable.

… and that IS THE POINT. So why so much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right? I thought all you guys were big time supporters of the constitution.

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

[seacoaster]

"But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides."

Can you explain/expand on this?

[Typical Lax Dad]

HooDat brought up both the tarmac and the IRS, not me. I was addressing his points, and more importantly explaining why whataboutism does nothing to stop corruption in DC. In fact, it cheers this corruption. And I made my point respectfully and politely.

Besides, my agreement is with you!

I will hold to my word to you and Old Salt so long as it is reciprocated.

I wholeheartedly agree that whataboutism should not be used to let people off the hook. But further to these points

And as I have said dozens of times, until these voters demand that their parties execute the way that they want, we're stuck as a nation. This will not get fixed until the Dem and R voters hold their own party accountable.

And the 1% will eventually own it all, while these voters point fingers at one another.

whataboutsim does stoke anger among the voters. The only questions is when will that anger finally be directed the right way - which is at their own party reps as well as the other party's..?

...the unfortunate answer is it won't, because people are sheep.......

but what could happen (and I think is on track to) is it continues to get hotter and hotter and we end up with a demagogue even worse that Trump

...and yes, I said worse

because at least Trump is a bumbling idiot, who keeps stepping on his own johnson....

It can be much worse because many of the shortcomings of our structure of government have been exposed. The POTUS can basically do whatever he wants with very little opposition. Can elevate the office above the other two branches of government.

The Constitution works. The President is being held accountable.

… and that IS THE POINT. So why so much wailing and gnashing of teeth on the right? I thought all you guys were big time supporters of the constitution.

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

You need all members to pursue an inquiry? (I don't know the answer). If her actions are unlawful, what remedies do the minority members have?

[a fan]

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

That's not how it works. You don't vote first, and investigate later. You start with a committee, and look into the matter.

You were old enough to follow the Nixon impeachment, yes? Don't you remember how that worked?

The Senate started a select committee to investigate the Watergate break in. That's where it all started.

[old salt]

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

That's not how it works. You don't vote first, and investigate later. You start with a committee, and look into the matter.

You were old enough to follow the Nixon impeachment, yes? Don't you remember how that worked?

The Senate started a select committee to investigate the Watergate break in. That's where it all started.

Did the minority have subponea power & the ability to call witnesses ?

[jhu72]

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

That's not how it works. You don't vote first, and investigate later. You start with a committee, and look into the matter.

You were old enough to follow the Nixon impeachment, yes? Don't you remember how that worked?

The Senate started a select committee to investigate the Watergate break in. That's where it all started.

Did the minority have subponea power & the ability to call witnesses ?

I can't remember, did the minority have subpoena power during the Kavanaugh or Benghazi hearings?

[a fan]

Did the minority have subponea power & the ability to call witnesses ?

For the initial Senate committee looking into Watergate?

Yes. Four Dems and Three R's on the committee.

Has Pelosi named her committee yet? I can't find anything. They're on recess right now, are they not?

[old salt]

I've said, from the outset, that impeachment is the Constitutional remedy.
But Pelosi's doing faux impeachment by not requiring all members to vote & not giving the minority the powers a real impeachment process provides.

That's not how it works. You don't vote first, and investigate later. You start with a committee, and look into the matter.

You were old enough to follow the Nixon impeachment, yes? Don't you remember how that worked?

The Senate started a select committee to investigate the Watergate break in. That's where it all started.

Did the minority have subponea power & the ability to call witnesses ?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-pe ... 1569885285

Bill Clinton was the first president to embrace the “permanent campaign,” meaning a White House always in full election mode. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now made her own dubious contribution to American history, by setting up the possibility of a Congress in permanent impeachment mode.

The mechanics of impeachment almost always promise a clash between a president of one party and a Congress dominated by another. Even so, by forgoing a full House vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry, Mrs. Pelosi has amped up the partisanship. Instead of moving ahead with the full backing of the elected representatives of the American people, she has launched the Trump impeachment by personal ukase.

Even more remarkable, it has been greeted with a collective ho-hum. True, the Constitution does not require a House vote. It’s also true, however, that Mrs. Pelosi has no precedent for what she has done, and by eliminating a House vote, she has denied the House minority the opportunity to be heard before Congress begins exercising its most formidable constitutional power short of declaring war: the process of removing an elected president.

“Vigorous debate and formal votes are part of our democracy,” says Rep. Doug Collins, the Georgia Republican who serves as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. “When one party silences the other by gaveling down debate, denying subpoena power, and refusing to hold votes, they are hiding from accountability to their electorate, it’s more than partisan—it’s antidemocratic.”

It helps to compare what’s being done to Donald Trump to how it’s been done before. The first president to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, by a 126-47 House vote on Feb. 24, 1868. On March 2 the House voted to approve nine more articles of impeachment, and a day later added another two. Procedures weren’t precisely the same then, but the 40th Congress enjoyed something Speaker Pelosi has denied the 116th Congress: the opportunity to debate and vote before they had to declare themselves on specific articles of impeachment.

Cut to 1974, when Democrats moved against Richard Nixon. Because 106 years had passed since the House impeached a president, the committee and its staff—including a young Hillary Clinton—researched the past and produced a document called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” On page 2, the report notes that the 410-4 House vote to open an impeachment inquiry against Nixon confirmed that the process “was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority in both parties.”

Not so for Mrs. Pelosi’s impeachment effort. In addition to dodging the accountability that comes when congressmen are forced to vote “yea” or “nay,” her decision carries implications for the powers of the committees involved. An official impeachment proceeding comes with powers that allow Congress to compel documents a president might otherwise withhold from normal oversight. If all it now takes for a committee to exercise these daunting powers is a speaker’s say-so, we are in new territory.

In 1974, Rep. John Conyers, a member of the Judiciary Committee, helped draft the articles of impeachment against Nixon. A quarter-century later, when a Republican House was about to impeach Bill Clinton, he insisted that the minority be granted subpoena power along with the majority. Democrats were given that power in the Clinton impeachment, just as Republicans had it in Nixon’s—but it’s tellingly absent in Mrs. Pelosi’s bid against Mr. Trump.

Then there’s Jerrold Nadler, chairman of today’s Judiciary Committee. Back in 1998, he thundered against Republicans for limiting floor debate to one hour before the House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton. Mr. Nadler called the decision to shortchange the House debate a “supreme insult to the American people” and noted that the same House had spent more time the day before debating two resolutions about naming post offices.

Almost a year ago Mr. Nadler advanced a similar argument about the high bar for impeaching President Trump. “If you’re serious about removing a president from office, what you’re really doing is overturning the result of the last election,” he told Roll Call. “You don’t want to have a situation where you tear this country apart, and for the next 30 years half the country’s saying, ‘We won the election, you stole it.’ ” Today that Mr. Nadler is nowhere to be found.

Meanwhile, with her decision to proceed with impeachment by fiat, Mrs. Pelosi has set many disturbing precedents—none more terrible than the idea that all you need is a willing speaker and you can put a congressional committee in permanent impeachment mode, using its powers to try to overturn an election.

[Trinity]

Answer subpoenas. Show your work. This isn’t a kingdom.

[a fan]

Cut to 1974, when Democrats moved against Richard Nixon. Because 106 years had passed since the House impeached a president, the committee and its staff—including a young Hillary Clinton—researched the past and produced a document called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” On page 2, the report notes that the 410-4 House vote to open an impeachment inquiry against Nixon confirmed that the process “was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority in both parties.

If you want to use this as your example, the writer here is intentionally ignoring that 1974 is a full year AFTER initial work on the Watergate break in.

We're a few days in. A bit early to be crying foul, don't you think?

[old salt]

Cut to 1974, when Democrats moved against Richard Nixon. Because 106 years had passed since the House impeached a president, the committee and its staff—including a young Hillary Clinton—researched the past and produced a document called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” On page 2, the report notes that the 410-4 House vote to open an impeachment inquiry against Nixon confirmed that the process “was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority in both parties.

If you want to use this as your example, the writer here is intentionally ignoring that 1974 is a full year AFTER initial work on the Watergate break in.

We're a few days in. A bit early to be crying foul, don't you think?

...or a bit early to be declaring normal Congressional hearings to be Impeachment Inquiries. Truth in labeling.
Faux impeachment process, designed to placate the base, without requiring vulnerable (D) Reps to go on the record
...undertaken prayerfully & patriotically.

[a fan]

Still not much of a complaint. At some point they have to vote for this to have teeth. Let's see if she establishes a committee, and then complain.

And this could EASILY harm Congressional Dems more than it helps.

[jhu72]

Cut to 1974, when Democrats moved against Richard Nixon. Because 106 years had passed since the House impeached a president, the committee and its staff—including a young Hillary Clinton—researched the past and produced a document called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” On page 2, the report notes that the 410-4 House vote to open an impeachment inquiry against Nixon confirmed that the process “was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority in both parties.

If you want to use this as your example, the writer here is intentionally ignoring that 1974 is a full year AFTER initial work on the Watergate break in.

We're a few days in. A bit early to be crying foul, don't you think?

There is no constitutional requirement that the House take any vote prior to their vote to impeach based on a written Articles of Impeachment.

This is just one more instance of right wing spin and water muddying.

[jhu72]

Cut to 1974, when Democrats moved against Richard Nixon. Because 106 years had passed since the House impeached a president, the committee and its staff—including a young Hillary Clinton—researched the past and produced a document called “Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment.” On page 2, the report notes that the 410-4 House vote to open an impeachment inquiry against Nixon confirmed that the process “was not partisan. It was supported by the overwhelming majority in both parties.

If you want to use this as your example, the writer here is intentionally ignoring that 1974 is a full year AFTER initial work on the Watergate break in.

We're a few days in. A bit early to be crying foul, don't you think?

...or a bit early to be declaring normal Congressional hearings to be Impeachment Inquiries. Truth in labeling.
Faux impeachment process, designed to placate the base, without requiring vulnerable (D) Reps to go on the record
...undertaken prayerfully & patriotically.

.. or vulnerable (R) Reps to go on the record...