chimmy said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

---

That's not what is happening here. No 'criminal rules' are at play here. The only rule for impeachment in the Constitution is that the House will vote on impeachment. The majority in the House can have all the investigations they want, like Schiff and other committee heads are doing, and Pelosi may never hold a vote on impeachment.

---

You neglect to mention the vote will be based on an investigation that has denied a citizen of due process which is a right under our Constitution, seemingly protected by the 9th Amendment.

richardag said:

---

chimmy said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

---

That's not what is happening here. No 'criminal rules' are at play here. The only rule for impeachment in the Constitution is that the House will vote on impeachment. The majority in the House can have all the investigations they want, like Schiff and other committee heads are doing, and Pelosi may never hold a vote on impeachment.

---

You neglect to mention the vote will be based on an investigation that has denied a citizen of due process which is a right under our Constitution, seemingly protected by the 9th Amendment.

---

Due process is for judicial proceedings.

Quote:

---

I'm surprised they can be cross examined by the GOP minority at all. Lawyers for the accused don't get to do that for grand juries.

---

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant that as sarcasm.

As the other alternative would be anathema.

Proof that "It really is a small world", Exhibit #2,472, 147.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Proof that "It really is a small world", Exhibit #2,472, 147.

---

Proof that all you do is post innuendo and talking points.

I confess that the Dem contrived impeachment stuff has lost my interest so I have not been following closely.
So, checking back in, what is the basis for the "impeachment investigation" these days.

1. Is it the pone call where the transcript was released that did not really have anything of substance in it or is there someting that can be quoted from the transcript that points to a specific impeachable act?

2. Is it he so called whistleblower complaint that has been circumvented by the release of the transcript?

3. Is it now neither 1 or 2 but about something totally unrelated to the phone call where the transcript has been released?

Matt Hooper said:

---

I confess that the Dem contrived impeachment stuff has lost my interest so I have not been following closely.
So, checking back in, what is the basis for the "impeachment investigation" these days.

1. Is it the phone call where the transcript was released that did not really have anything of substance in it or is there someting that can be quoted from the transcript that points to a specific impeachable act?

2. Is it he so called whistleblower complaint that has been circumvented by the release of the transcript?

3. Is it now neither 1 or 2 but about something totally unrelated to the phone call where the transcript has been released?

---

1. Same phone call, nothing in it is impeachable. The "favor" Trump asked for was about Crowdstrike and the 2016 hacking, not Biden. Democrats continue to lie and claim the favor was about Biden.

2. The "whistle blower" is the only thing the Democrats and media talk about. As far as they're concerned, the transcript doesn't exist. All they talk about is the "credible whistle blower."

3. They're trying to find something, anything else to latch on to, but so far all they have to a second or third hand complaint which the transcript doesn't support.

Matt Hooper said:

---

I confess that the Dem contrived impeachment stuff has lost my interest so I have not been following closely.
So, checking back in, what is the basis for the "impeachment investigation" these days.

1. Is it the pone call where the transcript was released that did not really have anything of substance in it or is there someting that can be quoted from the transcript that points to a specific impeachable act?

2. Is it he so called whistleblower complaint that has been circumvented by the release of the transcript?

3. Is it now neither 1 or 2 but about something totally unrelated to the phone call where the transcript has been released?

---

It's a redux of #1, but instead of the hearsay whistleblower, Schiff for brains is trying to find other government employees with "closer" access to testify how alarming and concerning the conversation with Ukraine was.... even though we all got to read the transcript already.

Quote:

---

It's a redux of #1, but instead of the hearsay whistleblower, Schiff for brains is trying to find other government employees with "closer" access to testify how alarming and concerning the conversation with Ukraine was.... even though we all got to read the transcript already.

---

Yeah, I guess the argument here is, "forget what you saw in the transcript, all of these professionals, who know better than you do America, think it was bad!! Bad! I tell you!"

I have to say though, any State Department employee who has been in Ukraine for more than a year is likely part of the corruption problem, not a solution to it.

chimmy said:

---

richardag said:

---

chimmy said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

chimmy said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

This is not a grand jury nor a criminal proceeding. It is a political proceeding.

---

And an unconstitutional one at best. Grand jury proceedings are a combination of Articl II and Article III criminal proceedings.

Nowhere in Article I is the legislative branch granted powers to enforce criminal laws, absent argumendo a formal impeachment proceeding. Which of course, Schiff does not have that fig leaf to cover his nether regions.

---

Nothing Schiff is doing is unconstitutional and Schiff can not practically enforce criminal law even if he wanted to, which I'm sure he does. However, the House majority can have on-going investigations for the entire 116th session, if they so desire, which they probably do, and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. Schiff doesn't need any cover at all if he's not concerned with the opinions of his or other House members' electorate.

---

He has no constitutional authority to run a grand jury (or rather, hide behind its rules).

He's using criminal rules to give himself the cover for a political process (impeachment).

---

That's not what is happening here. No 'criminal rules' are at play here. The only rule for impeachment in the Constitution is that the House will vote on impeachment. The majority in the House can have all the investigations they want, like Schiff and other committee heads are doing, and Pelosi may never hold a vote on impeachment.

---

You neglect to mention the vote will be based on an investigation that has denied a citizen of due process which is a right under our Constitution, seemingly protected by the 9th Amendment.

---

Due process is for judicial proceedings.

---

Seemingly protected by the 9th Amendment.

You're thinking 5th Amendment. The 9th Amendment recognizes there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution. As due process is recognized in he Fifth Amendment the logical extension of that right extends to hearings carried out by the Legislative Branch and is a non-enumerated right covered by he 9th Amendment.

Ninth Amendment

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

....The Ninth Amendment declares that there are additional fundamental rights that exist outside the Constitution. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are not an explicit and exhaustive list of individual rights.


...The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government," as Madison put it.
(In other words the Federal Government, House of Representatives, is abusing its powers by denying a citizen, the President due process)

The Constitution lists due process as a right albeit in criminal proceedings, but a right none the less. It could be argued that the current House proceedings are denying due process.

THANK YOU!!! I have been saying the same thing for days now.

SCOTUS historically has been reticent to interfere in internal housekeeping matters (rules) for either house of Congress under separation of powers but there is a line that the House (in this instance) can cross that will offend the sensibilities of the Court and outweigh their former precedent of deference.

Although impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, it was not envisioned to be a Star Chamber, nor a grand jury type unduly one-sided proceeding.

Are we there yet where SCOTUS has seen enough? Stay tuned.

Well, well. Lay down with dogs, Pete Sessions, and ...

aggiehawg said:

---

THANK YOU!!! I have been saying the same thing for days now.

SCOTUS historically has been reticent to interfere in internal housekeeping matters (rules) for either house of Congress under separation of powers but there is a line that the House (in this instance) can cross that will offend the sensibilities of the Court and outweigh their former precedent of deference.

Although impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, it was not envisioned to be a Star Chamber, nor a grand jury type unduly one-sided proceeding.

Are we there yet where SCOTUS has seen enough? Stay tuned.

---

I kept reading and hearing the new rules used by Pelosi & that bag of Schiff(re: attribution Judge Jeanine Pirro) were unconstitutional, so I reread the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments. The 9th Amendment was what I came up with, instead of just using past impeachment precedent.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Well, well. Lay down with dogs, Pete Sessions, and ...

---

Quote:

---

There also is no indication that Mr. Sessions is a target of the investigation

---

Quote:

---

The subpoena of the former congressman offers a window into the investigation by the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office into the business dealings of Mr. Giuliani in Ukraine, including his finances, meetings and work for a city mayor there. Investigators have examined his bank records and have questioned witnesses about him since at least August.

---

This may surprise you but if there is any corruption there with Rudy and Sessions, by all means investigate it.

Berman would not be doing it without a heads up to Main Justice, so Barr has given his blessing apparently.

The clown show continues.

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

THANK YOU!!! I have been saying the same thing for days now.

SCOTUS historically has been reticent to interfere in internal housekeeping matters (rules) for either house of Congress under separation of powers but there is a line that the House (in this instance) can cross that will offend the sensibilities of the Court and outweigh their former precedent of deference.

Although impeachment is a political and not a criminal process, it was not envisioned to be a Star Chamber, nor a grand jury type unduly one-sided proceeding.

Are we there yet where SCOTUS has seen enough? Stay tuned.

---

I kept reading and hearing the new rules used by Pelosi & that bag of Schiff(re: attribution Judge Jeanine Pirro) were unconstitutional, so I reread the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments. The 9th Amendment was what I came up with, instead of just using past impeachment precedent.

---

Well done, chap! Well done, indeed.

While I blathered on about the overarching principles of the Constitution expected all governmental functions to have some sense of fairness and due process, even if in reduced levels at varying stages, I didn't snap to the idea of how the 9th could come into play, specifically. But it does embody why my gut was telling me there was a line that the House was toeing, if not crossing with this farce.

As I was typing this, Nancy has delayed yet another floor vote on opening a floor vote on a formal impeachment inquiry. Very telling that even Schiff's Star Chamber isn't producing the results the Dems want and need.

Again, blue parachute diamond for you.

Aaaand another shoe drops. Gonna need a bigger scorecard to keep track of all the corruption going on with Rudy, Trump, the GOP, and their many grifts.

Quote:

---

Aaaand another shoe drops. Gonna need a bigger scorecard to keep track of all the corruption going on with Rudy, Trump, the GOP, and their many grifts.

---

Guess you missed the part where Obama is also implicated.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Aaaand another shoe drops. Gonna need a bigger scorecard to keep track of all the corruption going on with Rudy, Trump, the GOP, and their many grifts.

---

Guess you missed the part where Obama is also implicated.

---

Shhhhhh he has a narrative to maintain

Etcetera you're not gonna make it. Better pace yourself.

You have another 5 plus years of Trump being your President. Better place yourself.

Got heeeeeeeeemmm...

These Dems are idiots .. Pelosi will not call a vote unless she wants to doom the House Dems up for re-election ...

Donkey Show continues .. and Shift for Brains is the Mexican Donkey on stage

aginlakeway said:

---

You have another 5 plus years of Trump being your President.

---

I hope so. I seldom bothered to read the Political Forum from 2009 thru 2016 because Obama's 8 years were steady, law-abiding, competent, a great father, husband, and family man, and Presidential. IOW, boring.

Whereas Trump has been the complete opposite. Banging porn stars & playmates, cheating on all his wives, getting his subordinates arrested and sent to prison, and exposing the corruption, dishonesty, cowardice, and graft of the GOP in numerous ways no one ever expected. Rubio, Cruz, Graham, and many other R's are permanently tarnished forever thanks to Trump.

Trump has been the best thing that ever happened to WaPo, Twitter, and the NYT. Here's another Trump court case in the news from today:

Why are all of your posts anti-Trump?

What was your former username?

aginlakeway said:

---

Why are all of your posts anti-Trump?

What was your former username?

---

etcetera and who knows how many other socks.

He changed his name, came back and pretended to be a "concerned moderate" before getting busted and going back to full TDS.

aginlakeway said:

---

Why are all of your posts anti-Trump?

What was your former username?

---

SA77, and etcetera.

Do you still interview Potuses?

MetoliusAg said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

Why are all of your posts anti-Trump?

What was your former username?

---

SA77, and etcetera.

Do you still interview Potuses?

---

Appreciate your confirmation of your former usernames as at different times we were not antagonistic but I considered SA an e-buddy on football. You have also been kind when I was badly injured last year.

Sounds like a troll account

oldarmy1 said:

---

---

Impeachment is dead in the senate. With a reshaped conservative judiciary trump is safe on that front too. Just have to stay focused and keep donating in droves.

I wouldn't give that too much credence. Way way too early and don't even know who he's running against.