Page 96 of 474 FirstFirst ... 46869293949596979899100106146196 ... LastLast
Results 2,376 to 2,400 of 11850
  1. #2376
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    No vote. -Pelosi
    Where in the Cons ution or House rules is the requirement for a vote at this time, Darrin?

  2. #2377
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,276

  3. #2378
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,276
    Lol Darrin. They aren’t going to do a formal vote for unless it’s for the actual impeachment vote.

  4. #2379
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,276


    Gotdayumm!!! This coming back round to Flynn territory

  5. #2380
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,276

  6. #2381
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    I bet Julie A had a deal with Erdogan

    "If I get Trash to deliver Gulen to you, then you owe me $1M"

  7. #2382
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    DJohn and Great Yap, both shills pretending to discuss politics, both just basically being spam bots for twitter and YT content providers.

  8. #2383
    You have no idea UZER's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    9,572
    A fake impeachment inquiry... ask yourself why they don't cast a vote already instead of a kangaroo court instead?
    When RGB croaks or quits, they’ll vote. Can’t let him nominate another SCJ.

  9. #2384
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548


    Gotdayumm!!! This coming back round to Flynn territory
    Remember when you lost a $2000 bet in your own Flynn thread and then were too scared I’d collect your fantasy football winnings so you ran off and quit the league?!?! Gotdayumm you a !!!

  10. #2385
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    vy65 true or false?

    According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

    A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.

    It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

    There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.



    In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

    It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

    There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

    As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

    A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

    The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

    The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

    Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...mpression=true

  11. #2386
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    71,514
    Correct
    Nancy need to chop off her s and grow a pair of balls and vote

  12. #2387
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121


    but but but it's not because she doesn't have the votes


  13. #2388
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,020
    vy65 true or false?

    According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

    A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.

    It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

    There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.



    In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

    It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

    There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

    As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

    A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

    The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

    The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

    Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...mpression=true
    would be helpful if he cited to the supreme court cases in question, or the laws in question, instead of just calling them "well established" and moving on.

    and lol "quasi-cons utional"

  14. #2389
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    vy65 true or false?

    According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

    A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.

    It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

    There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.



    In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

    It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

    There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

    As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

    A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

    The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

    The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

    Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...mpression=true
    Since it's the grocer and not a lawyer I'm going to go ahead and say lol without reading anything else.

  15. #2390
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    is not fair

  16. #2391
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    Simple. They are gathering more and more evidence on purpose. Why?

    1) Trump wants this over with. I say let it linger. He's a healthy, fit, stable genius, so his 70 year old heart can take it, right?

    2) The more evidence they expose, it gives independents something to chew on as we get ready for the 2020 Senate elections. All those Repugs who see clear evidence of his wrong doing, yet still vote NOT to impeach by 67%, simply put, they = fcked

    3) The more evidence they get will get turned over to Mueller. Remember, DOJ won't insight a sitting President, but Mueller said his ass is grass be it now, or 4 years from now (if it comes to that; hope not tho). All that talk on Mueller's "Witch Hunt" will be remembered.

    4) Adam Schiff can arrest more Trumpettes in his inner circle. I'm sure my man Michael Cohen (who is willing to sing like Whitney Houston) is gonna feed more dirt to Adam, etc. to further peel back more evidence against that Orange er. Stay tuned for that shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

    So yeah, impeaching is cool, but I want the Dems to drain that red swamp. There's a lot of layers to Trump's corruption. I'm sure Paul Manafort will start singing too.

    More to follow on that vote. There is much more leads to follow though. I'll keep you posted.
    wtf

  17. #2392
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    vy65 true or false?

    According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

    A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.

    It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

    There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

    In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

    It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

    There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

    As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

    A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

    The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

    The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

    Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...mpression=true
    This analysis is incorrect, per some of the rulings we've had in recent cases. Any time one of these subpoenas has been challenged in court (ie: tax records), the House has made clear it's doing their oversight work in order to establish if legislation needs to be updated, which the courts, so far, have established to be proper.

    We'll see if any of these rulings reach the SCOTUS and how they feel about it. The precedent (by the SCOTUS) so far is the give Congress deference.

  18. #2393
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    152,607
    The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).
    This particular paragraph is incorrect also, as the government has already challenged some of these subpoenas in court (ie: again, tax records). So the 'process to appeal' is always there, regardless of a vote.

    Judicial enforcement is actually tied to disputes between branches of Government that would significantly curb the power of one of the branches. One such case is, for example, the hiring of a special prosecutor to investigate alleged corruption cases on the Executive (Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654; Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361).

    Another case is, for example, Congress attempting to overrule a DOJ determination, which they can only do by changing the laws. (Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714)

    Should the Executive assert executive privilege on some demand, then that would probably trigger this issue. It's just difficult to do so for former employees and, as far as risk is concerned, it's probably much less risky to defy the executive (at worst you would lose your job) vs defying a subpoena (which could land you in jail).

  19. #2394
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Why is TSA bogging himself down with fake legal opinions from a grocer again when Dennison confessed to impeachable offenses on national television?

  20. #2395
    non-essential Chris's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Post Count
    39,908



    Rudy dgaf

  21. #2396
    wrong about pizzagate TSA's Avatar
    My Team
    Sacramento Kings
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    20,548
    This analysis is incorrect, per some of the rulings we've had in recent cases. Any time one of these subpoenas has been challenged in court (ie: tax records), the House has made clear it's doing their oversight work in order to establish if legislation needs to be updated, which the courts, so far, have established to be proper.

    We'll see if any of these rulings reach the SCOTUS and how they feel about it. The precedent (by the SCOTUS) so far is the give Congress deference.
    Appreciate the feedback, but what oversight would they be doing in order to establish if legislation needs to updated concerning foreign policy or impeachment?


    "However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

  22. #2397
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    "customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose."

    Trash's total corruption is not "customary"

    "legislative purpose" includes checks on the (corrupt) Exec



  23. #2398
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,877
    Appreciate the feedback, but what oversight would they be doing in order to establish if legislation needs to updated concerning foreign policy or impeachment?


    "However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.


    your CULT leader....


    CONFESSED


    to the impeachable offense on live TV


    now:



    proceed to....


    tap dance, juggle, do backflips, moondance, throw spaghetti on the walls, run flaming farm animals through fiery hoops,
    parade costumed clowns with ballooons streaming out their assholes...


    and after the smoke clears



    your cult leader


    already



    CONFESSED



    lolololololol

  24. #2399
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    9,877
    The media is stupidly reporting that the white house has begun

    ”an investigation”

    into the crime that trump never committed- his “perfect” phone call and how it all unraveled...


    idiots.


    there is a proper name for this “investigation”


    it is called- RETALIATION!


    and is against the law.

  25. #2400
    Bosshog in the cut djohn2oo8's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    37,276



    and another one

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •