What I Think About Current Politics

It is so obvious that the way Congress conducted Politics in the past is gone and has totally changed. I believe it started changing after Obama was elected. That was too bad because so many of us who didn't vote for him were proud of the Country electing a Black President and I thought the one thing it would accomplish was bringing the races closer together when they were already closer then anytime in my life time.

But that didn't happen. So in 2016, I think voters were tired of the Federal do nothing Government and voted for an outsider. That is why Trump supporters remain Trump supporters. Do the voters on the left believe all phone conversations of previous Presidents would have sounded squeaky clean? I suspect they would not. But if Trumps impeached on this phone call, then we the people should demand phone calls Obama and his Admin. made with the Ukraine, Russia and all others; should be made public. I for one think what the DNC and Clinton and her Campaign did was election interference. Blatantly interferring with Trumps ability to govern.
Am I the only one that thinks Senator Harris sounds different? Kind of like she is on drugs? I am not kidding or trying to be mean.

If the House doesn't take a vote and allow bipartisan investigation, no way should the Senate have a trial to impeach. IMO.

 

The Senate can do what it pleases with the articles of impeachment it may receive, but what it cannot do, is tell the House how to structure its own investigation prior to the indictment it sends. According to McConnell, there will be a trial and a trial normally presupposes some due process rights for Trump that preliminary investigations such as this do not.

When a whistleblower report is filed dealing with illegal or abusive conduct , there is a process by which that report is investigated. If there are irregularities in how that complaint is handled, then we get justifiably nervous. That is what got this process started.

 

without a formal vote on the house floor, there is no ability to proceed towards impeachment even within the house. It's just some committees asking people to attend meetings where they will be asked questions, but with closed door meetings, there are no actual transcripts available.

Pelosi is walking a tightrope because she wants people to think there is an impeachment in progress, but the reality is that she's just some broad in congress. Her role as speaker is informal. She can't really speak for the house, unless there is a vote. That's where her job begins, but until there's a vote held, she's just some broad with ill-fitting dentures who happens to represent a district in San Francisco.

 

What you say is true. But I think the unfair, biased investigation by Schiff will influence what the Senate does. I have already been calling Senators and asking them to dismiss it if the House doesn't do it the "right" way. Regardless that what they are doing is supposedly legal. iMO

 

You need to think of this process like if the cops and DA's office was investigating you for a crime and they strategizing about whether to file charges. That investigation need not have due process unless you are detained or arrested. It need not be 'fair'. They can lie to you. they can trick you. They can snoop, and sneak, and if they are smart, they will gather preliminary evidence and statement, when you won't even know they are looking at you as a suspect. What we want in an investigation is effectiveness at getting to the truth in a way that does not undermine the next trial phase..

 

"we the people should demand phone calls Obama and his Admin. made with the Ukraine, Russia and all others; should be made public.".

Hey, don't stop there. Let's see what Warren Harding had to say regarding Teapot Dome.

Where are the whistle blowers when you really need them?

 

Her role as Speaker was formalized in a house vote.

With that vote came the Speaker's authority to appoint members to committees, to delegate authority to committees and committee chairs to investigate and consider legislation and matters of impeachment, to refer matters of law and duty to committees with jurisdiction and to schedule the calendar of events for full house consideration. She does not need full House votes to recommend that she refer those matters, or to tell her which committees or to schedule votes. They are, by definition, in her authority because that is the nature of the job as described by the House Rules.

 

Actually, no. The house has no authority to do anything regarding impeachment. They can investigate all they want, but actual impeachment begins in the senate. What the house can do is investigate, and I've got no problems with that. Actual impeachment as in a trial is relegated to the senate.

I've really got no problems with what you wrote because there's nothing in there that says anything. The speaker of the house is an informal position and gives her no authority to actually speak for the house. You're just talking about stuff within the house, but nothing that she can bring outside and say "I speak for the house". She really doesn't, which is why it's an informal position.

 

Wow. Been through this before. The House has the sole power to impeach. That is not up for debate. The Senate tries the articles of impeachment ( completed and sent) to decide if the President gets removed. All that sits in the constitution worded as such. The speakership is as 'informal' as the Constitution that refers to the position's existence. Two questions

1. How was Clinton successfully impeached, if the Senate did not vote to impeach him?

2. Is the constitution an informal document full of suggestions?

 

Okay, you don't understand the law. You say "tries the articles of impeachment" but you don't understand that this means the actual trial. I've already admitted that the house can investigate to their heart's content. The actual trial is held in the senate.

The house is nothing more than a bunch of cops trying to figure out how they can convince a judge to go ahead with an actual trial. As cops, they can investigate all they want, but the 5th amendment kinda limits their ability to force people to testify.

Try working this from a simple understanding of what each branch of government is entrusted with. The house is charged with writing possible legislation. That's it! They come up with bills that are passed to the senate, and then the President to actually sign which becomes "law",

The house can investigate a ham sandwich if they want. However, that is within the confines of requiring knowledge of how possible legislation that might require ham sandwiches to contain certain percentages of ham, or some such.

I think democrats are thinking that becuase they own the house, that they own the government, and that's just not the case. For an impeachment, they are police officers. They can interview people, but the actual trial is held in the senate.

sigh... look, if you were arrested for something, the cops (the house) would have to get enough evidence to be able to take to court during an arraignment hearing (sent to the senate) where the judge would decide whether you had enough evidence to go ahead with an actual prosecution.

Right now, you're at the point where nobody knows dick. So you have to ask yourself, what do we actually know that could convince a judge that an arraignment hearing is warranted? That means actually taking all of the testimony found out, and making it public so that the judge can decide if you have something other than nothing.

Right now you have pelosi holding his dick and thinking "damn, I'm thick!".

 

I understand the law, and the role the house plays. The term is 'to impeach' The Senate cannot impeach anyone. It cannot hold a trial without the indictment that comes from the House membership. Their role extends into the Senate because the 'House Managers' prosecute the charges in the indictment they created. The investigation to impeach is actually more important than the trial in this case, because that is the only way to develop a full public record of any criminal conduct or abuse of office that was committed either to remove him from office before 2020, or in November 2020. The Senate will undoubtedly refuse to remove him, but they won't be doing it blindly or blithely because these hearings in the House will ensure it.

 

Congress is made up of the cops and prosecutors. The Senate is the judge and jury.

 

"The house has no authority to do anything regarding impeachment." Not true

A House majority can Under the Constitution, the House alone has the power to formally charge—that is, impeach—a federal official.
A House majority can accomplish this by adopting articles of impeachment, which are effectively written accusations (similar to an indictment in ordinary criminal proceedings).

Yes, the Senate will make the final judgement of the impeachment (indictment).

 

Your right. But a vote is the Precedent. So by not doing so makes to appear biased and many Americans will not accept their findings, like me. And I believe no matter what the biased Committee finds, the Senate will not accept those findings.

 

Wrong IMO. I don't care what the House finds. The Schiff Committee is totally biased and Schiff is a liar. I believe if the Democrats continue to follow the path they are on, the Senate will be unable to find Trump guilty because there will be only one side of the investigation available to them.

 

Got it. The biased Committee's findings, no matter how damaging, will not be accepted by the politically motivated Kentuckian and the Senate.

 

If 218 members of the house vote to impeach then the case is sent to the senate where a trial is held with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roberts in charge of the trial.The evidence against the plaintiff is presented and the senate then votes either guilty or not guilty based on the testimony and the presentation of evidence.

 

Imbecilities like this ought to be a bannable offense.

 

I would not underestimate that crafty old broad, but I do agree she is old, annoying and her teeth don’t fit. I bet articles of impeachment are written up before Thanksgiving. I really did bet come to think of it. I think you guys are whistling past the grave much like Nixon and his boys were early in the Watergate deal. This Guiliani and his crooked buddies getting arrested along with their ties to the high level Russian Mob boss being held on $100 million bail in Austria is looking real bad. We will see.

 

…. and the guarantee of Mitch McConnell for not guilty.

 

Its not wrong to expect all that for a fair trial. Its wrong to expect it at this stage. The cops do not hand over what they have to their 'person of interest'. They do not hand over what they have to a suspect in custody. They hand it over to his personal lawyers. There will be motions of discovery issued just like any other trial, and lawyers appointed by Donald Trump to defend him Senate rulings will provide for due process and Trump's chosen counsel may allow for calling witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and use such tactics and strategies as will best defend his interest.

 

Yeah and neither the cops nor the DA's office are in the business of handing over all the details, evidence and strategies behind their case before they seek an indictment. They do it after a pretrial motions hearing is scheduled, and a discovery motion is accepted by the court.

 

You are partially correct.

What changed was Obama's actions after he and his party suffered the worst midterm election loss in over 80 years, when Democrats lost 63 house seats and six senate seats.

What did Obama do? Well, he certainly didn't follow the examples of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, who both moderated their administrations to work with the opposition party in power in order to reach solutions and solve problems facing Americans. In fact Clinton even invented the word 'triangulate' to describe how his administration would move to the right in order to work with the GOP congress.

Obama, if anything, did the exact opposite and went to war, telling congress he no longer needed to work with them, eventually resulting in his abuse of the presidency by virtue of his 'pen and a phone' nonsense as well as using executive actions in an attempt to change and/or make new law. Fortunately, the Trump administration has rolled back virtually of of Obama's initiatives.

If Obama had reacted in a traditional fashion to massive Democratic Party losses in congress and throughout the country – according to a report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Democratic Party lost a net total of 13 Governorships and 816 state legislative seats over the Obama regime's reign, the most of any president since Dwight Eisenhower – he would have moderated his leftist policies that repulsed normal Americans.

Instead, we have what we have today...

 

I thought the election of Oblama was great, it finally gave the black folks a look at how a black president could be as bad as a white president and that there is no difference in politicians, they all lie and have nothing but self interest at heart.

 

Well okay, I fail to see how we disagree. If you think an impeachment just means the ability to bring formal charges, then okay. What do you call a president who was actually found guilty by the senate? I always thought we could say he was impeached, but I guess I was wrong.