Law Nancy Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry over President Trump's Ukraine phone call -

Is Trump impeachment imminent?

  • Yes, unless he stonewalls like the CRIMINAL he is

    Votes: 37 8.7%
  • No, and no amount of thriller fiction and blubbering from Vox will change that

    Votes: 345 81.2%
  • I don't know/I'm not sure

    Votes: 43 10.1%

  • Total voters
    425

BrandedEagle

kiwifarms.net
Without the impeachment inquiry vote passing, this is a brazenly unfair secret trial piece of crap that will lose its legitimacy.
This is just the punch, and it sucks. We need to see what President Trump has as the counterpunch.
its called a lawsuit claiming due process violations with a majority conservative supreme court and no legal way to prevent them from seeing it.

they could try to anyway without a vote but doing so just fucks them and future impeachments over. on both sides.
 

Manwithn0n0men

kiwifarms.net
If you join the mob, people you work with are going to die.

And I am 10 billion percent certain Trump isn't going to be impached. Because that's not even a real thing.

Also, it doesn't matter until that melting cunt Nancy Pelosi actually puts the impeachment inquiry on the record with a vote.
Trump isnt going to be impeached because the Democrats arent making a case to convince 50%+1 of americans to demand his removal before an election

its called a lawsuit claiming due process violations with a majority conservative supreme court and no legal way to prevent them from seeing it.

they could try to anyway without a vote but doing so just fucks them and future impeachments over. on both sides.
There is a LEGAL ARGUMENT that without their having an impeachment vote Obstruction of Justice doesnt apply
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: FierceBrosnan

Capsaicin Addict

When burning it to the ground is the best option.
kiwifarms.net
The best part about Pelosi throttling back on the impeachment vote was her declaring 'all roads lead to Putin'.

Um, Nancy? Grandma? This was supposed to be about Ukraine. Not Russia. And Zelensky isn't exactly in Putin's pocket like Yankhiscrank or whatever his name was.
 

BrandedEagle

kiwifarms.net
My understanding was that there was no "due process" because impeachment is an extralegal process.
exactly. without a vote, any further attempts will be beat down with that exact argument and unless the democrats want to fracture their kingdom for eons to come, they will relent each time the president tells them to fuck off. the moment they bring it to a court room, it goes before the now majority republican supreme court who likely have some not-so-favorable-for-dem opinions on impeachment.
 

Screw Danlon

Bifurcated White Guy
kiwifarms.net
At this point, I think it’s too late for them to pull back. So they might decide to just shoot the moon and pray.

Seriously, whether it was a trap or just a good reaction, they got baited into running with their biggest weapon at what they thought was a weak flank, only to have it turn around and snap back at them.

I don’t think there’s any way they can just walk this back now. It’s like with the shutdown a couple years ago - if they blink, they lose their one shot and whatever high ground they believe they’re on. They might think they can walk away, but I’m pretty sure they’re pot committed at this point.
 

Vitruvius

Gnaeus, load the onagers.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
At this point, I think it’s too late for them to pull back. So they might decide to just shoot the moon and pray.

Seriously, whether it was a trap or just a good reaction, they got baited into running with their biggest weapon at what they thought was a weak flank, only to have it turn around and snap back at them.

I don’t think there’s any way they can just walk this back now. It’s like with the shutdown a couple years ago - if they blink, they lose their one shot and whatever high ground they believe they’re on. They might think they can walk away, but I’m pretty sure they’re pot committed at this point.
This impeachment shitshow is basically the political version of Hannibal and the Romans at Cannae with Trump playing the former and the Dem leadership playing the latter.
 

BrandedEagle

kiwifarms.net
There's nothing that says they have to vote to start the inquiry, it's just an optional part of the process. Trump still has to comply with their supeona's or he's obstructing justice
while maybe true, trump could just force everything into a court where it will simply be deemed unconstitution and declaw any future impeachments even if this one manages to get him impeached down the line.
impeachment is a death knell for them on any move other than deciding to not go through. I pray they are smart enough to see this and not walk headfirst into it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: heathercho
There's nothing that says they have to vote to start the inquiry, it's just an optional part of the process. Trump still has to comply with their supeona's or he's obstructing justice
Trump won’t comply unless they vote. If he doesn’t comply, what’re they gonna do? Impeach him? We already settled that the Democrats don’t want to actually impeach Trump or else they’d have drafted articles of impeachment ages ago. Instead they’re just dithering and pretending there’s more information to be had or the next big bombshell is just around the corner, while never actually getting around to doing anything.

What you don’t seem to get is that this suits the Democrats just fine, they’d rather keep things in limbo without actually having to accomplish anything. Because while they’ll never begin a formal process, they can at least try to set up a Mueller-esque hype-train for their base.

Impeachment is like a carrot you put in front of the donkey: it’s never supposed to get the carrot, it’s just supposed to hope for a carrot while moving in a direction the people riding them want.

At this point I’m convinced they’ll never begin an impeachment, or even start a formal inquiry. This is nothing more than hype and empty promises.
 

PantsFreeZone

Smartest monkey on the spinning space rock
kiwifarms.net
There's nothing that says they have to vote to start the inquiry, it's just an optional part of the process. Trump still has to comply with their supeona's or he's obstructing justice
Wut?

The impeachment process must be initiated in the House of Representatives with the passage of a resolution listing the charges or “Articles of Impeachment” against the official being impeached.
 

It's HK-47

Meatbag's Bounty of Bodies
Supervisor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
There's nothing that says they have to vote to start the inquiry, it's just an optional part of the process. Trump still has to comply with their supeona's or he's obstructing justice
I beg to differ.

Buckle up your Boring Seatbelts™ , because we're going to be looking at The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, which is a reference source for information on the rules and selected precedents governing the House procedure. More specifically, we're going to be looking at the version adopted by the 115th congress and still in place today as of March 2017, which I don't recommend reading in its entirety, since it's fucking 1,065 pages long, but I'm a shitposter, not a cop. Do whatever you want.

Page 613 of the PDF concerns impeachment. The keys we're looking for are articles of impeachment that pass the house, specifically House Resolution 803 of the 93rd congress.

"Authorizes the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.
States that the Committee may require, by subpoena, interrogatory, or otherwise, the furnishing of such information as it deems necessary to such an investigation. Provides that such authority may be exercised by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee."

A formal impeachment inquiry requires the cooperation of the minority members of committees, something which Pelosi and the House at large has utterly failed to do. You could argue that this only applied to Nixon's (theoretically inevitable) impeachment, so we'll defer back to the House Practices, page 617.

"In 1974 the grounds for invoking the impeachment power against the President were illustrated when the House initiated an inquiry into President Nixon’s conduct [...]"​
But we have three important impeachment proceedings against a President to examine: Andrew Johnson, Nixon, and Bill Clinton. With Andrew Johnson, no official impeachment inquiry was offered, rather it was just a resolution before the drafting of articles of impeachment, which was a revolt against his removal of a cabinet member; a move the House vehemently disagreed with. Bill Clinton was similar in that there wasn't an official impeachment inquiry, as the impeachment was based on what had occurred during the Ken Starr independent counsel investigation.

Nixon was different in that it was the House who did the investigating. So with Johnson, it was a policy conflict, and with Clinton, the investigating had already happened. If anything, Trump's impeachment ought to mirror Nixon's with a smattering of Clinton's thrown in on top of it, because the investigation (Mueller) has already happened. That being said, I can't help but notice that at no point has the House been injecting the Mueller report into these hearings, which is just more evidence that his investigation turned up exactly Jack and shit. They could have included it, but they haven't.

Likewise, the Andrew Johnson impeachment led to the precedent after its defeat in the Senate that the House should not impeach the president based on policy conflicts. The best comparison to this for a modern audience would be the House attempting to impeach Trump over firing Mattis. Obviously, they haven't done that either.

Now the important part: Page 624 of the PDF.

"Under the modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee investigation of charges against the officer in question."​
Pelosi and the Democrats are officially--by the House Practices which have been updated as recently as March 2017-- in violation of impeachment proceedings per modern practice.

"In the 105th Congress, an independent counsel transmitted to the House [...] a communication containing evidence of alleged impeachable offenses by [Clinton.]"​
"The House adopted a privileged resolution [...] referring the communication to the Committee on the Judiciary, immediately releasing portions to the public, restricting Members’ access to the communication, and restricting access to committee meetings and hearings"​
"Later, the House adopted a privileged resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary authorizing an impeachment inquiry by that committee"​
"Resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for an impeachment are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary"​

As you can see, this is very similar to what's happening right now, with several fairly important differences. The least of which not being that there was a formal resolution before-hand, as in an actual vote and then another one was held thereafter for the inquiry. More importantly, Matt Gaetz--who is in the House Judiciary--has been completely cut out of the "impeachment proceedings", yet again violating their own, modern practice.

Not only is there not a single privileged resolution (essentially a House resolution that gets priority over other House business) authorizing any of this, but this all has to go through the House Judiciary committee, which Nancy Pelosi has driven out of the proceedings on partisan lines.

All of this should have been put to a vote as a privileged resolution, and the Democrats have thoroughly and completely failed to do so. None of this is actual, proper procedure, and until they hold a vote, it is legally meaningless.
 

AGreatDipAtAFairPrice

kiwifarms.net
There's nothing that says they have to vote to start the inquiry, it's just an optional part of the process. Trump still has to comply with their supeona's or he's obstructing justice
They have no force of law to penalize people if they don't testify. They are just strongly worded letters to go to the witch hunt and have what you say reported back to WaPo and New York Times. Its a shame somebody already agreed to it and had the "bombshells" immediately "leaked" to New York Times in 24 hours. Schiff always has "leaks" happen, doesn't he? Gimme a break.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino