Pelosi holds vote Thursday

[dianaiad]

I am sorry to say that you don’t seem to understand what this vote is, or what the result of the vote will be. I am not going to try to explain this to you now, but I am sure that in the next couple days you will figure out your error.

But I say again with very near certainty, the vote will happen on Thursday just as Pelosi said it will. And it will pass.

And here is a hint. It will be the vote Pelosi has called for. Not whatever you are thinking.

the vote is to establish the rules by which the proposed impeachment inquiry (that is, an inquiry to find out if there is enough 'there' to have actual impeachment hearings). It is NOT impeachment hearings. It is certainly not a trial to see if y'all can kick Trump out of office.

But unless Pelosi is too obvious for even her side to handle, those rules will include an even handed access to evidence and witnesses; that is, each side has the same access to them as the other side does. Right now they don't. Pelosi and gang have access, the Republicans don't. Pelosi can subpoena people and call witnesses. The Republicans can't...because there is no official inquiry going on. Just claims and demands made by Democrats that Republicans aren't allowed to answer.

Do NOT tell me that I don't understand what this vote is. I very much do....and that's why I say that if anybody does something to sabotage the vote, it will be Pelosi. This...making this inquiry official, with actual rules...is not in the best interest of the Democrats, who have been calling for Trump's impeachment quite literally since the day after his election. She SHOULD have done this weeks ago.

No, if this vote happens, it will be in spite of her, not because of her. She is being forced to something she doesn't want, because right now she can do, say, subpoena and bully her way through with no opposition. AFTER the vote, if she hasn't made those rules so utterly and obviously one sided that even the most biased left winger can't swallow them, she won't have things all her own way.

And she doesn't want that.

.....and now, having read the draft of the proposal...good grief.

The first thing she does is state that the Republicans can have the right to subpoena ONLY with the concurrence of the democratic chair after submitting a request...and that the Democratic chair can say no way...., but there is no requirement that the Dems have to have the concurrence of the Republicans for subpoena power?

I wonder if any of YOU people will see the problem with that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

the vote is to establish the rules by which the proposed impeachment inquiry (that is, an inquiry to find out if there is enough 'there' to have actual impeachment hearings). It is NOT impeachment hearings. It is certainly not a trial to see if y'all can kick Trump out of office.

But unless Pelosi is too obvious for even her side to handle, those rules will include an even handed access to evidence and witnesses; that is, each side has the same access to them as the other side does. Right now they don't. Pelosi and gang have access, the Republicans don't. Pelosi can subpoena people and call witnesses. The Republicans can't...because there is no official inquiry going on. Just claims and demands made by Democrats that Republicans aren't allowed to answer.

Do NOT tell me that I don't understand what this vote is. I very much do....and that's why I say that if anybody does something to sabotage the vote, it will be Pelosi. This...making this inquiry official, with actual rules...is not in the best interest of the Democrats, who have been calling for Trump's impeachment quite literally since the day after his election. She SHOULD have done this weeks ago.

No, if this vote happens, it will be in spite of her, not because of her. She is being forced to something she doesn't want, because right now she can do, say, subpoena and bully her way through with no opposition. AFTER the vote, if she hasn't made those rules so utterly and obviously one sided that even the most biased left winger can't swallow them, she won't have things all her own way.

And she doesn't want that.

Can someone tell @dianaiad that impeachment is not kicking someone out of office. It is akin to a indictment. It means that one is going to go to trial for what they are accused of. In an indictment there is not an "even handed access" in an indictment, why do you expect one in an impeachment? The actual trial takes place in the Senate. And yes, they have had an "official investigation". Now they are taking it up a notch.

Don't worry, this will pass. And the testimony will be public. I can't wait. This is in reality the last thing that Republicans want to see. You will see quite a few of them voting hypocritically against an open investigation when they have been the ones demanding one all along. Ain't hypocrisy a female dog that has had puppies at times?

 

[Shad]

Pelosi holds vote Thursday to confirm they are having the impeachment inquiry.

Pelosi announces full House vote on impeachment inquiry

Ergo making up as they go along.

 

[Shad]

I'll be curious to see if during the Senate trial, Republican Senators publicly espouse the bizarre conspiracy theories and alternate reality that's been circulating on right-wing media. Are they actually going to argue, in full view of the public, that our intelligence agencies cannot be trusted and are composed of traitors, and instead we should all be paying heed to information (propaganda) from the Russian government?

If they do that, I wonder how that'll go over?

The Senate can vote to dismiss without any trial with a simple majority of 51 votes.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

The Senate can vote to dismiss without any trial with a simple majority of 51 votes.

Source?

 

[Shad]

Source?

Senate rules as per section XV and XXII. Also see section II. Impeachment has to pass in the House and be sent to the Senate for trial. The Senate or members of can put forward a motion to dismiss after.

*Videos are the Senate talking about the motion to dismiss. Put forward by Bryd (of course)

Rules Of The Senate | U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration

Impeachment Trial | C-SPAN.org
Impeachment Trial Reaction | C-SPAN.org
Impeachment Trial | C-SPAN.org

And more just with dismiss as the keyword.

dismiss | Search | C-SPAN.org


From an Anonymous Tip to an Impeachment: A Timeline of Key Moments in the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall012599.htm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rollcall1_012799.htm

 

[pearl]

Anybody have the tiniest bit of doubt the vote will pass?

Pelosi is known for not calling a vote unless she has the votes. The full House vote allows the Trump people to have legal council. So I don't think anyone is fooled by the Trump administration that they would comply with turning over all documents if there is a full House vote.

 

[fantome profane]

Pelosi is known for not calling a vote unless she has the votes. The full House vote allows the Trump people to have legal council. So I don't think anyone is fooled by the Trump administration that they would comply with turning over all documents if there is a full House vote.

There are no lawyers allowed in the depositions. And after this vote there will still not be lawyers allowed in the depositions. Before this vote the Republicans on the relevant committees could sit in and ask questions in these depositions, after the vote that will not change. Nothing at all about what has been happening so far is going to change.

This is all about the next step in in the process. Which will be and always was going to be public and the Congress people will and were always going to be allowed their lawyers and staff to be present.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Pelosi is known for not calling a vote unless she has the votes. The full House vote allows the Trump people to have legal council. So I don't think anyone is fooled by the Trump administration that they would comply with turning over all documents if there is a full House vote.

Known? ....
When was the last time Pelosi called a successful vote? It sounds like you made that part up.

 

[esmith]

You do realize that this is not a vote to impeach but a vote to continue what they are currently doing.
In other words, if passed, they can continue to hold, behind closed doors, investigations and not allow cross examination of witnesses if they so desire.
As of now they do not have any evidence that supports the claim the the President did anything of a criminal nature. However since the Constitution says that impeachment mat be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". However the Constitution does not define what "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are. This is left up to the "opinion" of the House, in this case. This is nothing more than the a political stunt for the 2020 elections, they know the Senate will not remove the President from office.

 

[metis]

and not allow cross examination of witnesses if they so desire.

Absolutely false, as Republicans in the chambers very much can and have asked questions. If the vote passes tomorrow, which it likely will, then many of the hearings will be public.

As of now they do not have any evidence that supports the claim the the President did anything of a criminal nature.

Again false, as Mueller's report stated that there were 10 different actions that Trump took that could be obstructions of justice, and he could possibly be tried on one or more of them once he's not a sitting president. It was Barr's lies about the Mueller report that led Mueller to have a press conference to repeat what he had concluded.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that this is not a vote to impeach but a vote to continue what they are currently doing.
In other words, if passed, they can continue to hold, behind closed doors, investigations and not allow cross examination of witnesses if they so desire.
As of now they do not have any evidence that supports the claim the the President did anything of a criminal nature. However since the Constitution says that impeachment mat be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". However the Constitution does not define what "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are. This is left up to the "opinion" of the House, in this case. This is nothing more than the a political stunt for the 2020 elections, they know the Senate will not remove the President from office.

To add on to @metis post we also have the testimony of an "ear witness" to the call that tells us that parts of the transcript that had an ellipsis (in other words " . . .") that Trump did make the quid pro quo obvious.

This vote is to make the process public. That could be very bad for the Republicans. They will be able to cross examine witnesses. So the claim of a "star chamber" goes away. There will be written counter measures to keep the Republicans from trying to derail the investigation. In other words if they get too obvious in obstructing the process they will likely lose their ability to cross examine. This could be a master stroke for the Democrats. They started with an investigation using Republican rules and now they are changing it to accommodate the Republicans. They really have nothing left to complain about. And some of the testimony that the Republicans would have liked to have kept private will now be public, because they demanded it. Oh the sweet sweet irony!

 

[fantome profane]

As of now they do not have any evidence that supports the claim the the President did anything of a criminal nature.

As of now we have evidence in the form of a transcript released by the White House that Trump solicited aid from a foreign leader to help him in the upcoming election. That is a crime.

We also have evidence from text messages and public statements that Trump made aid to Ukraine dependent on Zelensky making a formal announcement that Biden was under investigation. That is a second crime.

And there is still all the evidence of obstruction of justice, violations of the constitution, and tax fraud.

 

[esmith]

Absolutely false, as Republicans in the chambers very much can and have asked questions. If the vote passes tomorrow, which it likely will, then many of the hearings will be public.

Let's wait and see how the hearings are handled.

Again false, as Mueller's report stated that there were 10 different actions that Trump took that could be obstructions of justice, and he could possibly be tried on one or more of them once he's not a sitting president. It was Barr's lies about the Mueller report that led Mueller to have a press conference to repeat what he had concluded.

Now let me see, you say tried once h is no longer the President; does this mean your above possibilities could not be brought-up in an impeachment investigation?[

 

[Twilight Hue]

You do realize that this is not a vote to impeach but a vote to continue what they are currently doing.
In other words, if passed, they can continue to hold, behind closed doors, investigations and not allow cross examination of witnesses if they so desire.
As of now they do not have any evidence that supports the claim the the President did anything of a criminal nature. However since the Constitution says that impeachment mat be for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". However the Constitution does not define what "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" are. This is left up to the "opinion" of the House, in this case. This is nothing more than the a political stunt for the 2020 elections, they know the Senate will not remove the President from office.

Not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money and time. The Socialist Democrats have already cost the taxpayer millions of dollars on pointless endeavors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not to mention a huge waste of taxpayer money and time. The Socialist Democrats have already cost the taxpayer millions of dollars on pointless endeavors.

Whew! I guess it is a good thing then that regular Democrats are running this investigation.

 

[fantome profane]

Let's wait and see how the hearings are handled.



Now let me see, you say tried once h is no longer the President; does this mean your above possibilities could not be brought-up in an impeachment investigation?[

If you are talking about double jeopardy the constitution is very clear that jeopardy is not attached to an impeachment trial. The senate does not have the power to sentence anyone to prison. They can at most remove him from office and bar him from holding office in the future.

 

[esmith]

If you are talking about double jeopardy the constitution is very clear that jeopardy is not attached to an impeachment trial. The senate does not have the power to sentence anyone to prison. They can at most remove him from office and bar him from holding office in the future.

That is not what I was advocating.
The question was since @metis said " Mueller's report stated that there were 10 different actions that Trump took that could be obstructions of justice, and he could possibly be tried on one or more of them once he's not a sitting president." could they bring these up in an impeachment invetigation.

 

[esmith]

To add on to @metis post we also have the testimony of an "ear witness" to the call that tells us that parts of the transcript that had an ellipsis (in other words " . . .") that Trump did make the quid pro quo obvious.

Where is the proof that what he said was quid pro quo? Hearsay?????

This vote is to make the process public. That could be very bad for the Republicans. They will be able to cross examine witnesses. So the claim of a "star chamber" goes away. There will be written counter measures to keep the Republicans from trying to derail the investigation. In other words if they get too obvious in obstructing the process they will likely lose their ability to cross examine. This could be a master stroke for the Democrats. They started with an investigation using Republican rules and now they are changing it to accommodate the Republicans. They really have nothing left to complain about. And some of the testimony that the Republicans would have liked to have kept private will now be public, because they demanded it. Oh the sweet sweet irony!

In other words you are saying if the Democrats don't like the direction of the Republicans questions they lose the right to ask questions. Sounds like a kangaroo court scenario to me.

 

[esmith]

As of now we have evidence in the form of a transcript released by the White House that Trump solicited aid from a foreign leader to help him in the upcoming election. That is a crime.

Is it a crime to ask a country to investigate possible wrong doings. Just because Biden is running for President does not make him immune from being investigated.

We also have evidence from text messages and public statements that Trump made aid to Ukraine dependent on Zelensky making a formal announcement that Biden was under investigation. That is a second crime.

Where is the proof that aid to Ukraine was dependent on Zelensky making a formal announcement that Biden was under investigation.?

And there is still all the evidence of obstruction of justice, violations of the constitution, and tax fraud.

Got proof?