- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 10/29/19 at 3:58 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Ah. So if you think Trump is crazy, and shouldn't be in office, then if you can imagine him doing a certain thing, then it's plausible and he has to defend himself from your hypotheticals. Good to know.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:05 pm to Jbird
Here you go dickfors
LINK
Figured you wouldn't like that it is a Lawfare article, so I went and dug through the resolution for Clinton to find the language they reference:
LINK
Pull your head out of your asses and get off my dick for a second, you are making yourselves look stupid.
quote:
Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”
LINK
Figured you wouldn't like that it is a Lawfare article, so I went and dug through the resolution for Clinton to find the language they reference:
quote:
It is the intention of the Committee that its investigation will be conducted in all respects on a fair, impartial and bipartisan or nonpartisan basis. In this spirit, the power to authorize subpoenas and other compulsory process is committed by this resolution in the first instance to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member acting jointly. If either declines to act, the other may act alone, subject to the right of either to refer the question to the Committee for decision prior to issuance, and a meeting of the Committee will be convened promptly to consider the question. Thus, meetings will not be required to authorize issuance of process, so long as neither the Chairman nor the Ranking Minority Member refers the matter to the Committee. In the alternative, the Committee possesses the independent authority to authorize subpoenas and other process, should it be felt that action of the whole Committee is preferable under the circumstances. Thus, maximum flexibility and bipartisanship are reconciled in this resolution.
LINK
Pull your head out of your asses and get off my dick for a second, you are making yourselves look stupid.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:07 pm to DeathAndTaxes
You seem like a lawfare gal.
This post was edited on 10/29/19 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:10 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Just for context, this was the case in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings, though there is no documented evidence of the majority not allowing a witness.
The requirement for the majority approval is not an issue, it's a matter of parliamentary procedure. If they choose to use that majority to not allow witnesses, that's certainly an issue.
If Scalise was telling the truth, and Schiff did in fact tell witnesses they didn't have to answer questions, then I guess we have an indication of how it will go. But don't go freaking out just yet. Its just procedure.
Thanks for the analysis, Hank.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:12 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
The requirement for the majority approval is not an issue, it's a matter of parliamentary procedure. If they choose to use that majority to not allow witnesses, that's certainly an issue.
"Republicans, who are in the minority, will have the right to call witnesses and even issue subpoenas, but only if the majority Democrats agree first.
It all depends on whether or not you can trust Dems
to be fair and honest. I don't. It would be a
deal killer for me. Since when did they ever give a
crap about "parliamentary procedure".
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:18 pm to Jjdoc
435 x 2/3 = 290. We need 290 votes to expel Nancy and Schiff from the House. 290. Let's make it happen! 
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:20 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Its just procedure.
If its just procedure that the DEMOCRATs contrive then it will certainly be pernicious, grossly biased, duplicitous, self-serving, dishonest, and stink like a dead possum in the tuna salad.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:22 pm to ChineseBandit58
Since the Dems will pass it with only Dem votes.. let them do it. Use the time to set them up for exposure... create an exhaustive laundry list of witnesses, questions, documents etc etc etc... Request Schiffforbrains approve it, he will deny every one of them... publish the results as loud as possible.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:22 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
In public hearings, GOP will be powerless per Pelosi and the resolution
How in the hell is this Constitutional?
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:28 pm to Jjdoc
Whatever the Democrats do is neither here, nor there. They dont control squat, even if they ever send Articles to the Senate.
Pelosi has to know that Trumps Attorney's are going to call witnesses and Congressional Democrats to testify....UNDER OATH
Pelosi has to know that Trumps Attorney's are going to call witnesses and Congressional Democrats to testify....UNDER OATH
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:31 pm to Jjdoc
I hate the count, but she does no how to play the game. Pity that Ryan would not play......Republicans may still be in the majority.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:33 pm to KCT
quote:
How in the hell is this Constitutional?
It's not.
Neither is threatening House Republicans with contempt and censure if they attempt to sue in Federal Court to nulify the Democrat secret proceedings.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 4:38 pm to SippyCup
quote:
This can greatly affect the perception for voters and I don't think its favorable to Trump.
This has been a campaign ploy from the beginning and public hearings leading up to the election, where the republicans have no voice is not good.
Who is this good for; Warren, Bernie?
You don't see the big picture. Without removing Trump from office by Senate 2/3rd's, Trump is going to CRUSH the 2020 Dems. This will not damage Trump at all. You idiots don't understand how strong Trump really is. this will just be a speed bump by election time next year
Posted on 10/29/19 at 5:02 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Republicans, who are in the minority, will have the right to call witnesses and even issue subpoenas, but only if the majority Democrats agree first.
So the republicans in Congress continue to bend over and take up the arse. The pussy arse republican’ts have been getting fricked for 10 years by the Dems.
Posted on 10/29/19 at 7:44 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Thanks cockgobbler.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News