Why is Pelosi reluctant (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Responses to questions about on-going congressional investigations:

    "An investigation is in progress. No comment." - Proper response.
    "The dirty, lying, cheating bastage deserves what he gets!" - Not the proper response.
     
    Good thing for Schiff that he is running committee investigation and not a grand jury. Why is it so hard for you all to understand that an impeachment hearing "grand jury" has not even begun yet? They need evidence to actually have a hearing and to draft the Articles of Impeachment. Once Intel Committee completes their investigation, they will turn it over to Judicial who will decide whether or not to draft Articles of Impeachment and send it to the House floor or "grand jury".

    Lol, do you not realize that you are making my point?

    It's some of those on your side of the argument that keep trying to like this "impeachment inquiry - light" to a grand jury and thereby excuse the one sideness of the proceedings.

    It's in response to those arguments that I am saying that a very critical distinction between a real grand jury and this barnyard tribunal is that grand juries do not argue the unscrutinized evidence in the court of public opinion.
     
    Lol, do you not realize that you are making my point?

    It's some of those on your side of the argument that keep trying to like this "impeachment inquiry - light" to a grand jury and thereby excuse the one sideness of the proceedings.

    It's in response to those arguments that I am saying that a very critical distinction between a real grand jury and this barnyard tribunal is that grand juries do not argue the unscrutinized evidence in the court of public opinion.
    LOL, you are completely missing the point. The "grand jury" has not even been seated yet. THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION, meaning that they are gathering evidence of whether or not a crime may have been committed.

    If they believe they have enough evidence that a crime may have been committed, then they will seek an indictment from the "grand jury" and send it to the Senate for a trial. Once the trial begins, then the defense can subpoena Chewbacca to testify for all I care.
     
    I don
    LOL, you are completely missing the point. The "grand jury" has not even been seated yet. THIS IS AN INVESTIGATION, meaning that they are gathering evidence of whether or not a crime may have been committed.

    If they believe they have enough evidence that a crime may have been committed, then they will seek an indictment from the "grand jury" and send it to the Senate for a trial. Once the trial begins, thjoen the defense can subpoena Chewbacca to testify for all I care.

    We are going in circles.
     
    I don


    We are going in circles.
    Agreed.

    Impeachment trials are held by the Senate. Now, in order for that trial to take place, Articles of Impeachment (indictment) has to be voted on and passed by the House.

    You keep saying that the House need to hold a vote? WTH would they be voting for? There are no Articles of Impeachment because all the House has is an accusation that a possible crime has been committed. Someone needs to investigate the accusation and seeing how it's the opinion of the DoJ that the POTUS cannot be investigated by the DoJ, it is up to Congress to do the investigation. It's either that or another Special Counsel and I think we all can agree that is something that no one wants.
     
    Agreed.

    Impeachment trials are held by the Senate. Now, in order for that trial to take place, Articles of Impeachment (indictment) has to be voted on and passed by the House.

    You keep saying that the House need to hold a vote? WTH would they be voting for? There are no Articles of Impeachment because all the House has is an accusation that a possible crime has been committed. Someone needs to investigate the accusation and seeing how it's the opinion of the DoJ that the POTUS cannot be investigated by the DoJ, it is up to Congress to do the investigation. It's either that or another Special Counsel and I think we all can agree that is something that no one wants.

    The House, as an institution, should vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry.
     
    The House, as an institution, should vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry.
    Yes, votes were taken in 1974 & 1988 but those votes were taken after long Independent Counsel investigations. The evidence from those investigations were enough justification for the House to vote whether or not the Judicial Committee should draft Articles of Impeachment.

    As we stand right now, the Intel Committee is investigating an allegation and I think we all can agree that an allegation is not enough to seek impeachment. Once they conclude their investigation, they'll vote to see if there's enough evidence for the Judicial Committee to seek impeachment.
     
    Yes, votes were taken in 1974 & 1988 but those votes were taken after long Independent Counsel investigations. The evidence from those investigations were enough justification for the House to vote whether or not the Judicial Committee should draft Articles of Impeachment.

    As we stand right now, the Intel Committee is investigating an allegation and I think we all can agree that an allegation is not enough to seek impeachment. Once they conclude their investigation, they'll vote to see if there's enough evidence for the Judicial Committee to seek impeachment.
    Don't forget Clinton either who was subject to a years-long independent counsel investigation before impeachment charges were drafted and votes taken.

    The House, as an institution, should vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry.
    There is literally nothing that is either custom, law, or precedent for this. The constitution simply states that the House has the sole power to impeach, the Senate the sole power to hold a trial and convict. That is it.

    .....It is yet another manufactured talking point distributed down from the signal senders at the top to obfuscate and deflect from the central matter of Trump's robust and extensive abuses of power. Instead of arguing the facts, which are not on Trump's side, instead, complain about made-up process norms that Trump supporters clearly don't care for otherwise they would have abandoned Trump for normative bulldozing years ago.

    Pounding the table as Dershowitz would say.
     
    Last edited:
    Don't forget Clinton either who was subject to a years-long independent counsel investigation before impeachment charges were
    Don't forget Clinton either who was subject to a years-long independent counsel investigation before impeachment charges were drafted and votes taken.


    There is literally nothing that is either custom, law, or precedent for this. The constitution simply states that the House has the sole power to impeach, the Senate the sole power to hold a trial and convict. That is it.

    It is yet another manufactured talking point to obfuscate and deflect from the central matter of Trump's robust and extensive abuses of power. Instead of arguing the facts, which are not on Trump's side, instead, whine about invented process norms that Trump supporters clearly don't care for otherwise they would have abandoned Trump for normative bulldozing years ago.

    Pounding the table as Dershowitz would say.

    I don't see it as a talking point at all. I think the Constitution says that impeachment power lies with the House, not within the House.

    I am not the least bit concerned about actual removal. As far as the actual results that you will see, this will only hurt the Democrats.
     
    The House, as an institution, should vote on whether there should be an impeachment inquiry.
    I've seen impeachment inquiry used in different contexts here and in news reports. To make sure I understand what you are saying, would you please explain what you mean when you say impeachment inquiry.
     
    This whole thread is going a bit off. Lots of unsubstantiated allegations are being repeated as facts and a lot of loaded language is being used.

    If you are posting an opinion it needs to be qualified as such and not stated as fact.

    We need to avoid loaded language in general if we have any hope of having a productive discussion.
     
    Since this has become an issue in this thread, I went to look up what Schiff actually said that has drawn so much criticism. Here is a fact check on Schiff by a really good reporter who has come to specialize in fact checking.


    I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but maybe we can use this to ground ourselves in the facts of the case at hand.
     
    Since this has become an issue in this thread, I went to look up what Schiff actually said that has drawn so much criticism. Here is a fact check on Schiff by a really good reporter who has come to specialize in fact checking.


    I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but maybe we can use this to ground ourselves in the facts of the case at hand.

    I appreciate people setting the record on this, but IDK, this is one of those I can't even muster the energy to fight tbh.

    Shiff overstated, slightly(though prefacing that he wasn't speaking word for word), but Trump also called it treason, has nicknamed him a Jewish stereotype as a result and has habitually butchered the context of people's words, actions, and routinely accused others of actual crimes without evidence on a routine basis. To the point, his followers have delivered death threats, even pipe bombs to his enemies on those false framings and pretenses. Those words have demonstrated to be of actual, ongoing consequence.

    To catastrophize about the former, but ignore the latter entirely, even just to a disproportionately lesser degree, makes it really hard to do much more against pushback after stating those facts and context and just drawing some inferences with a sense of futility and walking away.
     
    Last edited:
    We’ve seen so much hyperbole about Schiff, I just wanted the record set straight.

    The irony of people who are defending Trump getting all overheated about what Schiff did, which was overstating and being less than forthcoming, rather than the whoppers the President tells every single day is not lost on me.

    I mean Trump and Giuliani are telling outright lies about Biden and his son every single day. Not overstating, just total falsehoods.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom