This doesn’t strike me as demonstrating an interest in becoming a contributing member of this board. Normally I’d leave a note and be done with it, but given I’ve left several notes across the boards over the past couple days, I’m not sure that’s going to work. I’m not interested in continuing with that. Reasoning below.
Accusing other posters of trolling is not allowed in this forum. It may be that you’re not accusing another poster of trolling, and you’re simply railing against the system again, essentially spamming this theme where you can, but I’m not going to spend much time trying to parse it. Reasoning below.
In post #2013 I informed you that participation in this forum was predicated on you following the rules of the board. Unfortunately for you (and the rest of us) you have chosen to not do that. This is a warning for personal insults. So while I cautioned you multiple times in warnings, and via PM to familiarize yourself with the rules of the board, and notes, you don’t seem to have taken that advice. This combined with your penchant for repeating the same theme of ‘fight the system!’ across multiple unrelated threads, is the last nail. This is three warnings in 2 days.
You are banned. I’m sure you’ll enjoy the cross, but it won’t be here.
Yeah really. I don’t think anyone on this board has a “media machine”, unless you’re talking about computers, phones, and TVs, I suppose those are machines that deliver media.
BB, my mind must be going. Yours is the post I wanted to address the most…And apologies to others, bringing this up again…
That wasn’t the point, which was, simply give a quote or two that supports what you are arguing. If just saying, here’s a bunch of links, go off and see for yourself, then what’s the point of replying? Why bother and then not want talk about them specifically?
Irrelevant to me. I would not just summarily dismiss something, and I’ve dismissed nothing here. And I don’t use “tactics”. The idea that if someone who has been shown to be likely wrong about something on the Dope won’t just admit it is hilarious to me. Not denigrating the Dope, but this is just the Dope. It’s not like my livelihood depends on it, like say a political operative on TV, and I would be more humilated in my mind if I resorted to such a thing rather than just saying I was wrong.
No doubt Trump’s life story is deep and complex. The Moscow Project link goes back to the seventies. This is *exactly *why I asked for a few quotes. His whole life can’t be about the subject of whether he is being blackmailed. But on that subject, the blackmail aspect being deep and complex. As of yet, to me, not so much. But then maybe other thread (see below) can convince me.
Eh, please don’t. I believe it was you who said there was a “shit-load” of evidence. Care to discuss it in the thread I started "Is Trump a Russian Asset? That’s a big reason I responded just now.
I don’t have the timeline at hand, but the gist is that the Starr report came out early September, the House voted to start an inquiry a month later, and by mid-December the House voted on impeachment. There really wasn’t much in the way of an independent investigation by the House. It was primarily reviews of the Starr report and that’s about it.
Fight my ignorance (and forgive me for being ignorant):
So the GOP talking-point on this matter is that “it has to go to a vote before impeachment can be taken seriously.” This seems to be the basis for which Pompeo, Rudy and co can flout these requests.
As per my previous post, clearly in other impeachment processes there was a gap of time between the initial inquiries and the vote.
What is the different between the current “official impeachment inquiry” and whatever the impeachment investigation that will happen after the vote?
Are Reps accurate in saying they have a right to ignore these initial subpoenas since there’s been no vote authorizing an impeachment investigation?
Will the House have more enforceable compulsion-methods to ensure compliance with subpoenas after the vote?
What are they waiting on to vote?
I’m just trying to understand if the breath of congressional power strengthens and grows after the vote vs what’s going on right now. I also don’t understand how people can just fail to comply with subpoenas without consequence.
IANAL. But I think the White House is following the MSU* Code of Legal Ethics. As far as I know, there are no constraints on when Congress can issue a subpoena – and if taking an impeachment vote changes any of those constraints, I’ve never heard it before.
I don’t know the answer to all your questions I snipped, but I think I can guess the answer to this one. It’s because the department that would in normal times enforce those subpeonas is run by a Trump appointee who’s up to his eyebrows in the matter under investigation.
Anyone want to venture a guess what happens if the subpeonas go to the SCOTUS and are ruled valid, and the people defying them continue to do so?
Is the SCOTUS likely to rule them valid? I mean, what was the point of packing the court with a majority of Trumpniks if they won’t support him when it counts?
That’s a lie. It doesn’t have to go to a vote before impeachment can be taken seriously. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a formal vote. Speaker Pelosi’s declaration that a formal impeachment inquiry has begun is sufficient.
Yes. Every impeachment inquiry is different and evolves in its own way. This is my third. The procedures have been different in each, depending on which party was at the helm and what the political atmosphere was surrounding it.
Nothing. Trump and his cohorts have implied they will somehow magically begin cooperating with the impeachment inquiry if/when Speaker Pelosi takes a formal vote. Do you think they will? I don’t.
No. Emphatically, no. There is never a right to ignore a subpoena, with or without a vote authorizing an impeachment investigation or at any other time. The rule of law, upon which this nation is founded, requires compliance with a subpoena, irrespective of who issues it or when. This is an egregious dodge.
No. Akaj is spot on. It’s the DOJ, currently under the thumb of William Barr, that is responsible for enforcing Congressional subpoenas. This is the problem the Democratic House is facing that no other impeachment effort has suffered: A politicized DOJ intent on working only for Trump, not the citizens of the United States. It’s a big deal, and not in a good way. Barr’s actions are in conflict with his oath of office, but for now, he runs the enforcement arm. Who is going to enforce the laws against him? If Dems lose the presidency in 2020, you can expect Barr to remain in that office until there is nothing left of the rule of law as we have understood it for more than 240 years.
For some Democratic House members in ultra-red districts, standing up in favor of impeachment could cost them their seats in November 2020. Speaker Pelosi’s first obligation as Speaker is to maintain her majority in the House. By postponing the vote until the public is better informed about the basis for the impeachment effort, she doesn’t hang these House members out to dry. There is merit to her thinking. Support for impeachment has increased since she has made the formal declaration.
The reason 225 Dems + 1 independent (Amash) have publicly stated their support for the impeachment inquiry is to demonstrate that the votes to open an impeachment inquiry are there.
And when that happens, maybe some general calls his bluff. We wouldn’t be the first country where the military has intervened against executives who exhibited utter disregard for the law.
I think the most likely is that the White house ignores it, and the majority of Republicans either tut-tut or say nothing. While everyone else watching goes WFT? and most of the American public is actually unaware of what it going on.
Republicans step away? Not going to happen. In fact, it would be MORE likely that orders would be given to arrest Pelisi, Schiff and any other Democrat who Trump happened to remember to name in his “arrest tweet”.
I’ll be interested to see what Republicans will do if Trump or Pompeo is summoned to Congress to explain their “reasoning” in the decision to pull out of Syria, and those summons are disregarded.
I believe it was you who said there was a “shit-load” of evidence. Care to discuss it in the thread I started "Is Trump a Russian Asset? That’s a big reason I responded just now.