is overuse of sharpies an impeachable offense?
1 Like
In their world itâs a death penalty offense.
1 Like
They have to meet to establish the two step process first.
-
Establish that they want to impeach Trump.
-
Look for something, anything, to impeach him for.
1 Like
Happy wife Happy Life!
Swing districts are about elections.
Sorry, youâre busted. Answer the question.
Was there a question? I really donât care if there was.
My point was about those elected to swing district seats not being on record about impeachment.
Nothing to do with their elections in 2018 or 2020.
The thread is about impeachment. Try to keep up.
1 Like
Sounds like a desperate attempt to save Obama and his Deepstate traitors before all those investigations are over.
By all means, let the Democrats take their phony charges and be stupid enough to use them to impeach Trump. Learn nothing about what happened when a president was impeached with actual proper cause. PLEASE, be that stupid before the 2020 election!
This message brought to you by the committee to re-elect Donald TrumpâŚ
Same format as the Watergate hearings. Iâm liking it.
The House Judiciary Committee approved Thursday a resolution that outlines the rules and scope for its impeachment inquiry into President Trump. The 24-17 vote was along party lines.
Why it matters: Itâs the committeeâs first vote on an action related to its ongoing impeachment probe and grants House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) wide-ranging powers moving forward.
Details: The resolution allows Nadler the ability to brand hearings as impeachment hearings and designate hearings related to the probe to either the full committee or a subcommittee. It also gives committee staff an additional hour to question witnesses and deems all information gathered in the probe private until Nadler says otherwise.
It stipulates that Trumpâs legal counsel is able to review and respond in writing to impeachment-related evidence only on Nadlerâs invitation.
The scope of the inquiry includes Trumpâs potential violations of the emoluments clause, hush money payments used to cover up alleged affairs and his alleged attempts to obstruct justice in former special counsel Robert Muellerâs investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Same timeline as the Watergate impeachment hearings. Iâm digging it.
And if the White House blows off responding to any subpoenas short of an impeachment inquiry? Hell, theyâll probably ignore those, too, but worth a try, I think.
Maybe or maybe not, I am sure both parties will be biting their nails on election night after 2016.
They will have a much tougher time blowing off subpoenas after this⌠The federal courts will IQ treat any subpoenas like a judicial subpoena⌠I suspect that is why they are taking these steps
It took me a while to find this in the Journal of the House of Representatives, from the time period of December 28, 1795 to January 13, 1796. It concerned a gentleman by the name of Robert Randal, who attempted to bribe several members of the House of Representatives in return for their support of a bill to make a land grant to him and his colleagues. Instead, the members reported the bribery attempt to the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House issued a warrant and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives held Randall in the custody of the House of Representatives for several days. During that time he was interrogated at the bar of the House by the Speaker and ultimately tried by contempt before the whole House, ultimately being convicted. After being reprimanded at the bar of the House by the Speaker, he was ultimately released from custody.
Clearly, the House of Representatives could have its Sergeant at Arms take even a cabinet secretary into custody for contempt of the House and could hold him for an extended period if necessary. Just because the House has not used that power in centuries does not mean it does not still exist.
The dems have no solutions. So, this is what they have to do to keep their TDS base sending them moneyâŚ
2 Likes
As Safiel said, while staggeringly unlikely, the House could independently arrest and hold someone for contempt of Congress.
But the problem with Congressional subpoenas is they canât hold much teeth - itâs a separation of powers issue.
Congress has the power to subpoena whatever they want, but they have very limited means of enforcing those subpoenas. They can refer those who refuse to respond to subpoenas to the US Attorney for prosecution, but the US Attorney is part of the Executive Branch, and is well within their rights to ignore such referrals - particularly when the refusal to respond to the subpoena comes from the highest levels.
This is an abuse of power committed by a Congress controlled by a totally corrupt and compromised Democratic party
Go for it you moron Dems!
