Republicans storm SCIF in violation of the rules

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment has really demonstrated that Americans don’t have a f#%king clue how our government operates, and have never bothered to read the constitution.
We take it for granted, and it’s embarrassing.

This right here is the real story. It's so pathetic that - aside from the 2nd Amendment - a vast majority of the country clearly has zero familiarity with the Constitution.

It's extremely embarrassing and I'm sure foreign powers are taking note of how ignorant Americans are.

I think they figured that out before the 2016 election, when they realize they could spread propaganda to 126 million Americans for just a couple million dollars. Our elections will never be the same again, as foreign powers target American voters via social media and front groups for House, Senate, POTUS, and gubanatorial races. Every country will be trying to influence us - Russia, China, Mexico, Israel, Saudis, UAE, the EU, etc. Hell, even the Canadians will get in on this.

I think the Brits may be the only ones honorable enough to avoid these antics solely out of respect for the historical relationship between our countries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet the Constitution clearly lays out that the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. Impeachable offenses include treason, bribery, and abuse of office ("high crimes and misdemeanors" was a term of art in use at the time of the drafting of the Constitution which boils down to abuse of office or maladministration). So, following the Constitution, if the House believes the President is guilty of one of the above, the House can create Articles of Impeachment. That is followed by a public trial in the Senate, if the Senate chooses to take it up. The proceedings in the House are not a trial and do not remove an official from office. Your point would be valid if the Senate proceedings were held in private but there is no indication that anybody wants them to be (in fact, quite the opposite). You're falling for propaganda, my friend.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

How can they believe that without any evidence?

The House is in the process of collecting the evidence RIGHT NOW. This is EXACTLY what the Committees are doing in closed sessions, attended by both Dem and GOP House members (and their staff).

They are collecting the evidence and will then determine whether impeachment charges will be levied against the POTUS.

That’s exactly my point. They’d never be able to create the articles if they didn’t have any evidence.

Then why exactly are you worried about the investigation??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And yet the Constitution clearly lays out that the House has the sole power of impeachment and the Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. Impeachable offenses include treason, bribery, and abuse of office ("high crimes and misdemeanors" was a term of art in use at the time of the drafting of the Constitution which boils down to abuse of office or maladministration). So, following the Constitution, if the House believes the President is guilty of one of the above, the House can create Articles of Impeachment. That is followed by a public trial in the Senate, if the Senate chooses to take it up. The proceedings in the House are not a trial and do not remove an official from office. Your point would be valid if the Senate proceedings were held in private but there is no indication that anybody wants them to be (in fact, quite the opposite). You're falling for propaganda, my friend.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

How can they believe that without any evidence?

The House is in the process of collecting the evidence RIGHT NOW. This is EXACTLY what the Committees are doing in closed sessions, attended by both Dem and GOP House members (and their staff).

They are collecting the evidence and will then determine whether impeachment charges will be levied against the POTUS.

That’s exactly my point. They’d never be able to create the articles if they didn’t have any evidence.

Then why exactly are you worried about the investigation??

I’m not?

[Anonymous]

Thanks to all the smarties on here for responding.

My professor must have been wrong when he claimed the power of impeachment begins in the house because the house represents the heartbeat/will of the people. I mean, how could he possibly know the intention of the Founding Fathers. Thank goodness you all can read minds and know this is the way to win hearts and minds!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Optics. All of these white guy Republicants look like whiny babies because they are losing their power. They had like 2 or 3 women marching in the back and not a single black. So sad.

They also look whiny since 13 of them already had the right to be in the room, and chose to do this protest instead. They also look whiny because they are complaining about process and rules that they created themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did Gaetz enter the room with a phone?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

2/3 of Members present? Is this how the Senate Rs could indeed vote for removal without contradicting their base? If a whole group has unavoidable conflicts, the 2/3 threshold could be reached and some of the Rs could have plausible deniability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schiff should be locked up for abuse. The meeting they had wasn't even classified in nature according to house Democrats. They shouldn't have had it in the SCIF...it should be have in the open. Then he shuttles the Democrat operative out of the SCIF as soon as people storm into is Soviet style politburo coup meeting.

The Democrats are trying to turn this place into a banana republic. Good for the GOP for trying to bring this travesty to light.

You are wrong on this. The House is playing by the same rules originally adopted by Speaker Ryan. In fact, Sec. Pompeo, when on the Benghazi committee, extolled the need for closed depositions in advance of public hearings. So really, what you are complaining about seem to be the rules only applying to the democrats and not the republicans, who followed the exact same process previously.

Stop falling for the noise and pay attention to the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all the smarties on here for responding.

My professor must have been wrong when he claimed the power of impeachment begins in the house because the house represents the heartbeat/will of the people. I mean, how could he possibly know the intention of the Founding Fathers. Thank goodness you all can read minds and know this is the way to win hearts and minds!

I don't understand your point. Is Pelosi not in the House? How about Schiff? I thought they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

2/3 of Members present? Is this how the Senate Rs could indeed vote for removal without contradicting their base? If a whole group has unavoidable conflicts, the 2/3 threshold could be reached and some of the Rs could have plausible deniability.

Also, I have to ask again b/c I havn't seen the answer but once the Chief Justice takes over the trial, Mcconnell cannot cut it short, right? Or does the Senate have to make rules for the trial before it can begin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."

2/3 of Members present? Is this how the Senate Rs could indeed vote for removal without contradicting their base? If a whole group has unavoidable conflicts, the 2/3 threshold could be reached and some of the Rs could have plausible deniability.

Yes, someone postited this a while back, that a number of GOP would skip it or vote present, giving the 47 dems and right number of purple state R's to vote for it.

[Anonymous]

My professor must have been wrong when he claimed the power of impeachment begins in the house because the house represents the heartbeat/will of the people. I mean, how could he possibly know the intention of the Founding Fathers. Thank goodness you all can read minds and know this is the way to win hearts and minds!

The will of 60 million of people, 53% of voters, was to put Nancy Pelosi in the speaker's chair with a mandate to investigation this corrupt administration and hold them accountable. Your professor is exactly right, the Democrats won hearts and minds, people voted for them, and the will of the people is being expressed. Why are you trying to overturn the results of that election?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This impeachment has really demonstrated that Americans don’t have a f#%king clue how our government operates, and have never bothered to read the constitution.
We take it for granted, and it’s embarrassing.

This right here is the real story. It's so pathetic that - aside from the 2nd Amendment - a vast majority of the country clearly has zero familiarity with the Constitution.

It's extremely embarrassing and I'm sure foreign powers are taking note of how ignorant Americans are.

I think they figured that out before the 2016 election, when they realize they could spread propaganda to 126 million Americans for just a couple million dollars. Our elections will never be the same again, as foreign powers target American voters via social media and front groups for House, Senate, POTUS, and gubanatorial races. Every country will be trying to influence us - Russia, China, Mexico, Israel, Saudis, UAE, the EU, etc. Hell, even the Canadians will get in on this.

I think the Brits may be the only ones honorable enough to avoid these antics solely out of respect for the historical relationship between our countries.

Meh, the Brits got played by the same foreign money, social media and fraudulent voting tactics and ended up with Brexit, so are a little in dispose themselves at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks to all the smarties on here for responding.

My professor must have been wrong when he claimed the power of impeachment begins in the house because the house represents the heartbeat/will of the people. I mean, how could he possibly know the intention of the Founding Fathers. Thank goodness you all can read minds and know this is the way to win hearts and minds!

I don't understand your point. Is Pelosi not in the House? How about Schiff? I thought they are.

+1 That ^PP is a russian troll or just a really dumb Trumpster. I'm not even sure what that PP is trying to say. Put that crack pipe down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why won't Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews/depositions?
What is he hiding?

You don’t want to see them. You want to stop them. They will more than confirm the extortion that Trump, Giuliani, Sondland, Volker have already admitted. The Republicans don’t want a transparent investigation. They want to shut down the investigation.

Release the transcripts. Now.
Schiff won't because they don't fit his narrative.

PP’s labeling you guys “braindead zombies” is right on.

Us brain dead zombie heads, aka voters, would like to witness the testimony. If you are so secure in your knowledge that you can prove your theory, why not let us voters witness the investigation? The public supports police officers wear body cams when they enforce the law. Why does House leadership think they aren't accountable to the public?

Try growing a brain. It will help in a lot of ways.

NP. Translation: I support body cams so have no idea how to flip the truth around. I will insult the poster instead”

We watched the people going in for the depositions. That's equivalent to your "body cameras".

Police interviews aren't televised. Nor should they be.

They aren't? They are on tv shows frequently. Every jurisdiction is different, of course, and those being interviewed are mirandized, no? They have the right to counsel. This seems like a secret court proceeding to me. Maybe I'm not as smart as you think you are but, I can identify the multiple attempts to steal my vote for president.

THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL TRIAL!