Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Yup. 

 

@jrober38 is lost in his own logical and factual failings. 

 

He's been programmed -- and when facts which counter this program are presented to him, his cognitive dissonance makes it impossible for him to comprehend them. Just look back to his comments yesterday for evidence of that.

 

His comments are making my head hurt, he is approaching Tibs level 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, RoyBatty is alive said:

Does anyone know how many more days of this political dribble we are going to have to endure?

 

How many witnesses do we still have to suffer through?

 

This is the end of the public hearings in the Intel Committee -- unless they wish to call more (so far, none are scheduled). 

 

They'll send it to the Judiciary committee next, who can call new (or the same) witnesses if they wish, more likely they will turn immediately to crafting the articles of impeachment (which they already wrote because this is a show, not reality). 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

It can't be.

 

A President doesn't have the unilateral authority to declare was on countries he thinks may be a threat to US National Security. 


Actually, it can, and it is.

 

First of all, geo-political jockeying with adversarial nations is not synonymous with war.  All actions taken by our government in relation to other governments fall under the direct purview of the Executive Branch, the final decision making of which resides solely in the hands of the President.

 

This even applies to “war”.  As you should know, the President is the Commander in Chief of US armed forces.  He has absolute final say over any and all military decisions.
 

As to war making powers, those were ceded by the Legislature to the Executive decades ago.  We haven’t had a Congressionally declared war since WWII, though we’ve been in continual armed conflict pretty much ever since.  In fact, the War Powers Resolution of 1973 simply requires the President inform Congress within 48 hours after committing armed forces, and only requires their withdrawal after 60 days, with an additional 30 day withdrawal period.

 

Further, this provision has never been followed, nor has any successful legal action ever occurred in its wake.

 

So, no.  You’re wrong on pretty much every front.

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
  • Like (+1) 6
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

This is the end of the public hearings in the Intel Committee -- unless they wish to call more (so far, none are scheduled). 

 

They'll send it to the Judiciary committee next, who can call new (or the same) witnesses if they wish, more likely they will turn immediately to crafting the articles of impeachment (which they already wrote because this is a show, not reality). 

 

 

Good just get this over already.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
... This is the end of the public hearings in the Intel Committee -- unless they wish to call more (so far, none are scheduled). 

 

They'll send it to the Judiciary committee next, who can call new (or the same) witnesses if they wish, more likely they will turn immediately to crafting the articles of impeachment (which they already wrote because this is a show, not reality). 

right. they are on a tight timeline. they have candidates that have to be on the campaign trail so they want to get it to the Senate before the end of the year. the first primaries/caucus' begin in Iowa on February 3rd. along with three more scheduled the rest of February before the really big day of March 3rd where 16 states hold their primaries/caucus'.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

so are they gonna vote to impeach ?

 

 

they will write a report for the Judiciary to consider. the report will most likely recommend what articles should be voted upon.

 

*************************************************************

 

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

 

wake up Tibs.

Edited by Foxx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, row_33 said:

 

so this can drag on a little bit

 

prolly go to the Judiciary just before or after Thanksgiving with a show there for one or two weeks. whatever Articles come out of the final House clown show, sent to the Senate early in Dec.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

prolly go to the Judiciary just before or after Thanksgiving with a show there for one or two weeks. whatever Articles come out of the final House clown show, sent to the Senate early in Dec.

 

so will the Senate start hearings before the House actually votes, like with Nixon (yeah right...)

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Foxx said:

prolly go to the Judiciary just before or after Thanksgiving with a show there for one or two weeks. whatever Articles come out of the final House clown show, sent to the Senate early in Dec.

 

I agree with your timeline -- I'm still not sure they're ever going to vote on it. I don't think they want this to go to the Senate, they lose all control when it does. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...