Trump ordered Ukraine ‘quid pro quo’ through Giuliani, key witness Sondland testifies

[Steeleballz 7,550]

36 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

And just who would those people be ?

  The ones who deteriorated from making coherent arguments to late night drive by youtube video postings,  before finally going off the deep end.

 

  That's why I still bring it up once in a while - politics is not worth going nuts over.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

35 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Congressional oversight powers of the Executive Branch departments are not enumerated in the Constitution, they are implied.  The only power Congress has over the President is to impeach and try the President, VP, judge, etc.,  and the Founding Fathers made that a power that should be used sparingly.  Of course they can make up any reason, and focus group various terms, but one thing we are learning from the Schiff circus is that what the House is doing now is purely partisan TDS, and exactly what the Founding Fathers did not intend, but what the heck, let’s Impeach the usurper.

If you're trying to say that implied powers are somehow lesser than enumerated powers, you're barking up the wrong tree. (Jesus, we'd have no Dormant Commerce Clause cases if that were the truth.) I am quoting here from my bar prep outline:

 

Quote

Investigatory Power
The power to investigate to secure information as a basis for potential legislation or other official action (such as impeachment or trying impeachments) is a well-established implied power. It is a very broad power, in that an investigation need not be directed toward enactment of particular legislation, but the following limitations on its use do exist.
a. Authorized Investigation
The investigatory inquiry must be expressly or impliedly authorized by the congressional house concerned, i.e., by statute or resolution creating or directing the investigating committee or subcommittee.
b. Witnesses’ Rights
1) Fifth Amendment
The privilege against compulsory self-incrimination (the Fifth Amendment) is available to witnesses, whether formal or informal, unless a statutory immunity co-extensive with the constitutional immunity is granted.
2) Relevance
Written or oral information elicited by the investigative body must be “pertinent” to the subject of the inquiry.
3) Procedural Due Process
Witnesses are generally entitled to procedural due process, such as presence of counsel and right of cross-examination; but it is not yet clear whether such rights are constitutionally required or whether some of them are required merely by house rule or statute.
c. Enforcement of Investigatory Powers
Congress can hold a subpoenaed witness in contempt for refusing to appear or answer before Congress.

What is Congress doing here? It is "investigating to secure information as a basis for... other official action (such as impeachment or trying impeachments)." This is 100% within their wheelhouse. Impeachment cannot happen without investigation. This is an investigation to determine whether impeachment is appropriate. I'm just... confused? Just because circumstances should dictate that the power (i.e., impeachment itself) should be used sparingly does not mean it should not be used at all.

 

Something very, very weird happened in Ukraine. What happened is not normal. Investigation is proper and warranted to find out what did happen, and it is within Congress' powers to do what they are doing. Anyone who is telling you differently is lying to you. I say this from a place of love! Really! We can disagree with the outcome, but do NOT buy lies that this is not constitutional, or illegal, or whatever. I'm not seeking to mislead you. I don't pretend I will get you to agree with me on what I see happening. But I hope to persuade you that the law is not unsettled here or open to interpretation. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  The ones who deteriorated from making coherent arguments to late night drive by youtube video postings,  before finally going off the deep end.

 

  That's why I still bring it up once in a while - politics is not worth going nuts over.

Jim&Christy were not THAT far back.  And Mango isn't really gone.

 

Hail Ming and Janelle... now THOSE were the days!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Jim&Christy were not THAT far back.  And Mango isn't really gone.

 

Hail Ming and Janelle... now THOSE were the days!

 

  Sorry, you may not remember or it may predate your time here, but let's keep it real. It wasn't the lefties who went off the deep end over McCain losing. You know that much. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

21 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Congress has the power to not only stop, but completely invalidate executive orders. If a President attempts to veto the invalidation, Congress may over-ride the veto with the two-thirds majority. The President is not above the law, and the Congress has oversight. He is not a god or king.

Well, not exactly. More from my outline:

Quote

Legislative vetoes of executive actions are invalid. [Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)] The legislative veto usually arises where Congress delegates discretionary power to the President or an executive agency. In an attempt to control the delegation, Congress requires the President or agency to present any action taken under the discretionary power to certain members of Congress for approval. If they disapprove, they veto the action and that is the final decision on the action. This is unconstitutional, because, to be valid, legislative action (the veto) must be approved by both houses and presented to the President for his approval. In Chadha, the Court also noted that the legislative veto violates the implied separation of powers requirements of the Constitution.

They would need to present new, passed legislation to undo the executive action, and then have it approved by the executive.

Edit to add: You are 100% correct that Congress DOES have oversight. We cannot say this enough.  

Edited November 22, 2019 by elmcitymaven

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

Unfortunately the Republicans did not understand or leverage social media in the way the Obama team did. The Obama campaign (I concede) was a well-oiled machine and managed to make Democrat lies seem palatable.

 

This time around the Democrat Party is just digging their own graves. The Trump campaign is very attuned to social media, but even if they weren't it wouldn't matter. Americans do not support this impeachment, and they will rally around Mr. Trump to ensure it doesn't happen again.

 

  I'm curious where your pulling that information from? Opinions are pretty much split down the middle from what I can see online. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  I'm curious where your pulling that information from? Opinions are pretty much split down the middle from what I can see online. 

It's like that self-help book, The Secret. If you think about the thing you want enough, the universe will bring it to you.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Sorry, you may not remember or it may predate your time here, but let's keep it real. It wasn't the lefties who went off the deep end over McCain losing. You know that much. 

Names or it never happened. 

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

1 hour ago, Boris Farage said:

I believe the Senate "trial" will be over within minutes. Less than a day at most.

Oh, hello you. How goes it down at the Jonathan Club these days?

 

I don't actually disagree with you. There is a contingent within the Senate that has refused to consider any evidence that the House might present before such evidence is even presented. Imagine this happening with a petty jury -- a potential juror who tells a judge, no, I won't listen to any evidence, my mind is made up, would be stricken for cause because he or she could not be impartial. But there's no voir dire here -- the Senate is the jury, whether they refuse to consider evidence -- even glancingly -- or not. It's sad, but I don't disagree that it's procedurally proper.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

47 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  The ones who deteriorated from making coherent arguments to late night drive by youtube video postings,  before finally going off the deep end.

 

  That's why I still bring it up once in a while - politics is not worth going nuts over.

I was asking cause i wasnt hete in 2008

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

54 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Names or it never happened. 

Soffiya/virtual wife (I think that was her other username?). I remember her going off on a diatribe. I'll have to refresh my memory for others.

 

ETA: OMG I FORGOT THIS THREAD  

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by elmcitymaven

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

apparently she found out he was testing the waters with another woman to see if she was a better fit. 

 

maybe you should pass on to that sister there is some kinda "rejuvenation" operation she can have to regain that "better fit" 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

17 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Soffiya/virtual wife (I think that was her other username?). I remember her going off on a diatribe. I'll have to refresh my memory for others.

 

ETA: OMG I FORGOT THIS THREAD  

 

 

    Marc definitely lost it. I hope he is doing better now. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Names or it never happened. 

 

   Thankfully Maven remembered a few. It has been a long time since 2008, and the names that are still memorable are sometimes for the wrong reasons.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I was asking cause i wasnt hete in 2008

 

   I wasn't suggesting it was you. I know you get blamed for a lot of stuff. I can't really remember a lot of the names, and that's mostly intentional.