Whistle-Blower’s Complaint Is Said to Involve Multiple Acts by Trump

[Au165]

(10-23-2019, 07:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm always amused when the Politicians decry "Do it in public for the American People". They are some of the shadiest folks alive, none of them want true transparency and I don't blame them. 

Trump has brought reality TV to Capitol Hill and there is no shortage of characters. 

The whole public view thing is funny. This is like if you were being investigated by the cops and you and your buddies kicked in the door of the interrogation room at the police station screaming that your lawyers should be able to sit in and question the witnesses before you have ever been charged. These same politicians would call that nonsensical and even criminal, but here we are. 

When your job security is based on a popularity contest it doesn't really matter if you follow the laws if the people who can keep you in your job don't care about the laws. The issue though that I have been pointing out for a while now is that precedent is a funny thing, once you blow it up it's gone. Someday you are going to be on the other side of the table and possibly dealing with someone doing just as crazy shit and when you stand aside and let checks and balances, along with standard procedures, be blown up you'll have to reap what you have sowed. 

[*michaelsean*]

(10-23-2019, 03:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Republicans (who are breaking the law) are still there "negotiating" on what will happen to them.

BREAKING: I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside - more details to come. https://t.co/fHhqkZ6x3Z

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) October 23, 2019

 

OK I have to admit that I thought that was kind of awesome, but not for any good reason.  It just upped the entertainment value.  I can't think anything as opposite a conservative Republican than this.  

[Belsnickel]

(10-23-2019, 03:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Republicans (who are breaking the law) are still there "negotiating" on what will happen to them.

BREAKING: I led over 30 of my colleagues into the SCIF where Adam Schiff is holding secret impeachment depositions. Still inside - more details to come. https://t.co/fHhqkZ6x3Z

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) October 23, 2019

 

Something I wanted to point out here, just because it's been on my mind. The rules of the House, and Senate for that matter, are actually above statutory law. They carry the weight of the Constitution as Article I specifically states that the chambers shall make their own rules for proceedings. Violating House Rules is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This wasn't something I had ever thought about until talking with a couple of former clerks for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, and they discussed this. That conversation happened on Tuesday, and then this happened. It was rather serendipitous.

These Representatives violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2019, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Something I wanted to point out here, just because it's been on my mind. The rules of the House, and Senate for that matter, are actually above statutory law. They carry the weight of the Constitution as Article I specifically states that the chambers shall make their own rules for proceedings. Violating House Rules is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This wasn't something I had ever thought about until talking with a couple of former clerks for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, and they discussed this. That conversation happened on Tuesday, and then this happened. It was rather serendipitous.

These Representatives violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

That might be a little dramatic.  That means if anyone keeps speaking past their allotted time they are also violating the Constitution.  I'm guessing we could find endless examples of people violating House rules, and nobody accuses them of violating the Constitution.

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2019, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That might be a little dramatic.  That means if anyone keeps speaking past their allotted time they are also violating the Constitution.  I'm guessing we could find endless examples of people violating House rules, and nobody accuses them of violating the Constitution.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it less true.

[Vas Deferens]

(10-24-2019, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That might be a little dramatic.  That means if anyone keeps speaking past their allotted time they are also violating the Constitution.  I'm guessing we could find endless examples of people violating House rules, and nobody accuses them of violating the Constitution.

You’re comparing jaywalking across 5th street to shooting someone on 5th street

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2019, 09:53 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: You’re comparing jaywalking across 5th street to shooting someone on 5th street

Not really.  Violating House rules is violating House rules.  I don't think there is an infraction versus felony when you talk about breaking house rules as being a violation of the Constitution.

[GMDino]

This guy is too nice to be POTUS these days.

Who wants someone who is well spoken and can draw on their own experiences and articulate them?

I used work in a SCIF, as a military officer. The importance of keeping it secure (i.e. from cell phone signals) was drilled into us so deeply that I’d have bad dreams about accidentally leaving my phone in the pocket of my uniform. This behavior is an embarrassment. https://t.co/20EVgwzNbv

— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) October 23, 2019

 

[GMDino]

Andrew Napolitano: "As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors ... they are consistent with the rules. ... When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority." pic.twitter.com/Zl10ZNugf4

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) October 24, 2019

 

[CJD]

(10-24-2019, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Andrew Napolitano: "As frustrating as it may be to have these hearings going on behind closed doors ... they are consistent with the rules. ... When were the rules written last? In January of 2015. And who signed them? John Boehner. And who enacted them? A Republican majority." pic.twitter.com/Zl10ZNugf4

— Bobby Lewis (@revrrlewis) October 24, 2019

 

Judge Napolitano is going to get his ass fired if he keeps telling the truth on Fox News.

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 09:30 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Something I wanted to point out here, just because it's been on my mind. The rules of the House, and Senate for that matter, are actually above statutory law. They carry the weight of the Constitution as Article I specifically states that the chambers shall make their own rules for proceedings. Violating House Rules is a violation of the Constitution of the United States. This wasn't something I had ever thought about until talking with a couple of former clerks for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, and they discussed this. That conversation happened on Tuesday, and then this happened. It was rather serendipitous.

These Representatives violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution.

Democrats have been demanding that Republicans follow the rules of the House since day 1 of Trump's election.

Next you'll be defending the phony emoluments clause and claiming abuse of power is a crime.

Anything to get Trump.

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 09:57 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Not really.  Violating House rules is violating House rules.  I don't think there is an infraction versus felony when you talk about breaking house rules as being a violation of the Constitution.

How would that logic apply to the distinction between a speeding violation and vehicular manslaughter. Violating laws governing motor vehicle operation is violating laws governing motor vehicle operation, right?

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2019, 10:55 AM)Dill Wrote: How would that logic apply to the distinction between a speeding violation and vehicular manslaughter. Violating laws governing motor vehicle operation is violating laws governing motor vehicle operation, right?

But it's been moved to something higher.  We are now not talking about one being worse than another, but the fact that violating these rules is a violation of the Constitution.  So there now really is no gradation if that's the right word.

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 11:20 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But it's been moved to something higher.  We are now not talking about one being worse than another, but the fact that violating these rules is a violation of the Constitution.  So there now really is no gradation if that's the right word.

If "violation of the constitution" admitted no such gradation, we would not be arguing now over whether Trump's abuse of power and many violations of the emoluments clause reach the threshold of impeachment.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-24-2019, 11:24 AM)Dill Wrote: If "violation of the constitution" admitted no such gradation, we would not be arguing now over whether Trump's abuse of power and many violations of the emoluments clause reach the threshold of impeachment.

 That's not a Constitutional argument, but rather a societal standards argument.  As there is no appeal to impeachment or removal, there really is no limitation on Congress except what we deem it to be.

Let me ask.  Is violating House rules a violation of the Constitution or no?  

[Dill]

(10-24-2019, 11:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  That's not a Constitutional argument, but rather a societal standards argument.  As there is no appeal to impeachment or removal, there really is no limitation on Congress except what we deem it to be.

Let me ask.  Is violating House rules a violation of the Constitution or no?  

I think it is, following Bels' interpretation, and like other violations of codes, norms, laws, etc, one which admits of gradations.

The only exception to this norm is found in zero tolerance regimes.

NB: Your take may be the correct one when people are arguing that a small violation is no violation, e.g., in a case where to agree would be to risk a slippery slope downward to worse violations.  Broken window theory--norms setting, etc.  Not an invalid concern at all, but not an argument for equivalence of ALL violations.

[Au165]

Apparently 12 of the 30 Republicans who barged in actually had permission to be there via the committees they were on, they just wanted to barge in to protest the meeting being "secret".

[fredtoast]

(10-24-2019, 03:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: Apparently 12 of the 30 Republicans who barged in actually had permission to be there via the committees they were on, they just wanted to barge in to protest the meeting being "secret".

[GMDino]

The Weasel is live right now crying about the unfair process going on.

There are GOP members in those meetings.  

How do some people still support him?

[ballsofsteel]

Wonder what dirt Trump has on Lindsay Graham for him to do such a flip-flop on Trumps character. Lindsay obviously is worried about getting re-elected. Those South Carolina Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a candidate who likes men. One comment by Trump about coming out of the closet would spell the end for the turd.