Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House votes on Schiff censure

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House votes on Schiff censure

    In a rather unprecedented move, the Republicans forced a floor vote on censuring Adam Schiff. This comes after all the Republicans on his committee sent an official letter to him and Pelosi, etc., saying they had no confidence in his ability to fairly or reasonably conduct hearings into Trump's various whatever and on impeachment.
    The vote went down strictly on party lines.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    Compare this to the Nixon impeachment process-- yes Nixon resigned before he was impeached, but he had good reason to. He was going to be impeached and there was little doubt about it.

    In that process, initially votes to investigate Nixon fell mostly along party lines. There were open votes before starting the investigation. As things progressed, the Republicans joined in voting for the investigation and impeachment inquiry in both the house and senate. In October 1973 the House Judiciary committee voted 21 - 17 on opening an investigation (party line vote).
    With new revelations coming fairly quickly, the House took a full floor vote in February 1974 (about 5 months later) and this was 411 - 4 in favor of opening an impeachment investigation. By April 74, the House Judiciary committee voted 33- 3 to issue subpoenas for the White House tapes, etc. Then the Senate voted 77-0 to open an investigation.
    The process was almost totally done in public, and the committee chairs tried to be inclusive of the minority party. This was important because it built confidence in the process.

    By comparison, the Democrats are now years into this process and have next to ZERO Republican support. If anything opposition to the whole process is growing.

    With Trump, Schiff has held repeated closed door sessions. He and other Democrat chairs have severely restricted Republican subpoena power and who they can call to testify. Democrats, like Schiff, Waters, or AOC, have called for impeachment before any real factual evidence was in hand. Pelosi won't allow a floor vote because she knows it will almost certainly fail or be very close with many Democrats defecting. There are at least 35 Democrats who were elected from districts that voted for Trump and generally vote Republican. They know that voting for an impeachment inquiry could very well see them turned out of office in 2020. Pelosi doesn't want that. Those representatives don't want it. So, they can't be cajoled into an easy vote for a questionable impeachment hearing process.

    But, right now, Schiff is the main player that's just driving the Democrat party into an iceberg. The guy is both part of the 'crazy' and 'bomb-thrower' caucus of the Democrat party. He's the last sort of person that should be put in a committee chairman position. If anything, he's really sinking any chance the Democrats have of pulling off an impeachment while at the same time really hurting their chances in 2020.

  • #2
    The vote was 218 to 185 to table the resolution, which the Republican minority had introduced. All Democrats voted to table the censure resolution, with all Republicans voting against tabling.

    Independent Michigan Rep. Justin Amash, who left the Republican Party earlier this year, voted to table the resolution.

    Colorado GOP Rep. Ken Buck, a member of the Freedom Caucus, told Fox News that although he voted against tabling the resolution, he would also oppose a straight, up-or-down vote on censure -- and said the matter should have been referred to the Ethics Committee.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ada...se-votes-table
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • #3
      218+185=403

      35 not voting.
      {}

      "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by BorderRuffian View Post
        218+185=403

        35 not voting.
        Not unusual, unless that 35 were mostly Democrats from swing districts avoiding a vote that could be used against them in a close election next year.

        Comment


        • #5
          Why doesn't Moon Face just give up, the democRats in Congress may be with him, but the, people are not, they are tired of it, it's just political theater!
          Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

          Comment


          • #6
            The issue I have with Schiff, aside from the usual politician-related ones, is rather serious. He lied, on the record, in a recorded and broadcasted official hearing. He lied knowing full well that he was doing so, and then when confronted with that lie he decided to say that he had used 'parody'. You do not use 'parody' when you are the official in charge of a hearing. One would find it prejudicial if a judge used 'parody' or a prosecutor used 'parody'. There are brands of humor that can be used in such hearings to generate some levity of tone...parody and hyperbole are two that should never be used.
            Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
              In a rather unprecedented move, the Republicans forced a floor vote on censuring Adam Schiff. This comes after all the Republicans on his committee sent an official letter to him and Pelosi, etc., saying they had no confidence in his ability to fairly or reasonably conduct hearings into Trump's various whatever and on impeachment.
              The vote went down strictly on party lines.

              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

              Compare this to the Nixon impeachment process-- yes Nixon resigned before he was impeached, but he had good reason to. He was going to be impeached and there was little doubt about it.

              In that process, initially votes to investigate Nixon fell mostly along party lines. There were open votes before starting the investigation. As things progressed, the Republicans joined in voting for the investigation and impeachment inquiry in both the house and senate. In October 1973 the House Judiciary committee voted 21 - 17 on opening an investigation (party line vote).
              With new revelations coming fairly quickly, the House took a full floor vote in February 1974 (about 5 months later) and this was 411 - 4 in favor of opening an impeachment investigation. By April 74, the House Judiciary committee voted 33- 3 to issue subpoenas for the White House tapes, etc. Then the Senate voted 77-0 to open an investigation.
              The process was almost totally done in public, and the committee chairs tried to be inclusive of the minority party. This was important because it built confidence in the process.

              By comparison, the Democrats are now years into this process and have next to ZERO Republican support. If anything opposition to the whole process is growing.

              With Trump, Schiff has held repeated closed door sessions. He and other Democrat chairs have severely restricted Republican subpoena power and who they can call to testify. Democrats, like Schiff, Waters, or AOC, have called for impeachment before any real factual evidence was in hand. Pelosi won't allow a floor vote because she knows it will almost certainly fail or be very close with many Democrats defecting. There are at least 35 Democrats who were elected from districts that voted for Trump and generally vote Republican. They know that voting for an impeachment inquiry could very well see them turned out of office in 2020. Pelosi doesn't want that. Those representatives don't want it. So, they can't be cajoled into an easy vote for a questionable impeachment hearing process.

              But, right now, Schiff is the main player that's just driving the Democrat party into an iceberg. The guy is both part of the 'crazy' and 'bomb-thrower' caucus of the Democrat party. He's the last sort of person that should be put in a committee chairman position. If anything, he's really sinking any chance the Democrats have of pulling off an impeachment while at the same time really hurting their chances in 2020.
              I hate to say it but I am ok restricting the Reps in this case. Just like I would be if it was a dem in office. We all know the rep questions would be irrelevant and not on topic. ie any question about Biden is not relevant to the impeachment of Trump

              Such is how ugly Washington is. Rare is it I watch cspan and catch both sides being good actors at the same time.

              Also this is not the forum for all that stuff you talk about. That when they actually vote to actually go through the impeachment process. (this is more of a grand jury situation)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by craven View Post

                I hate to say it but I am ok restricting the Reps in this case. Just like I would be if it was a dem in office. We all know the rep questions would be irrelevant and not on topic. ie any question about Biden is not relevant to the impeachment of Trump

                Such is how ugly Washington is. Rare is it I watch cspan and catch both sides being good actors at the same time.

                Also this is not the forum for all that stuff you talk about. That when they actually vote to actually go through the impeachment process. (this is more of a grand jury situation)
                But, by doing so you make it look, and even become, the very witch hunt / lynching it appears to be to many. With Republicans included, even willing to participate--as they did with Nixon-- the process becomes one that appears more bipartisan, more inclusive, and fair.
                If the Republicans only ask irrelevancies, and try to gum up the works with objections and such, then let it be part of the process and in public for everyone to see. The last thing we need is a one-party impeachment held behind closed doors where the verdict was reached before the evidence was presented. That's where we are with Schiff right now.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  But, by doing so you make it look, and even become, the very witch hunt / lynching it appears to be to many. With Republicans included, even willing to participate--as they did with Nixon-- the process becomes one that appears more bipartisan, more inclusive, and fair.
                  If the Republicans only ask irrelevancies, and try to gum up the works with objections and such, then let it be part of the process and in public for everyone to see. The last thing we need is a one-party impeachment held behind closed doors where the verdict was reached before the evidence was presented. That's where we are with Schiff right now.
                  but that is the next stage this is evidence collection when has a defendant ever got to be part of the evidence collection effort..:-) Next up hearings for all to see.

                  Now if they move to impeach without the hearing now that a whole other ball of wax.

                  I mean if the DOJ had turned over the whole mueller report to congress and this was an impeachment for stuff in there you would be correct because the investigation has already been done.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by craven View Post

                    but that is the next stage this is evidence collection when has a defendant ever got to be part of the evidence collection effort..:-) Next up hearings for all to see.

                    Now if they move to impeach without the hearing now that a whole other ball of wax.

                    I mean if the DOJ had turned over the whole mueller report to congress and this was an impeachment for stuff in there you would be correct because the investigation has already been done.
                    But we are not talking about the 'defendant'. We are talking about the other 40% or so of the empaneled 'grand jury', in a circumstance where the 'grand jury' gets the ability to request and subpoena evidence and witnesses.

                    When one starts looking at evidence, one has to weigh the probative and prejudicial value of said evidence. If the former does not outweigh the latter, it could be cause for suppression. Additional, there is such a thing as Brady Evidence, from Brady v Maryland. Which is to say that evidence which may be exculpatory or prejudicial in favor of the defense must be disclosed to the defense by the prosecution AND that the Investigator may not purposely suppress evidence or witnesses that would be in the defendant's favor. You don't have to go seeking exculpatory evidence, but you cannot refuse it if you come across it.

                    What we have in this particular situation is the majority of the empaneled grand-jury/investigators taking direct actions through their leadership to deny the submission of evidence from the other portion of the grand-jury/investigators. There are procedures and precedents for doing this, but those are case by case to show that the evidence/witness has probative value to the proceedings in progress.

                    Therefore, what I'm seeing in this particular incidence is the following (analogized to a murder investigation, which is something I'm more familiar with):

                    I am the lead investigator, a suspect has been identified.

                    One of my assisting investigators wants to interview some people on the record about the murder, these people may and likely could provide statements that could work counter to me proving the case on the suspect by providing possibly exculpator evidence. They could and I might believe some will provide irrelevant statements.

                    IF: I deliberately refuse to allow my assisting investigator to interview those people, knowing that it is likely that some could provide exculpatory evidence, then I would see a Brady Violation.

                    IF: I allow the interviews and take measures to ensure that all questions are relevant to the investigation at hand, then I am not violating Brady. I don't have to allow nonsensical questions to be asked. I can have only probative questions asked, and I can check the probative value of the witnesses to the case at hand.

                    The additional caveat is that as Lead Investigator, I've been publicly caught misrepresenting evidence against the defendant and indeed practically manufacturing evidence against the defendant in such a public forum as to make it prejudicial against the defendant......Well, in this case, I'd be looking at having some serious reprimands, the case being thrown out of court for malicious prosecution, and having to disclose to every future Prosecutor that I have Giglio information that must be disclosed to the defense in every other case.
                    Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

                      But we are not talking about the 'defendant'. We are talking about the other 40% or so of the empaneled 'grand jury', in a circumstance where the 'grand jury' gets the ability to request and subpoena evidence and witnesses.

                      When one starts looking at evidence, one has to weigh the probative and prejudicial value of said evidence. If the former does not outweigh the latter, it could be cause for suppression. Additional, there is such a thing as Brady Evidence, from Brady v Maryland. Which is to say that evidence which may be exculpatory or prejudicial in favor of the defense must be disclosed to the defense by the prosecution AND that the Investigator may not purposely suppress evidence or witnesses that would be in the defendant's favor. You don't have to go seeking exculpatory evidence, but you cannot refuse it if you come across it.

                      What we have in this particular situation is the majority of the empaneled grand-jury/investigators taking direct actions through their leadership to deny the submission of evidence from the other portion of the grand-jury/investigators. There are procedures and precedents for doing this, but those are case by case to show that the evidence/witness has probative value to the proceedings in progress.

                      Therefore, what I'm seeing in this particular incidence is the following (analogized to a murder investigation, which is something I'm more familiar with):

                      I am the lead investigator, a suspect has been identified.

                      One of my assisting investigators wants to interview some people on the record about the murder, these people may and likely could provide statements that could work counter to me proving the case on the suspect by providing possibly exculpator evidence. They could and I might believe some will provide irrelevant statements.

                      IF: I deliberately refuse to allow my assisting investigator to interview those people, knowing that it is likely that some could provide exculpatory evidence, then I would see a Brady Violation.

                      IF: I allow the interviews and take measures to ensure that all questions are relevant to the investigation at hand, then I am not violating Brady. I don't have to allow nonsensical questions to be asked. I can have only probative questions asked, and I can check the probative value of the witnesses to the case at hand.

                      The additional caveat is that as Lead Investigator, I've been publicly caught misrepresenting evidence against the defendant and indeed practically manufacturing evidence against the defendant in such a public forum as to make it prejudicial against the defendant......Well, in this case, I'd be looking at having some serious reprimands, the case being thrown out of court for malicious prosecution, and having to disclose to every future Prosecutor that I have Giglio information that must be disclosed to the defense in every other case.
                      but this is not a legal proceding is it. I meant to point to something similar.

                      btw it appears that option 2 is what is occurring. And from just sitting on the outside looking in how could the reps call anyone since the WH has told everyone not to comply with them.



                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by craven View Post

                        but this is not a legal proceding is it. I meant to point to something similar.

                        btw it appears that option 2 is what is occurring. And from just sitting on the outside looking in how could the reps call anyone since the WH has told everyone not to comply with them.

                        No, what's going on isn't a legal proceeding. It's pretty much an inquisition in search of a witch to burn.

                        This is an example of what I mean:

                        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

                        Republican lawmakers on Wednesday disrupted the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump's dealings in Ukraine by entering a secure room where a witness had been testifying, according to two Democrats who had been attending the session.

                        Laura Cooper, the Defense Department official who handles Ukraine matters, was forced to stop testifying after Republicans "barged" into the closed committee room, Democratic Representative Ted Lieu said.
                        The Republicans are largely being shut out of the process. That's contrary to past impeachment hearings and undermines the credibility of them when it's being done almost entirely by one party.
                        The hearings are being done in secret in closed door sessions. That too is unprecedented. It also brings into question exactly why the Democrats are trying so hard to keep everything secret.

                        Two parts Kafka, one part Stalin.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          how is it an inquisition when Trump has admitted he abused his power. Ukraine president I want to buy some javelins Trump but first I need a favor some yadda yadda mentions biden. How is that not black and white.

                          I mean literally if Trump was not an idiot none of this would be happening. At what point did he even have to mention barisma or bidens or anything other than want corruption investigated. But no he wanted specifc things invesitaged that would benefit him.

                          um you cant complain about process when you supported what Mc Connel did in the Senate about Garland or when Senate moved to change the confirmation numbers. As I told ya back then your either on the side for the standards that are in place or your not.

                          Wait till there is a Dem as president and they get to follow the Trump standard your going to scream bloody murder.

                          oh btw Reps shut out the Dems on a lot of invesigations about Obama. ie did not get to call people they wanted.



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            "Trump has admitted he abused his power" When was that then? A link would be fine. Especially one where he actually says it as part of diatribe, not a sound bite.

                            I honestly think that the left in the US have gone batty. They are following their Stalinist/Maoist typecasting love affair to the letter.
                            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 23 Oct 19, 16:49.
                            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
                            All human ills he can subdue,
                            Or with a bauble or medal
                            Can win mans heart for you;
                            And many a blessing know to stew
                            To make a megloamaniac bright;
                            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
                            The Pixie is a little shite.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "Censure"? That doesn't meet the prevailing hated-based Democratic goals., and a censure by the Democrats is like an accolade from anyone else. How about criminal charges and prison time?
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X