Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[NeedsAdjustments]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor   The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.



House didnt vote to initiate - and thus it died

This seems to indicate that a vote occurs prior to any initiation of hearings (Ford ATTEMPTED to initiate impeachment proceedings - no initiation since House wouldnt vote)

Because he was the fucking minority leader.

Doesnt matter WHY they wouldnt vote.  This stipulates that there NEEDED to BE a vote in the House before proceding.

Because he was the fucking minority leader.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Speaker/Majority Leader sets the rules and agenda, REDSTATEWARD.   

Uh, no. Certainly not in Impeachment.
Article one, Section 2 makes that clear.

Take it up with the federal judge who ruled otherwise.

Take up what?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Do you have an issue with the text...the source?

No issue with text or the source.  I do have an issue with your selective cutting of it.  Immediately after this section on the Wikipedia entry on Impeachment, comes this:

In 1973, the Senate Watergate hearings (with testimony from John Dean, and the revelation of the White House tapes by Alexander Butterfield) were held in May and June 1973, and the House Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Rodino to commence an investigation, with subpoena power, on October 30, 1973. The full House voted to initiate impeachment proceedings on February 6, 1974, that is, after nine months of formal investigations by various Congressional committees.

Now seriously dude.  Fuck off.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Speaker/Majority Leader sets the rules and agenda, REDSTATEWARD.   

Uh, no. Certainly not in Impeachment.
Article one, Section 2 makes that clear.

Take it up with the federal judge who ruled otherwise.

Take up what?

Bark, bark, bark, goes the Sea Lion.

[josh]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor.[22] The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.

Minority leader. As such he had no power, right or ability to initiate any proceedings on his own.

  Neither does the Speaker. Article 1 Section 2

LOL. Don't ever change. We need the laughs.

Nothing in the Constitution indicates you can use a.resolution to start impeachment proceedings either.

What it does say is the House(the entire body) has the sole power of impeachment.

And that they can establish their own rules for how to do it.

In this case, by hearings restricted to the designated committee members of both parties.

Because the Constitution allows them to do that, no matter how much you pretend to have an argument.

They and them?
You are getting closer.
Still not there, just yet.

You remain a child playing childish games, unable to admit when you have made a mistake, as ever.

[josh]

Minority leader. As such he had no power, right or ability to initiate any proceedings on his own.


Thats not the important part of it

There is no important part of it.

[LarryBnDC]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor   The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.



House didnt vote to initiate - and thus it died

This seems to indicate that a vote occurs prior to any initiation of hearings (Ford ATTEMPTED to initiate impeachment proceedings - no initiation since House wouldnt vote)

Judicial Committee ran eight month investigation at the end of which the committee voted to take no action.

It didn’t go to a full House vote because:

“an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

—- Gerald Ford 4/15/1970

[LarryBnDC]

Red, kiid... why are you beating this dead pony? Banging on about process because you can’t argue the facts which stipulate Trump is fucking guilty and so is everyone around him.

When the shit gets too deep you watch the GOP Senators try to save themselves and toss that clown overboard.

Trump and company are so fucked it isn’t even humorous.

The question is, how far are you brown shirted assholes willing to burn down the nation.

The GOP used to be able to say they were the party of veterans and national security... those days are gone.

Turn out the lights, the party’s over...

[kiidcarter8]

Idiots:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/us/ice-taco-truck-trnd/index.html

[josh]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor   The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.



House didnt vote to initiate - and thus it died

This seems to indicate that a vote occurs prior to any initiation of hearings (Ford ATTEMPTED to initiate impeachment proceedings - no initiation since House wouldnt vote)

No, Kid.

He did not move to have hearings.

He wanted a straight up or down vote on impeaching Douglas.

You might want to check this out, as the context of his actions in pushing impeachment explain why you have no point.

https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=publicity

I believe, on the basis of my own investigation and the facts I have set before you, that he is unfit and should be removed. I would vote to impeach him right now.

Within days (of the speech above, including the quote given), a coalition of 52 Democrats and 52 Republicans joined Mr. Ford in calling for creation of a special committee to consider possible impeach ment.

Oh, look! The committee met without public hearings! And the whole House didn't vote to authorize the inquiry, either! Not even to authorize the subcommitte.

A good example, Kid, that has no bearing on what you are trying to establish.

Before the House could act on creation of such a special investigation panel, Mr. Celler and his Judiciary Committee moved last April to take over the inquiry by establishing the five‐man subcommittee.

Mr. Celler, who headed the special panel, declined today to make public the staff findings until the report was considered by his full committee.

[/size]

[kiidcarter8]

Red, kiid... why are you beating this dead pony? Banging on about process because you can’t argue the facts which stipulate Trump is fucking guilty and so is everyone around him.


I dont care one way or the other

[REDSTATEWARD]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor.[22] The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.

Minority leader. As such he had no power, right or ability to initiate any proceedings on his own.

  Neither does the Speaker. Article 1 Section 2

LOL. Don't ever change. We need the laughs.

Nothing in the Constitution indicates you can use a.resolution to start impeachment proceedings either.

What it does say is the House(the entire body) has the sole power of impeachment.

And that they can establish their own rules for how to do it.

In this case, by hearings restricted to the designated committee members of both parties.

Because the Constitution allows them to do that, no matter how much you pretend to have an argument.

They and them?
You are getting closer.
Still not there, just yet.

You remain a child playing childish games, unable to admit when you have made a mistake, as ever.

I didn’t make any mistake. The Constitution is pretty clear.

[josh]

In 1970, House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor   The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.



House didnt vote to initiate - and thus it died

This seems to indicate that a vote occurs prior to any initiation of hearings (Ford ATTEMPTED to initiate impeachment proceedings - no initiation since House wouldnt vote)

Because he was the fucking minority leader.

Doesnt matter WHY they wouldnt vote.  This stipulates that there NEEDED to BE a vote in the House before proceding.

Do you have an issue with the text...the source?

No, just how you took it out of context and misrepresented what happened.

[LarryBnDC]

Red, kiid... why are you beating this dead pony? Banging on about process because you can’t argue the facts which stipulate Trump is fucking guilty and so is everyone around him.


I dont care one way or the other

[josh]

Speaker/Majority Leader sets the rules and agenda, REDSTATEWARD. 

Uh, no. Certainly not in Impeachment.
Article one, Section 2 makes that clear.

No.