Monday, October 7, 2019

Impeachment inquiry

Updated:

10.7.19:

This excrement-show is for their own followers, not the rest of us.  Their followers believe every word their leaders tell them to believe.  

The reason their own followers are fooled is because their own followers are too dumb to realize that their leaders are lying to them.

None of this is going to happen unless their try to run impeachment through on completely arbitrary grounds, which may not get the necessary votes in the House anyway.  Much less the Senate.

Total Bovine-excrement kiddos.


10.6.19:

Daily update:

8:20 pm:

A few salient points

  1. An impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote, that has not occurred.
  2. A whistleblower who leaks to Congress that which should stay within the bureaucracy is no longer a whistleblower, but just a leaker
  3. Subpoenas issued from committees that have no jurisdiction have no basis in law, and therefore aren't properly subpoenas
  4. Subpoenas can be resisted for legal reasons, and are NOT a basis for obstruction

We have a mirage of an impeachment in order to pretend that there is an impeachment.  That is because there is no demand for an impeachment, but actually the opposite.

This has lasted about two weeks now.  How much longer will this charade continue?



11:54 am:

The author says the people are sovereign.  I would disagree.  The constitution (CONUS) is sovereign.  Nobody swears an oath to support the people, but to support the CONUS.  Therefore, the CONUS is sovereign.

Ultimately, the people can change the CONUS, if they collectively decide to do it.  This is according to the CONUS itself.

The people surrendered the sovereignty to the CONUS, and can take it back.  But how do you do that when the officials who purportedly support it take that away that right?

That is what we are dealing with in Texas.

11:39 am:

The following tweet links to an article that shows that there wasn't a vote in Congress.  If they had an actual vote, then it wasn't a formal vote in the House.  It was a Democrat caucus vote.  Therefore, this is not an impeachment inquiry.  It is merely a political stunt.

I've heard that, but as of this morning, I did not hear what the Democrats have actually done.  As for the caucus vote idea, that one may not be in this article, since I have not read it all yet.

The article states that Pelosi has just simply made a proclamation that an inquiry is underway.  There was no formal vote.  At this point, just so much hot air.



10.1.19:

10:30 am:

As of this writing, the Dems are propagandizing that they now have authority under their claimed impeachment inquiry to do certain things.

Many of those things may or may not be allowable under the law even if there was a true impeachment inquiry.

Now the thing that is being disputed by the GOP is that this wasn't proper procedure with respect to the inquiry.  This required a full House vote, but it may not have.  So the question here for me is whether or not this is a valid impeachment inquiry.

In other words, I'm not clear on the subject.

If I am not, how many other people are?  Are the Democrats trying to pull a sleight of hand here in trying to fool the public into believing this is a legitimate impeachment inquiry?

In case anybody didn't know, the GOP has been locked out here with this procedural rules change that Pelosi and the Dems rammed through earlier this year.


11:30 am:

So I went on Quora and checked out what an "inquiry" is.  It is like an investigation prior to charges being filed.  The Democrats changed the procedure earlier this year, so no pushback will be allowed in the House.

Since they have a majority, the House can vote on a partisan basis to impeach, without any defense allowed by the GOP.  Seems quite unfair, because this appears to be totally partisan and one-sided.


No comments: