Illinois Matmen Forums Illinois Matmen Forums

Go Back   Illinois Matmen Forums > Non-Wrestling > Non-Wrestling Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #901  
Old 02-13-2020
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post
We are on post number eight hundred and ninety-something. Somewhere in this long thread, I posted about how, after the Clinton impeachment, I voted for George W. Bush. My vote in ILLINOIS had no bearing on the outcome, but it was my protest for what Clinton did.

Like your impeached hero, you are projecting your hypocrisy onto everybody else.
Fair enough...prove the crime and we will give Trump the same punishment...I will vote against Trump in Illinois...that should settle the score on that charge...but I don't remember you saying that you voted for Bush.

Last edited by MAL; 02-13-2020 at 11:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 02-13-2020
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1 View Post



Can you imagine what would've happened had President Obama committed just one of these many corrupt crimes?
Was it a crime when Obama targeted and killed an American citizen with a drone? I thought our constitution guaranteed due process.

Selling guns to drug cartels in Mexico sound kinda bad.

NSA spying on Americans...and the Trump campaign.

Gun running in Benghazi didn't work out too good.

...and still in the conspiracy stage...funding a private war against Russia in Ukraine.

Remind me, what happened to Obama?
Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 02-13-2020
Flynmaggot Flynmaggot is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
If we ever needed proof that CNN is fake news here it is.

When a House committee or subcommittee holds a hearing, the minority party members of the
panel have the right to call witnesses of their choosing to testify on at least one day of that
hearing.
Clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI—known as the “minority witness rule”—states:


Whenever a hearing is conducted by a committee on a measure or matter, the minority
members of the committee shall be entitled, upon request to the chairman by a majority of
them before the completion of the hearing, to call witnesses selected by the minority to
testify with respect to that measure or matter during at least one day of hearing
thereon.


If the minority’s request to call witnesses comes after a hearing has begun, it will necessitate the
continuation of the hearing on an additional day to accommodate minority witnesses.
1 Rule XI,
however, is rarely formally invoked to request an additional day of hearing. In practice, the rule
has largely served as a “backstop” that gives the minority party a procedural recourse if a
committee majority refuses to invite witnesses they request
. In the vast majority of hearings, the
majority does invite minority witnesses after consultation and negotiation with minority members
and staff. In rare instances, however, a majority of the minority party members of a House
committee or subcommittee have invoked Rule XI to schedule an additional day of hearings for
their witnesses.



Majority Prerogatives and Minority Witnesses

Although clause 2(j)(1) of House Rule XI gives the minority the right to witnesses of their
choosing on one hearing day, the committee majority maintains control over the scheduling and
logistics of that hearing. In addition, ordinary House and committee rules governing hearings—
such as those mandating the questioning of witnesses under the five-minute rule—apply to any
hearing in which minority witnesses testify.


It is up to the chairman of the committee to set the day and location of the requested hearing
“under a reasonable schedule.”
9 While the committee majority must invite the witnesses chosen
by the minority
, they are not precluded from inviting additional witnesses of their own choosing.
The chairman maintains control over the logistics of how the minority witnesses will testify (i.e.,
individually or in panels) and also determines whether to administer the oath to the witnesses.10


https://crsreports.congress.gov/prod.../RS/RS22637/11
If you read your statements like a lawyer they don't support your claims. Is the Brookings institute good enough for you:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...r-impeachment/
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 02-13-2020
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flynmaggot View Post
If you read your statements like a lawyer they don't support your claims. Is the Brookings institute good enough for you:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgo...r-impeachment/
No. I gave you the actual rule from the the House rule book. It is very clear. You have to omit words and sentences to to make it mean anything else. Both Brookings and CNN omited most of the rule.

Last edited by MAL; 02-13-2020 at 12:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 02-13-2020
Flynmaggot Flynmaggot is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
No. I gave you the actual rule from the the House rule book. It is very clear. You have to omit words and sentences to to make it mean anything else.
No it is not clear. The wording is weak and ambiguous and gives the majority lots of leeway that drove their decisions. Much like what the Senate was able to pull off by being the majority. Both houses of Congress wielded their majority powers legally under the constitution. We both have to live with those facts. One helped your side and one helped mine. They both followed the law.
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 02-13-2020
MAL MAL is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flynmaggot View Post
No it is not clear. The wording is weak and ambiguous and gives the majority lots of leeway that drove their decisions. Much like what the Senate was able to pull off by being the majority. Both houses of Congress wielded their majority powers legally under the constitution. We both have to live with those facts. One helped your side and one helped mine. They both followed the law.
To deny witnesses in the Judiciary Committee, it requires a vote by the full committee...not a ruling from the Chairman. They could have denied any individual witness based on relevance, but it requires a vote on each witness. Those votes never happened...I watched the hearings.
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 02-13-2020
Flynmaggot Flynmaggot is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAL View Post
To deny witnesses in the Judiciary Committee, it requires a vote by the full committee...not a ruling from the Chairman. They could have denied any individual witness based on relevance, but it requires a vote on each witness. Those votes never happened...I watched the hearings.
One note the wording of that rule. The witness has to be relevant. The witnesses the Repubicans were talking about were hardly relevant. They just wanted a circus.

Schiff is the deciding vote in a tie from that committee. What would be the point of showing dozens of votes on TV when the committee had already made their decisions? Just more delay tactics and political circus so Gaetz could do his angry Peter Brady face all day long.
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 02-14-2020
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flynmaggot View Post
One note the wording of that rule. The witness has to be relevant. The witnesses the Repubicans were talking about were hardly relevant. They just wanted a circus.

Schiff is the deciding vote in a tie from that committee. What would be the point of showing dozens of votes on TV when the committee had already made their decisions? Just more delay tactics and political circus so Gaetz could do his angry Peter Brady face all day long.

The bolded part? Well done, my friend.

Meanwhile, in news of law and order, the march to 1,000 crimes moves inexorably onward like a death march in a remote part of Asia during World War II. If any of you good fellows have some pull with the IRS and can get some of Trump's taxes, I think we could put this thing to bed in a couple of days. Or, if you are an experienced hacker and can get into Trump's attorney's NDA files....

Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 02-15-2020
ChiefIllini1 ChiefIllini1 is offline
Olympian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,894
The latest model:


Remember the 21 state Attorneys General who signed a letter and sent it to the Senate condemning the impeachment of Trump? Tomorrow I'm sending out FOIA (or Public records or Sunshine or Open Records or GAMA depending on the jurisdiction) requests to each of them for their files on the subject. I want to see who they contacted in the Trump administration, and which conservative groups backed this action.

Those are some seriously corrupt individuals.

I would put them on a par with Barr or Avenatti. Unlike Senator Mal, though, they know better. They studied the law and are ostensibly the top lawyers in their states. And they are corrupt. I'll keep y'all apprised when responses start trickling in. Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 02-15-2020
Fighting Scot Fighting Scot is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 24
I urge everyone who has had it with Trumpism to google the phrase “Get out the Vote Chicago.” This will lead you to several organizations that aim to get people to the polling places on Election Day and overcome voter suppression efforts. There are some outreach efforts with our neighbors in Wisconsin. Every little bit will help. Certainly this is more productive than arguing on forums with armchair authoritarians, agents of grievance, and finger pointers.

This week we saw our Justice Department seek out special deals for Trump’s cronies, a MAYDAY moment for our democracy. If my friends or yours are convicted of a felony (or seven of them), they have to pay the price for their actions. Friends of Donald Trump, on the other hand, get special intervention from the Justice Department. This is exactly how it works for Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and other enemies of democracy.

These actions have made it crystal clear that impeachment was justified and moral. No Democrat should ever hang his or her head for standing up for that cause.

This administration reeks and its smugness is off the charts. Plain-spoken, common sense Americans who see this need to get to the polls and urge their neighbors to do the same.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.