In Their Rush to Impeachment, Pelosi and Schiff Overlooked One Little Thing, McCarthy Found It

Red State ^ | 8:18 am on November 22, 2019 | by Elizabeth Vaughn

[Stingray51]

Hardly any references to this in the news - wonder if the move is going anywhere....

If we are going to lose the impeachment vote anyway, violating this rule might be a good reason to boycott the vote. (Not sure of the optics of a vote boycott, just throwing the idea out there.)

[1Old Pro]

“Your failure to schedule this hearing shall constitute evidence of your denial of fundamental fairness and due process.

OBSTRUCTION!

[rdcbn]

This is all political and being tried in the court of public opinion

President Trump will be impeached by the House unless public opinion shows its political suicide for Dems. And they might even elect for suicide at this point and proceed regardless

Its all about shaping public opinion and invoking this rule helps, and the more Schiff tries to suppress the better for President Trump

[cornfedcowboy]

A trial in the Senate might throw this all the Democrats face. That said, there is merit to the argument that the Dems benefit the longer this garbage goes on.

[M Kehoe]

“Rules? We don’t need any stinking rules.”

Lubyanka prison circa Soviet Union.

5.56mm

[Red Badger]

That is not the reason he should be deposed.

I want to know WHO HE IS WORKING FOR AND Whose orders he follows...................

[Pollster1]

Attempts to obstruct this will be viewed by Republicans and most independents (and maybe even some moderate Democrats) as unjust and devious. We’ll see how this develops.

Attempts to obstruct this will also be viewed by far-left Democrats as unjust and devious. The difference is that, unlike decent Americans, globalists will celebrate yet another effort to cheat.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

I remember back in the 50’s, when I was a kid, my mother said “McCarthy was right.”

I miss my mom.

[Dick Bachert]

Froggy, Mine did as well & still miss mine!

[philman_36]

Just like Obamacare originated in the senate illegally.

Not true. If you track it all of the way back you start out here...
H.R.362 - Rural Hospital Assistance Act of 2009

Bill	Latest Title	Relationships to H.R.362	Relationships Identified by	Latest Action
H.R.3422	Medicare Support for Rural Hospitals Act	Related bill	CRS	07/31/2009 Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.
H.R.3590	Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act	Related bill	CRS	03/23/2010 Became Public Law No: 111-148.

I chose the "Related Bills" page for you so you can see what other bills were related to it.

Here it is again...H.R.3590 - Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Note the first related bill...Rural Hospital Assistance Act of 2009

See, what happened was the Rural Hospital Assistance Act was introduced and then eventually rewritten completely by both the House and Senate and then it continued on its way. (pay attention to the dates of action on the right on H.R.3590)
The final bill could then be declared to have "legally" started in the House. Just some technical Congressional trickery of which most are not aware.

[DrewsMum]

I agree. But same goes for executive branch! Yet they dont think so!

[Verginius Rufus]

If that January 2017 Politico article about Ukraine’s role in the 2016 election was signed, the author or authors should be called to testify too.

[Red Badger]

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

By KENNETH P. VOGEL and DAVID STERN

01/11/2017 05:05 AM EST

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Demoncrats play hardball. Republicans play by “Roberts Rules of Order”. Until we take the gloves off, we will always lose

What the problem actually consists of is the facts that

• All major US journalism participates in a cartel. The cartel “just is,” as far as journalists are concerned - but in reality it self-organized because all major journalism institutions are wire services and/or members/subscribers thereto. That is, all major journalists are in a continual virtual meeting to discus business. And Adam Smith’s dictum, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices” is exactly correct.

  The "conspiracy against the public” functions to define:

  • what is, and what is not, news, and
  • the connotation and usage of the words “objective,” “liberal,” “moderate,” “centrist,” and “progressive.” All those words actually mean, in journalist cartel lingo, nothing other than cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government. The usage varies only in that “objective” is always applied to journalists and never applied to anyone else; the others apply to anyone who can put on a journalist hat and instantly be accepted by journalists as being “objective.”

• Under the NY Times v. Sullivan decision, “obeying the First Amendment” requires that politicians not sue for libel, and some news sources are “reliable” - and if relied on, other journalists are in the clear as far as libel liability is concerned. That was Justice Brennan writing for an unanimous Warren Court in 1964. The result is Political Correctness - “liberals” being entitled not only to their own opinions but to their own facts.

Obviously, then, the journalism cartel is subject to antitrust law, either civil or criminal.

Less obviously, according to Antonin Scalia, the Sullivan decision is subject to a valid challenge. The reason is that while Sullivan denigrates the right to sue for libel (and thereby get facts certified by a court), the Federalists who were desperate to solidify the ratification of the Constitution and win the acquiescence of the Antifederalist had no desire to modify anyone’s rights. They wanted only to assure everyone that their rights would not change.

Forced to promise a bill of rights to be established via amendment, they passed the first eight amendments listing rights which had been denied by tyrants historically, and they passed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which reject the idea that the people and states have no rights or powers not listed in the Constitution.

The First Amendment was crafted to not touch libel law, and the Ninth Amendment by implication preserves it intact. If in fact courts thought that 1A affected libel law the way Justice Brennan claimed, there is no reason any libel suit at all would be allowed. But no court has ever claimed that. Sullivan is judicial legislation.

"Demoncrats play hardball. Republicans play by 'Roberts Rules of Order’.” That will continue until and unless the journalism cartel is successfully prosecuted - or sued - for antitrust violations and for libel. I would not be above arguing for a RICO charge as well. It is worth noting that the framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid political parties - and the Democrat Party has joined itself at the hip to the journalism cartel.