Impeachment Process and which committee?

I have a question I have been unable to find a answer to. So since 1813 every single impeachment inquiry and vote has come from the House Judiciary Committee.

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.

Source

So how is it that the House Intel Committee is trying fake this role over now? Am I missing something that either allows them to do so or a reason for the Judiciary not doing so? Does this essentially nullify anything the Intel Committee is doing?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Here is the deal.

The House did vote on an impeachment inquiry for Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.


They are trying to not have a vote so that Republicans cannot call witnesses. By not voting, they attempt to block witnesses for the "defense".

That is it in a nutshell.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

It is ongoing in the Judiciary, just this time the House Intel Committee has things to investigate pertaining to impeachment that fall outside of the Judiciary committees mandate.

The democrats believe they can do whatever the hell they want, so if this is a roadblock, I would assume they will have some type of rebuttal based on feelings and social media poles.

I would absolutely love for this to blow up in their face, again.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Here is the deal.

The House did vote on an impeachment inquiry for Presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.


They are trying to not have a vote so that Republicans cannot call witnesses. By not voting, they attempt to block witnesses for the "defense".

That is it in a nutshell.

I get that, but why is it being done through the House Intel Committee and not the House Judiciary Committee as has always been done? Strikes me as odd.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

An explanation from John Ratcliffe.
Conservative Treehouse

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court. The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

a reply to: Vasa Croe
There are a lot of irregularities in how this is being pursued, and how it is being covered for that matter.
None of which will stand up to legal scrutiny when it is pushed to that point.
And imo it will be pushed to that point by the dems.

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Vasa Croe

It is ongoing in the Judiciary, just this time the House Intel Committee has things to investigate pertaining to impeachment that fall outside of the Judiciary committees mandate.

There is no mandate....the Judiciary has always been the one to bring articles of impeachment. If anything, this is outside the scope of the Intel Committee.

Makes me think the Judiciary said dont do it so Schiff gave them the finger with Pelosi and decided to do it anyways.....

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An explanation from John Ratcliffe.
Conservative Treehouse

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court. The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

Very nice...thanks!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Considering Judiciary is Nadler's committee, you'd think he'd be all in for this, but he's not.

You're right. That is weird.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Vasa Croe

An explanation from John Ratcliffe.
Conservative Treehouse

Speaker Pelosi does not want to engage the judicial branch, nor does she want to give the target (President Trump) the opportunity to engage the judicial branch, ie. court. The judiciary would likely upend her House committee “official impeachment inquiry” scheme, just as D.C. District Court Chief Judge Beryl Howell recently did to Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler for “gaming the system“. Speaker Pelosi’s unilateral decree for an “official impeachment inquiry” without a House vote will not pass court review.

Yeah, your link definitely spells it all out.

Speaker Pelosi, with forethought and planning by the Lawfare Alliance, is intentionally using non-jurisdictional committees because she is manipulating the process. It’s the same reason why the House Intelligence, House Foreign Affairs and House Oversight committees cannot legally send out “Impeachment-based Subpoenas“; they have no impeachment jurisdiction. [Go Deep] and [Go Deep] to understand why.

The “impeachment” subpoenas’ are not technically subpoenas because the basis for the requests, impeachment, is not within the jurisdiction of either committee. So the committees are sending out demand letters, calling them subpoenas (media complies with the narrative), and hoping the electorate do not catch on to the scheme.

originally posted by: Notoneofyou
The democrats believe they can do whatever the hell they want, so if this is a roadblock, I would assume they will have some type of rebuttal based on feelings and social media poles.

I would absolutely love for this to blow up in their face, again.

They won't disappoint you on that note. Grab some popcorn and enjoy the show, this is gonna be a good one!

Thing is that they definitely have a gullible enough electorate. Look at the thread about the White House no complying. It's basically a 12 page + discussion over whether or not the House has to vote and if the one person makes the rules so that Pelosi can just declare an impeachment to make it legal.

They are all in for all of this being legitimate even though it's not and the partisan press isn't sorting anything out because it's happy to be complicit.

How many are there like the posters who think the Speaker can stand up and just single-handedly declare impeachment without any vote at all? And what happens when they find out this isn't true?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Democrats have nothing. They are trying to lay the "Trump trap" against the master, to get him worked up and expose something of substance that they can pursue. I agree with another post that the Judiciary committee likely said no, so they are trying to go around the traditional process if for no other reason than to badmouth a presidential incumbent in the year of an election cycle.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Pelosi did this for a very good reason.

By the Intelligence Committee doing this, they can do it behind closed doors with no Republican interference.

Schiff can come out of the closed room, face the cameras and lie his ass off about what they just heard.

An impeachment is traditionally held in a public forum where the citizens can learn what is being said.

They set this one up different simply because they have no impeachable offenses.

Having the meetings and questioning behind closed doors allows the Democrats to control the narrative.



ETA... this is exactly why what is going on should not be referred to as part of an "impeachment process. "

It is actually an inquisition.

a reply to: Lumenari

Except their narrative revolves around a whistleblower, now two of them, whose secret info is centered on a phone call. The White House quickly made the full transcript of that call public. It's hard to be suspenseful over public information. Their quiver is already half empty even though they can still run their political drama.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

I think it has to do with the 2020 election. There are a lot of Dems in the house that are in districts that Trump won. If they decide to impeach they might lose the house and they already know that the impeachment is not going to turn out how they think it will.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Lumenari

Except their narrative revolves around a whistleblower, now two of them, whose secret info is centered on a phone call. The White House quickly made the full transcript of that call public. It's hard to be suspenseful over public information. Their quiver is already half empty even though they can still run their political drama.

Exactly.

It is centered around a phone call that the entire world now knows more about then the "whistle blowers" did.

I an leaning towards agreeing with the people who think this whole thing was a trap set by Trump.

a reply to: Lumenari

Let's be real. A lot of the House Democrats are trying to get re-elected in purple districts, but they are facing internal party pressures from groups connected to people like The Squad. If they aren't radical enough, they get primaried by "real" leftists. Part of that includes impeaching Trump. However, if they want to maintain their majority, they have to gain re-election by the actual electorate of those purple districts that aren't nearly as radical as The Squad, and while The Squad might be able to successfully rally enough radicals in those districts to poach a few, the real damage is having to force them run way, way left to escape the primary and to have to do things like support an unpopular impeachment process.

So Nancy wants to do this, have the show without any real push back to make it look worse than it already does, get her people back into their districts to run and maintain that slender majority. She knows they don't have anything real. If they did, you'd see Nadler, not Schiff, and there would absolutely be a vote.

She needs to concentrate on appeasing the radicals enough to save her purple district members.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
So how is it that the House Intel Committee is trying fake this role over now? Am I missing something that either allows them to do so or a reason for the Judiciary not doing so? Does this essentially nullify anything the Intel Committee is doing?

You are missing something...

No committee can unilaterally decide to initiate Impeachment proceedings.

Any House Member can submit a Resolution to initiate Impeachment Inquiry, but it must be voted on by the Whole House.

Until there is a vote of the whole House, there is no official Impeachment Inquiry, which is required before they have real subpoena powers. This is the substance of Trumps letter to Pelosi.

The Constitution is clear. The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment. Not the Speaker of The House. Not some committee or committee chairman. The (whole) House.

And the way The House of Representatives acts is by voting on Resolutions.