Let's Make Things Clear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Regarding subpoenas:

"
10. SUBPOENAS (a) Generally. All subpoenas shall be authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, upon consultation with the Ranking Minority Member, or by vote of the full Committee. (b) Subpoena Contents. Any subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee or by the full Committee may compel: (1) The attendance of witnesses and testimony before the Committee; or (2) The production of memoranda, documents, records, or any other tangible item.(c) Signing of Subpoena. A subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee or by thefull Committee may be signed by the Chair or by any member of the Committee designated to do so by the full Committee.(d) Subpoena Service. A subpoena authorized by the Chair of the full Committee, or by the full Committee, may be served by any person designated to do so by the Chair.(e) Other Requirements. Each subpoena shall have attached thereto a copy of these rules.
"

At least that's answered.

Yes, but their subpoena power is only with regard to their authority, which is limited to legislative oversight.

Also, while the Intelligence Committee (I barfed while saying that) has never historically been authorized to engage in an Impeachment Proceeding, it certainly could, according to The House Rules - if and only if they held a vote of the whole House to initiate an impeachment proceeding.

Until then, their subpoena power is strictly limited in scope - they certainly have no authority to second guess a member of a co-equal branch, let alone The President, in the performance of their duties.

a reply to: proximo

We have different opinions on Trump's impeachable offenses. However, I agree that Ukranian Quid Pro Quo was a weak place to start.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no authority other than your own. Gotcha.

??? Not mine, it is right in the Constitution.

Oh, and someone else pointed out that The House's own rules say the same thing.

"Someone said" eh? I've linked the House Rules multiple times ... go look for yourself.

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between what the Constitution says and what you think it means. You will find nothing in the Constitution that refers to Congressional investigations in impeachment mattters (or anything else).

a reply to: tanstaafl

Refute what? Spurious claims made by others? The one who makes the claim has to substantiate it. You're asking for negative proof which is illogical.

Time after time here the claim was made that the House had to have a formal vote to begin investigations into impeachable offenses. I have asked for the evidence for that claim and none has been provided, and I have helpfully linked the House Rules, the Jefferson Manual, etc. Nothing. Crickets.

You're NOT quoting the "House Rules" you're quoting a section on their website regarding history provided to you by simpleman above.

Here, I'll help you (for the third time): Rules of the House of Representatives (2019)

a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you claiming that the House of Representatives does not have authority to impeach now???

Thanks though, you just substantiated that you realize that Congress can investigate and issue subpoena's within their Constitutional authority. I'm glad that's clear now.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"Someone said" eh? I've linked the House Rules multiple times ... go look for yourself.

So you should be able to point out where I am wrong.

You will find nothing in the Constitution that refers to Congressional investigations in impeachment mattters (or anything else).

Of course not. The only thing you find in the Constitution is who has the sole Power of Impeachment:

The (whole) House of Representatives.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Refute what?

The fact that the Constitution is clear on who has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Time after time here the claim was made that the House had to have a formal vote to begin investigations into impeachable offenses.

That is what the Constitution requires. Read it and weep.

I have asked for the evidence for that claim and none has been provided,

No, you have pretended that the Constitution doesn't say what it plainly does:

"The House of Representatives ... has the sole Power of Impeachment."

Not the Speaker, not some Committee - The House - the WHOLE House, and the only way the House expresses its opinion is by voting on bills/resolutions.

and I have helpfully linked the House Rules, the Jefferson Manual, etc. Nothing. Crickets.

None of which change the meaning of the words in the Constitution.

You're NOT quoting the "House Rules" you're quoting a section on their website regarding history provided to you by simpleman above.

Irrelevant to what the Constitution itself plainly states.

Unless/until you can show plain text from the House Rules or some other authoritative source that plainly states, clarifies or otherwise tries to modify the plain meaning of the clause in the Constitution, you are pissing in the wind.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you claiming that the House of Representatives does not have authority to impeach now???

Wow... you really can't even read, can you?

I'll try again, though you have made it abundantly clear you are incapable of grasping even the simplest of grammatical constructs...

Congress' ordinary authority to investigate is strictly limited to legislative oversight issues.

Congress' extraordinary 'sole Power of Impeachment' grants them expanded investigative/subpoena powers, but only when they initiate Impeachment Proceedings, and this can only be done by a vote of the whole House.

That clear it up for you? Didn't think so...

a reply to: tanstaafl

No weeping here bud. You're misrepresenting the Constitution. The House has the power of impeachment (as I have stated, clearly, multiple times in this thread, demonstrating your specious comments to be false and ... utterly absurd.)

The House will by a simple majority vote (or will not) send Articles of Impeachment. At that point, an individual would be impeached. This does not mean that there is any curtailment or requirement for a "formal vote" on investigation. That's not what the Constitution says.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the matter I have responded to several times is that there has to be a "formal vote" to begin investigations. There does not, that isn't what the Constitution says, and the fact that you keep repeating the same statement over and over is boring.

I don't have to show anything of the sort. You and others make the claim that Congressional investigations require a formal vote. Until you show that, whether it regards impeachment or the price of tea in China, you're right, this is a complete waste of time.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Are you claiming that the House of Representatives does not have authority to impeach now???

Wow... you really can't even read, can you?

I'll try again, though you have made it abundantly clear you are incapable of grasping even the simplest of grammatical constructs...

Congress' ordinary authority to investigate is strictly limited to legislative oversight issues.

Congress' extraordinary 'sole Power of Impeachment' grants them expanded investigative/subpoena powers, but only when they initiate Impeachment Proceedings, and this can only be done by a vote of the whole House.

That clear it up for you? Didn't think so...

Of course it doesn't "clear anything up" because you're talking through your hat. You've made claims now ... back them up.

Show us in the Constitution (or any other documented source) where this fabricated distinction between "ordinary and extraordinary" Congressional authority is outlined.

Please don't waste anymore screen with absurd statements of your own opinions or ad hom BS.

Can you give evidence for your claim or not? Simple question.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The House will by a simple majority vote (or will not) send Articles of Impeachment. At that point, an individual would be impeached. This does not mean that there is any curtailment or requirement for a "formal vote" on investigation. That's not what the Constitution says.

Actually, it is precisely what the Constitution says.

You don't seem to be able to comprehend that the matter I have responded to several times is that there has to be a "formal vote" to begin investigations. There does not, that isn't what the Constitution says, and the fact that you keep repeating the same statement over and over is boring.

I actually do understand what you are responding to and are actually saying (although you obviously don't), and I agree wholeheartedly, it is extremely boring to have to keep trying to find a different way to explain it - I imagine I'd have an easier time trying to explain how nuclear energy is created to my 4 year old daughter.

How about this...

You agree that The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment. No way you can disagree (unless you are mentally ill), because that is the exact words used.

So, answer me this... what is the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'?

Or, asked another way... do you not understand that, by your argument, the process of an 'impeachment inquiry' or investigation does not fall within the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'?

"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

It doesn't say 'the sole power to vote on Articles of Impeachment'. It plainly says 'the Power of Impeachment'.

An impeachment inquiry/investigation is by its very nature a process included within and encompassed by the meaning of the term 'the Power of Impeachment'.

I'll also add...

This requires one to understand that the only way 'The House of Representatives' can act, as the body known as 'The House of Representatives', is through the act of voting, as a body (the whole House) on a bill/resolution.

If you honestly cannot comprehend that, then I guess you are actually mentally ill, and I'll just say a prayer for you and move on...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Can you give evidence for your claim or not? Simple question.

I'll let my prior response speak for itself...

You are the one refusing to back your retarded claim that a few rogue congress critters can hijack the impeachment process.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Time for us both to move on I think. You are repeatedly claiming that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.

1. Your claim is this: The Constitution requires an act of the full House before an impeachment investigation can begin.

2. Your evidence is: The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Can you give evidence for your claim or not? Simple question.

I'll let my prior response speak for itself...

You are the one refusing to back your retarded claim that a few rogue congress critters can hijack the impeachment process.

Quote me or go pray as you promised.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Time for us both to move on I think.

Please do...

You are repeatedly claiming that the Constitution says something that it doesn't.

1. Your claim is this: The Constitution requires an act of the full House before an impeachment investigation can begin.

2. Your evidence is: The Constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment.

Notice the difference between 1 and 2.

Yes, and I also note that you falsely mis-represent my claim.

My claim has to do with your failure to comprehend the manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, as a body, which I just added to my original reply.

The manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, is by voting, as a body, on bills/resolutions.

The actions of one Committee and/or a few rogue congress critters does not constitute action by 'The House of Representatives'.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"You are the one refusing to back your retarded claim that a few rogue congress critters can hijack the impeachment process."

Quote me or go pray as you promised.

That is the only way to comprehend your claim that one committee, run by a few rogue congress critters, constitutes action by 'The House of Representatives'.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You just added something to your original reply that I failed to comprehend when I read your original reply?

Damn my eyes for not being a time traveller.

Articles of Impeachment will be voted on by the whole House. That is vehicle of the "power of Impeachment."

Anything else you are misunderstanding or making up.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

My claim has to do with your failure to comprehend the manner in which 'The House of Representatives' acts, as a body, which I just added to my original reply.

Quote snipped for relevance and the record.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"You are the one refusing to back your retarded claim that a few rogue congress critters can hijack the impeachment process."

Quote me or go pray as you promised.

That is the only way to comprehend your claim that one committee, run by a few rogue congress critters, constitutes action by 'The House of Representatives'.

Quote my claim.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

You just added something to your original reply that I failed to comprehend when I read your original reply?

Poor Gryphon66, it must be really sad and frustrating being unable to comprehend basic english.

Articles of Impeachment will be voted on by the whole House. That is vehicle of the "power of Impeachment."

Anything else you are misunderstanding or making up.

By your own words, the Constitution doesn't say anything about voting, nor does it define the Power of Impeachment as 'voting on Articles of Impeachment'.

Remember when you accused me of reading meaning into these words of trhe Constitution that you claim wasn't there? Pot, meet kettle...

Are you seriously arguing that an impeachment inquiry/investigation does not fall within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment'?

Are you seriously suggesting that actions by one committee and/or a few rogue congress critters or the Speaker of the House constitutes action by 'The House of Representatives'?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your repeated straw arguments are fallacious and meaningless ... you claim I've said things that I haven't said, you claim I think things I don't think ... you're a waste of time.

The claim has been made that investigation requires an act of the entire House.

Can you substantiate that claim? or not?

The only response I need from you is an affirmation or negation and in the case of an affirmation, evidence.