Let's Make Things Clear

Perhaps this article helps?

Of all the Founders who debated impeachment, three Virginians—Mason, Madison and delegate Edmund Randolph—did the most to set down a vision of when Congress should remove a president from office. Though the men had very different positions on the Constitution, their debates in Philadelphia and at Virginia’s ratifying convention in Richmond produced crucial definitions of an impeachable offense. And their ultimate agreement—that a president should be impeached for abuses of power that subvert the Constitution, the integrity of government, or the rule of law—remains essential to the debates we’re having today, 230 years later.

Smithsonian Magazine

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Has someone claimed that Fifth Amendment rights are being violated?

Please explain how Congress' oversight power violates the 4th Amendment.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" ... I believe is the way COTUS phrases it.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Ah but back then they formed a special committee to handle the investigation and building the case to hold a vote on. They did not break with that tradition until the judicial committee was formed and after which it has always been that committee to handle the investigation when regarding presidential impeachment. Which to me begs the question of why break that tradition now?

a reply to: RickyD

I do see what you're saying; I suggested above that the Intelligence Committee is involved in these investigations precisely because the "whistleblower" is CIA (within their charge.)

And I have to say again, "tradition" has been trampled by Mr. Trump for almost three years, perhaps the House Democrats are just catching up?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Rules of the House are agreed to at the start of each Congress.

Prior to the adoption of the rules by the United States House of Representatives, the House operates under general parliamentary rules and Jefferson's Manual but these are not binding on the current House until they are approved by the membership of the current Congress. Historically, the current Congress will adopt the rules of the previous Congress and make any amendments they think are necessary to govern themselves.

Jefferson's Manual has what you want -- rules for impeachment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So what Intel has discovered is conveyed to Judiciary who would start their inestigations with a vote to open said investigations. A vote creates a legislative purpose which is where the House derives its legal powers.

Currently, there is *no* vote of any kind, anywhere. Thus, this is not legislative business of the House, only a fishing expedition being carried out by Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi.

a reply to: ketsuko

Your claim is incorrect. I linked the current Rules above.

a reply to: ketsuko

Again I ask, where is the alleged required "vote to open said investigations" found? That's a pretty easy question to answer since so many seem so sure of it, right?

To repeat: the Constitutional requirement is that the House send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate which then votes to remove the President (or not) based on the trial conducted in that chamber.

a reply to: ketsuko

I'll help: here's a link to Jefferson's Manual.

Quote the requirement you're claiming exists.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Committee business is carried out with a vote. If it's the business of the Judiciary to investigate whether or not articles of impeachment need to be drawn up, then the committee votes to open the investigation. This is the way committee business is carried out. It's basic Parliamentary procedure.

This is the part that is not being followed.

In fact, the House isn't even in session right now.

a reply to: ketsuko

So ... all you need to do is quote from the US Code, the Rules of the House of Representatives, or even the Jefferson Manual to back up your claim ... you're just rendering your own summation of the matter at hand and "basic parliamentary procedure." Your opinion is not fact.

Can you cite a requirement for a required vote for the House of Representatives to use its investigative power or not?

Can you cite a requirement that only the Judiciary Committee may investigate matters which may lead to Articles of Impeachment or not?

If it is illegal to investigate corruption concerning a political rival during an election, then all any criminal has to do is run for office, because any investigation towards that individual would be seen as political interference.

I guess elections "trump" justice.

How odd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe...however taking into account the current resistance climate I persobally think it's partisan and being done purposefully to be as damaging to him as possible knowing full well they don't have the Senate support. Just my opinion when taking in the political climate.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sadly and I think gryphon is correct in that the house has some pretty lax and wide open allowances on how they get things to the Senate that this is indeed legit. The real trial happens in the Senate so until then I think this is just a show to make trump look as bad as possible before the elections. I am pretty confident that this won't pass muster in the Senate where we currently sit. Trump will get his chance to refute these charges in the Senate under more court like conditions.

a reply to: RickyD

The President admitted that he acted in the performance of the duties of his Office to influence foreign powers to interfere in our politics.

He did this in public view as well as private.

Multiple times.

Of course there are partisan motives at work within the Democratic Party as there are within the Republican Party.

Impeachment is not a criminal matter; that comes later.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" The House brings the charges (Articles) the Senate conducts the trial.

a reply to: RickyD

Seems to me that certain members of the House are acting unilaterally and on their own discretion without regard to House precedent.

But we live in a Banana Republic now and adherence to the Constitution doesn't seem too important.

I could cite everything Pelosi and Schiff have said and done so far, but if people still think that they are adherents to the letter of the Constitution, then not a lot I can say to convince them otherwise.

It's a witchhunt. Why are you wasting your time pretending anything else?

a reply to: Oraculi

a reply to: DBCowboy

It is not illegal to investigate corruption; it is illegal to induce a foreign power to interfere in our elections.

If Trump wanted to investigate Biden, he should have done so with the resources of the Executive Branch, not ask foreign powers to do the dirty work in some alleged quid pro quo arrangement.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Again, where in the Constitution do we find the requirements for the authority of House committees?

That should be easy to answer, since you're invoking the Constitution.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sadly as far as I can tell there is No requirement for a vote until the articles of impeachment are passed to the Senate for trial. There is a tradition of it being done a certain a way but there is no rule saying it must be done that way. The house is ultimately responsible for determining how things are done. Considering the democrats hold the majority, and all that is needed is a simple majority there to pass on the articles of impeachment, then it will proceed. Still unsure if trump is required to comply with subpoenas or not. Again this is not a very cut and dry matter and the rules/laws regarding this are either very vague or convoluted making it a minefield to navigate and honestly probably out of most of our armchair expertise to be an authority on.