No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: Theyy
After trump is impeached, his children should be investigated. Someone should ask the Saudis about Ivanka.

Who should ask?

Wouldnt 1 congressman be able to start an "impeachment inquiry" into that person?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

No, that is not my interpretation and you know that very well.

The House will vote to send an Impeachment resolution to the Senate or not

The Senate (with the Chief Justice presiding if the President is impeached) will acquit or find guilty and remove.

This is really not that hard.

You literally keep arguing that 1 person can start an impeachment. But then go on to say that Congress has to be involved in the impeachment process now?

Got it

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
I wonder how the upcoming house never ending impeachment investigations against future presidents will be received.
As this is setting the precedent for such?
Disagree with policy.....impeachment investigation....don't cooperate ....obstruction
and we thought congressional gridlock was bad

That's the problem, the House are building a precedent to contest elections and remove opponents.
You can bet the Republicans will do the same when the roles are reversed. Makes the whole notion of separation of powers a sham.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Quote me.

If not, it's obvious that you're not telling the truth.

a reply to: UKTruth

Makes the whole notion of separation of powers a sham.

seems it is headed that way
a simple vote would sort all of this out
wonder why the majority wont call a simple vote?

perhaps because the american people are not actually behind the effort to unseat a duly elected president for no actual crime?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: UKTruth
I wonder how the upcoming house never ending impeachment investigations against future presidents will be received.
As this is setting the precedent for such?
Disagree with policy.....impeachment investigation....don't cooperate ....obstruction
and we thought congressional gridlock was bad

That's the problem, the House are building a precedent to contest elections and remove opponents.
You can bet the Republicans will do the same when the roles are reversed. Makes the whole notion of separation of powers a sham.

How so? The same impeachment power has been held in the House since the Constitution was ratified.

There's far more danger to the separation of powers by an Executive that doesn't honor the law.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Quote me.

If not, it's obvious that you're not telling the truth.

I'm generalizing your statement as you wont give a direct quote.

Similar to the debate last night on just about every question.

Are you also OK with Schiff kicking Republicans out of committee meetings involving impeachment?

Are you ok with closed door testimonies?

Are you ok with Schiff leaking any information from closed door meetings as that defeats the purpose? Let alone letting the one guy we all know hates Trump be the one leaking VERY cherry picked "facts".

Most of us are terribly frustrated with what Drunk Nancy and pencil neck are insisting all be done in secret. You are cool with it.

I dont need a direct quote from you, you have shown what you stand for.....

Lolz🤪

a reply to: UKTruth

Started my list back in January...

Impeachment for all with less flimsy grounds.

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

I'm generalizing your statement as you wont give a direct quote.

Right. So you're not dealing with what I've said. Thanks for the honesty.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

I'm generalizing your statement as you wont give a direct quote.

Right. So you're not dealing with what I've said. Thanks for the honesty.

Complete opposite of what I said hun!

I have asked you to answer several questions over several posts and as per usual, when the question is too hard to answer with spin you move onto something else....

I see through it!

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Oraculi

originally posted by: shooterbrody
www.cnn.com...
So the speaker, herself, has spoken.
There is no "official" impeachment inquiry going on currently.
There has been a lot of debate about such.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will hold off on calling a full House vote for now to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry, a congressional aide confirms to CNN.

So there are no impeachment powers currently in place to force the executive branch to do squat.
From the speaker herself.

She delivered this message to her caucus in their ongoing closed door meeting this evening.

Seems this is just another on going smear tactic against the president.
A simple floor vote to investigate abuse of power, obstruction ect seems pretty easy to take.
Wonder why they refuse?

You realize there is no vote only because one is not needed?

You guys and girls may choose to live in denial, but at the same time you're doing that an official impeachment inquiry is ongoing. Not only is it ongoing, but every single witness called upon so far has disobeyed the directions of the White House and complied with the impeachment inquiry.

Do you know why?

Because they chose to obey the law.

Do you know that it takes a 2/3 majority senate vote to impeach the President? Did you know that the Republicans hold the Senate? Do you really think the Republicans will vote to impeach even after the Dim..witts tried to side step a vote in the house so as to leave the Republicns with no subpoena power?

Do you really believe that? Because if you do then I got some ocean front property in Arizona I'll sell you on the cheap. You can just kiss you impeachment dreams goodbye dude, it ain't gonna frickin happen!

Have a good day!

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Now you're simply posting specious nonsense. You stated above that you can't quote me saying the absurdities you assign to me in your posts. That means you're either confused or deceitful, and I can't help you with either.

The questions you ask are loaded questions -- familiar with the concept?

Ask a real question, get a real answer.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

I think you mean the Republicans hold the Senate, and 2/3 of the Senate must pass the Articles of Impeachment sent by the House.

Interesting how when the matter gets down to brass tacks, the politicized nature of the whole deal is made evident.

originally posted by: Theyy
the constitution has spoken

Exactly.

Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Scepticaldem

Now you're simply posting specious nonsense. You stated above that you can't quote me saying the absurdities you assign to me in your posts. That means you're either confused or deceitful, and I can't help you with either.

The questions you ask are loaded questions -- familiar with the concept?

Ask a real question, get a real answer.

Loaded questions?

Not looking for you declare where you stand instead of talking in circles?

Do you really think that there is more than 15% of the far left that trust Drunk Nancy and Shifty Schiff running this operation behind closed doors?

We dont

You are avoiding taking a stand besides saying that the way you interpret a 200+ year old document is that Trump should be impeached.

Answer just this one please. Do you think closed door meetings with leaks allowed is a good way to do this?

Should be fun to see you dance around that one.....

Lolz

🤪

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You confuse your interpretation with the meaning of the Constitution.

Talking to yourself in the mirror again!?!? Look out for the men in the white coats.

The House would vote by a majority vote whether to impeach or not; there is ZERO requirement to have a vote prior to committees investigating.

If it has to do with their Power of Impeachment, it most certainly does.

They don't need to vote to ionvestigate other things that fall within their purview, no.

But the Impeachment Power is specifically and solely delegated to "The House of Representatives".

You keep citing your own authority.

No, that would be you. I'm citing the Constitution - and I know how to read.

The fact is that the impeachment investigations have started.

No, partisan witch-hunts have started.

I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you have to prove that you're right.

I already did, with a logical argument as to the meaning of the delegation of the 'Power of Impeachment' bing delegated solely to "The House of Representatives".

... and we've all been waiting for that.

Yes, we have all been waiting for you to counter my argument. Obviously you can't, hence the obfuscation and deflections.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

I've told you directly before that I believe (i.e. I'm about to share my opinion rather than making factual claims) that I think that the Ukranian matter alone is the DUMBEST thing the Democrats could have started impeachment on. There are multiple better reasons and provable cases that have been handed to them on a silver platter, but they were too cowardly to take up.

All of your pejorative names for Pelosi, Schiff et. al. are irrelevant and unnecesary (and used to be against T&C).

I'm not avoiding taking a stand at all ... that's about the most irrational thing in your post.

I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear to you. You and others make the claim that a House vote is required for impeachment inquiries. That is not true. If it is true, show me in the Constitution or other viable source.

You may notice that you don't ask for my opinion in your posts to me because you're usually desperately trying to spin my posts. Personally, I think it's BONKERS for Pelosi and Schiff not to follow established protocol and indeed, I do think it's COWARDLY to hold ALL investigative meetings in private. I'm fine with protecting witnesses, but come on.

Throwing Matt Gaetz out was STUPID. Attempting to impeach on Ukraine is STUPID. There are lots of things that are STUPID.

The fact that I believe people are STUPID doesn't mean that I get to deal unfairly with them in debate, however.

originally posted by: Scepticaldem
a reply to: tanstaafl
It wont reply to the actual question at hand I doubt.

I know, just having fun getting my daily finger exercises in.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your posts are riddled with comments directed at me. I am not the topic.

Your claim is that the House cannot investigate impeachable matters without a full House vote. You are mistaken.

Yes, the House will have a simple majority vote to send an impeachment resolution to the Senate, because that is what the Constitution and Rules of the House require.

The rest of your posts on this matter are nonsense.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You and others make the claim that a House vote is required for impeachment inquiries. That is not true. If it is true, show me in the Constitution or other viable source.

Already have, you simply are apparently incapable of rational, logical thought.

If you disagree, then answer this simple question...

Does 'impeachment inquiry' fall within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment'?

A simple yes or no will suffice.