No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: shooterbrody

No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry because there are no rules or constitutional requirement to hold a vote.

This line of defense by Trump and ilk is without a premise.

so trump made pelosi have the presser and make that statement?

Please quote her. Be precise and full.
Then explain to me what you have been told to think it means.

oh i did in the op
and shared the article which stated such
sorry you didnt bother to read it

a reply to: Extorris

Correct. The vast majority of Americans see the "It's not legit unless they vote" as the illegitimate defense it is.

anything other than your own opinion to back that up?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

So, yes, not every matter that comes for impeachment is "a crime" as ignorantly stated previously.

lying to congress is a crime, and was back then
it is commonly called perjury

wherein it was stated on the authority of common rumor

sorry for your confusion

also you can keep pretending the house did not take votes to begin the process with nixon or clinton, but the house dems do so at their peril
americans are actually fair minded and in a serious situation like this will seek for the process to be above board

I see two separate issues in what you are arguing.
1) Voting on starting the enquiry.
2) The process that the majority have adopted - banning opposition party members from meetings/hearings, using the media, proclaiming guilt from day 1.

The second is reprehensible and I genuinely believe many Democrats are not comfortable with what is happening, but the enquiry itself, number 1, doesn't need a vote to begin.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris
a reply to: shooterbrody

No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry because there are no rules or constitutional requirement to hold a vote.

This line of defense by Trump and ilk is without a premise.

so trump made pelosi have the presser and make that statement?

Please quote her. Be precise and full.
Then explain to me what you have been told to think it means.

oh i did in the op

No Quotes in the OP?

a reply to: shooterbrody

You're quoting fake news CNN in your OP.

Also, you have listed no quote from Pelosi in your OP.

originally posted by: Extorris

Both Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquires were voted on, but there was not requirement to vote on the inquires. It was political messaging.

Never said it was a requirement, but I did say it set precedent.

There is absolutely ZERO constitutional or legal requirement that the house vote to begin impeachment proceedings.

Once again never said there was, so I don't understand your point.

The responses by the WH in refusing to abide to congressional Subpoenas is simple and effective rhetorical delay tactics. No one is confused about the constitutional legitimacy of the Subpoenas, they just understand that enforcement is a long legal process for congress. The House can enforce through the courts, but it would take many months if not a year plus and impeachment proceedings should be expeditious in order to afford the accused a chance to respond in the Senate.

After the Mueller Report was released and the special counsel himself had finally testified before Congress, House Democrats were deeply divided on whether to “initiate” impeachment proceedings, with Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler voicing reluctance to go in that direction. Then, in what was either a clever or devious maneuver, depending on your point of view, Nadler let it be known in early August that his committee was already engaged in an impeachment “inquiry,” as CNN explained at the time:

As additional House Democrats continue to call for the House Judiciary Committee to launch an impeachment inquiry — which more than half the caucus now supports — Democratic sources say the issue is essentially moot since what the panel is doing is basically that: investigating whether Trump should be impeached.

As I noted at the time, “According to this interpretation of the situation, there’s no need to ‘launch’ anything, or to put House Democrats on the spot with some vote to begin ‘proceedings’ that are already underway.” House Republicans might (and did) complain that a vital step had been left out, but there wasn’t much they could do about it.

And so the President as you stated is pushing back. The House has little options but to treat this all as a labeling effort on Trump. Congressional Subpoenas are rather weak to enforce and time is on Trump's side as even if one day they do vote it will stop in the Senate. They need to do something I guess before 2020 elections, Pelosi wanted to just out live his 4 years, but it is looking better and better for Trump to win and not because he is so good, but because the people the Dems are putting up are so bad. They are starting to feel desperate and so here we are...

Wow, Adam Schiff is really putting the screws to Witnesses in his secret interrogation room!

Check out this excerpt from a leaked transcript.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

a reply to: UKTruth

Just for the sake of the truth, are they banning Republican members of the Intelligence Committee from hearings?

Further, are you damning them for "using the media"? Really?

What are you referring to, specifically, when you claim that they are "proclaiming guilt from day 1"?

a reply to: UKTruth
if no vote is needed why did the Speaker of the house have a meeting discussing such then a presser telling us there would not be a vote yet?
the 2 modern roadmaps for such included such a vote

otherwise moving forward the speaker of the house may start an impeachment inquiry on the day the new president is sworn in and keep it for the entire session

its bs and they know it

originally posted by: carewemust
Wow, Adam Schiff is really putting the screws to Witnesses in his secret interrogation room!

Check out this excerpt from a leaked transcript.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

from a super secret interview that the examiner just happens to have a super double fudge packed top secret mole on the inside leaking precise transcripts only they know and can verify.....



/sarcasm

a reply to: Extorris
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

You're quoting fake news CNN in your OP.

Also, you have listed no quote from Pelosi in your OP.

yep
figured you would need a source YOU trust

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

You're quoting fake news CNN in your OP.

Also, you have listed no quote from Pelosi in your OP.

yep
figured you would need a source YOU trust

All the corporate media is fake news.

Now, do you have a quote from Pelosi, from that article or anywhere, saying that she has to have a vote to start investigations? Because what I heard from her mouth is that she said several times that they do not have to have that vote, and she's right.

Show us that quote that backs up your claim.

a reply to: carewemust
from your link:

In a secret interview, Rep. Adam Schiff, leader of the House Democratic effort to impeach President Trump, pressed former United States special representative to Ukraine Kurt Volker to testify that Ukrainian officials felt pressured to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter as a result of Trump withholding U.S. military aid to Ukraine. Volker denied that was the case, noting that Ukrainian leaders did not even know the aid was being withheld and that they believed their relationship with the U.S. was moving along satisfactorily, without them having done anything Trump mentioned in his notorious July 25 phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

no pressure again
imagine that
perhaps they could ask the acual material witness, the president of the ukraine?
oh wait they did
he also said no pressure

who knew

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's simply amazing how closely that aligns with the White House's talking points memo, ain't it?

My god, please give us an eyeroll emote.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
www.abovetopsecret.com...

You are better than that. Don't be pridefully full of shat.

Show me a quote by Pelosi that you think supports this OP like you claimed it does.

Question to the group: Are the Republican members of the Intelligence Committee being excluded from these investigations?

Yes or no?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Good on you.

Treat Non Existent Sources from the Washington Times as real.

The Washington Times has a special place in propaganda.

Embed that in your sense of credibility when you look in the mirror.

a reply to: Gryphon66
read what you like
she said there would be no vote
"we will not have a vote"
she had a discussion with the democratic caucus about the vote

alot of work for something they dont have to have
lol
stupid dems
wasting more time

what have they passed in the last 2 years?
trumps tax cut?

word on the street is "leadership" Hoyer, Clyburn, Nadler, and Schiff opposed the vote,
also rumored some dem lawmakers fear that the American public would confuse a vote authorizing an impeachment inquiry as actually impeaching Trump

are they ascared of actually impeaching him without an actual crime?
seems so