No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yes buddy it does go exactly as I stated.

I think the Democratic leadership is stupid. That is not the matter at hand.

A common error is to beleive that Impeachment is the same as being found guilty and removed.

It is not.

Clinton was impeached, but he was not removed, and neither was Johnson. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

So there can be an impeachment without a vote in the house? Doesn't the house have to vote on articles of impeachment in order for it to then go to the Senate?

Or does Pelosi just vote her singular vote and send it right up to the Senate her self?

No.
Yes.
No.

So this means if there is no house vote then there is no impeachment.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Going to throw a whole lot out here. Using your link Jefferson’s Manual

Page 166 On common fame... Is a whistleblower statement enough for “common fame,” I think not. Yet witnesses are being called and testimony given sans a vote to begin an inquiry. And already Schiff has denied any member the privilege to attend and ask questions via an intermediary.

Page 313 Impeachments. The House has always examined the charges by its own committee before
§606. Procedure of committee in investigating.
it has voted to impeach (III, 2294, 2487, 2501). This committee has sometimes been a select committee (III, 2342, 2487, 2494), sometimes a standing committee (III, 2400, 2409). In some instances the committee has
made its inquiry ex parte (III, 2319, 2343, 2366, 2385, 2403, 2496, 2511); but in the later practice the sentiment of committees has been in favor of permitting the accused to explain, present witnesses, cross-examine (III, 2445, 2471, 2518), and be represented by counsel (III, 2470, 2501, 2511, 2516; 93d Cong., Aug. 20, 1974, p. 29219; H. Rept. 105–830, Dec. 16, 1998).

Now in traditional ex parte court cases, generally custody hearings or other such things, the power to do so is temporary typically 10-20 days. Ex parte committees in impeachment proceedings are not modern.


But as for precedence of the order, nothing can disrupt a question before the floor. The question being on whether or not to impeach based on the Articles brought forth. Just the same as just prior to a vote on a bill, are there any other questions, as I am sure you have heard many times before. A question holds the vote and can actually become a filibuster. But you can’t filibuster an impeachment because there is no expiration time.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

Yes buddy it does go exactly as I stated.

I think the Democratic leadership is stupid. That is not the matter at hand.

A common error is to beleive that Impeachment is the same as being found guilty and removed.

It is not.

Clinton was impeached, but he was not removed, and neither was Johnson. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.

So there can be an impeachment without a vote in the house? Doesn't the house have to vote on articles of impeachment in order for it to then go to the Senate?

Or does Pelosi just vote her singular vote and send it right up to the Senate her self?

No.
Yes.
No.

So this means if there is no house vote then there is no impeachment.

Pretty simple.

Articles are drafted.
Judiciary committee votes to approve the articles.
The House votes on them.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Extorris


As far as the rest of the BS and fake transcripts by the Washington Times, who once claimed the National Teachers Association was behind the World Trade Towers Bombing, all transcripts will be entered into record if/when a vote is held on articles of impeachment and it is sent to the Senate.

Do you agree it has been a perpetual event that has changed focus a number of times? They were screaming for impeachment before day one, and after election results of the popular vote, to taxes, to business dealings, to sex scandals, to racism, to white supremacist, to many different Russian collisions, to quid pro quo, to...

What did I miss any?

I did miss one, mentally unfit article 25... Otherwise known a Bidenisim

So in the village where the boy called wolf there were those that got numb to the boy shouting too much and those that were smart enough to know when a real wolf arrived.

Trump was all those things and "unfit", violated the emoluments clause daily, has encouraged racist divides and yes has invited, encouraged and welcomed foreign governments to interfere in our democracy all while being the most dishonest POTUS history could have ever imagined.

What we as a people that employ him must decide is what is acceptable and what is not. Destroying "Norms" can be cause for impeachment, but in 2019 the people have a high tolerance for such things.

Extorting foreign governments with Congressionally appropriated military aid to demand favors to help with your political campaign is something that the majority of the country believes is a bridge too far. Our founding fathers would agree.

He has a long string of policy benefiting Russia. It deserves thorough investigation. Ditto his corrupt activities.

It might upset some, but it really doesn't matter, let the truth comes out.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Any Thoughts that If Nancy Somehow Loses the Speakership , Her Successor would be > ?

a reply to: Extorris
You are simply incorrect.
It happens

originally posted by: Extorris

Trump was all those things...

You just answered all my question...Thank You... No need to continue now... Good Day.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
"Answer just this one please. Do you think closed door meetings with leaks allowed is a good way to do this?"

When the office of President is used to BULLY and THREATEN publicly the whistle blowers, then yes, all efforts must be made to protect them from said threats.

Yeah... except that didn't happen, nor does it address the question you are replying to.

What did happen is Trump pointed out, and rightly so, that the so-called whistleblower, isn't really a whistleblower, and this was just another lame attempt by the dems to attack Trump and provide more impeachment fodder nonsense..

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Want to know why there is no floor vote? Because all House business would be confined solely to the impeachment process until completed. All those “work weeks in the home district” vacations would be cancelled until completed and kicked to the Senate.

That is silly, and not true - they just delegate the oversight of the process to a committee - historically the judiciary committee - and the committee handles it. It does not affect other business in any way.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Schiff or Marcia Fudge, with higher odds on Fudge because Schiff needs to be distanced if Pelosi was voted out.

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical
The house committee can investigate anything they want.

No. They can't. They cannot investigate whether or not I robbed a bank. They can only investigate matters that fall with in their purview. Their oridinary purview is called legislative oversight.

They are currently investigating whether or not to hold a formal impeachment inquiry,

Correct. They are not actually involved in a formal impeachment inquiry, which would give them additional subpoena powers, but would also provide equal powers to subpoena, etc, to the Rs, but they don't want that.

they can pre-investigate all they want, but they don't have the power to compel testimony with respect to impeachable offenses until they formally vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

A house vote is not necessary to start an investigation, nor is the investigation subject to public release. You are a fool if you truly believe they don't have the right to do this.

I agree... and glad you agree that their requests for cooperation are not actual subpoena's with any teeth behind them )otherwise they'd be pursuing enforcement in court), even though they may be calling them 'subpoenas'.

a reply to: tanstaafl

But the inquiry didn’t start with a motion from the floor. It went straight to committee by decree instead of vote. When it comes out of committees to a floor vote for the committees’s recommended Articles of Impeachment it cannot go back into committee without significant questions presented to adding more Articles.

A whistleblower complaint is neither recommendation of independent counsel nor does it meet the criteria for common fame as no one can evaluate the character of the source while the identity is hidden. That would be like having a random bum off the street that may or may not been paid $50 to make a false accusation.

The insistence on a floor vote by Trump now, and he is practically begging for one, is so the House gets hung up on their own procedures making impeachment a do or die vote on these charges. All because they went backasswards in their zeal to “get him” without allowing Due Process. Which is making this trip sound more and more like Hillary with Nixon than anything else. She tried to pull a similar stunt and was fired for it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
What are you referring to, specifically, when you claim that they are "proclaiming guilt from day 1"?

Are you seriously suggesting that the dems haven't been calling Trump a traitor that needs to be impeached since before he even took the oath of office?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
But the inquiry didn’t start with a motion from the floor. It went straight to committee by decree instead of vote.

Correct - by a decree from Pelosi.

That is why it isn't an (formal) 'impeachment inquiry'.

When it comes out of committees to a floor vote for the committees’s recommended Articles of Impeachment it cannot go back into committee without significant questions presented to adding more Articles.

Once Articles of Impeachment are filed, whether by a single member or a committee, whatever process the House has for determining whether and/or when any resolution goes to the floor for a vote is brought into play.

You know... lots of bills/resolutions are submitted, not all go to the floor for a vote. The Speaker and committee chairs have a lot to do with which bills/resolutions go to the floor for a vote. Same thing applies to the Senate.

A whistleblower complaint is neither recommendation of independent counsel nor does it meet the criteria for common fame as no one can evaluate the character of the source while the identity is hidden. That would be like having a random bum off the street that may or may not been paid $50 to make a false accusation.

While that first sentence is extremely poorly constructed and difficult to decipher, I agree wholeheartedly with the second one.

The insistence on a floor vote by Trump now, and he is practically begging for one, is so the House gets hung up on their own procedures making impeachment a do or die vote on these charges.

No, a vote to formally open an impeachment inquiry simply means that the dems can no longer control things with an iron fist liuke they are now. The R's would then be free to call their own witnesses and comepl them to appear, issue subpoenas (that are actually enforceable), etc. In other words, it would then be a fair process.

originally posted by: Extorris
Trump was all those things and "unfit",

Ridiculous lie, as is the rest of your 'story'.

He is actually ' violated the emoluments clause daily,

Another lie. If you claim otherwise, provide one specific example. That should be easy, no?

The simple fact that he is a real estate mogul, owns a lot of properties, and people pay to stay there, is not a violation of the emoluments clause. Only a moron would believe such a ridiculous thing.

has encouraged racist divides

Another outright lie. If you claim otherwise, provide one specific example. That should be easy, no?

and yes has invited, encouraged and welcomed foreign governments to interfere in our democracy

Ummm... no, he hasn't. if you claim otherwise, provide one specific example. That should be easy, no?

all while being the most dishonest POTUS history could have ever imagined.

Actually, he and his administratrion have been the most transparent history has seen in at least the last 75 years.

Extorting foreign governments with Congressionally appropriated military aid to demand favors to help with your political campaign is something that the majority of the country believes is a bridge too far. Our founding fathers would agree.

I absolutely agree as well. Good thing President Trump has done no such thing.

He has a long string of policy benefiting Russia.

Actually, he has been a lot tougher on Russia than prior administrations, especially Barry - you remember him, the President who got caught on an open mic asking the Russian Ambassador to tell Vladimir that he would have a lot more flexibility after he was re-elected - and I also agree that that comment 'deserves thorough investigation'.

The Rs should immediately demand all of the transcripts for all of Barry's calls to Putin.

Ditto his corrupt activities.

Except there aren't any. If there were, he'd have been impeached a long time ago.

It might upset some, but it really doesn't matter, let the truth comes out.

On this we are in 100% agreement.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You are assuming that the motion would be to “officially” open impeachment proceedings. If the motion was to present the Articles of Impeachment, then Trump and the Republicans remained locked out of the process. And it would be a floor vote without the ability to return to committees.

The fly in the ointment at the moment is the untimely death of Elijah Cummings because I don’t think Katie Hill is ready to fill that chair just yet despite being vice chair.

it amazers me that " alledgedly " president trump is comiting hi crimes daily is " mentally incompetant " etc et etc

yet there is no one out there capable of correctly invoking the 25th ammendment or drafting an valid article of impeachment and setting it before the house

who is really the incompetent ones ??

originally posted by: Ahabstar
You are assuming that the motion would be to “officially” open impeachment proceedings. If the motion was to present the Articles of Impeachment, then Trump and the Republicans remained locked out of the process. And it would be a floor vote without the ability to return to committees.

There are two different impeachment related votes The House can hold...

1. A vote to initiate formal impeachment proceedings,

or

2. A vote on actual Articles of Impeachment

In the case of the former, it simply formally authorizes the pursuit of an investigation, with commensurate powers to compel witnesses/testimony, to make a determination of whether or not a case for actual Impeachment exists. It would be delegated to a committee - historically it would be the Judiciary committee - but it certainly does not create a condition whereby the House cannot continue with other business while the process of the investigation moves forward.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
Trump was all those things and "unfit",

Ridiculous lie, as is the rest of your 'story'.

He is actually ' violated the emoluments clause daily,

Another lie. If you claim otherwise, provide one specific example. That should be easy, no?

The simple fact that he is a real estate mogul, owns a lot of properties, and people pay to stay there, is not a violation of the emoluments clause. Only a moron would believe such a ridiculous thing.

Trump hotel in New York got a huge revenue boost from Saudi crown prince’s entourage, report says
www.cnbc.com...

Saudi-backed lobbyists reportedly booked 500 rooms at Trump’s DC hotel after the 2016 election
www.cnbc.com...

A New Report on Trump's Foreign Business Holdings Points to a Gobsmacking Level of Corruption
www.esquire.com...

TRUMP

“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally, “Am I supposed to dislike them?”

Appeals court revives emoluments suit against Trump
www.politico.com...

A Trump hotel mystery: Giant reservations followed by empty rooms
www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
Trump was all those things and "unfit",

Ridiculous lie, as is the rest of your 'story'.

He is actually ' violated the emoluments clause daily,

Another lie. If you claim otherwise, provide one specific example. That should be easy, no?

The simple fact that he is a real estate mogul, owns a lot of properties, and people pay to stay there, is not a violation of the emoluments clause. Only a moron would believe such a ridiculous thing.

Trump hotel in New York got a huge revenue boost from Saudi crown prince’s entourage, report says
www.cnbc.com...

Saudi-backed lobbyists reportedly booked 500 rooms at Trump’s DC hotel after the 2016 election
www.cnbc.com...

A New Report on Trump's Foreign Business Holdings Points to a Gobsmacking Level of Corruption
www.esquire.com...

TRUMP

“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally, “Am I supposed to dislike them?”

Appeals court revives emoluments suit against Trump
www.politico.com...

A Trump hotel mystery: Giant reservations followed by empty rooms
www.politico.com...

lock him up!