No House vote on impeachment at this time

a reply to: Gryphon66
nope
simple legal precedent
seems you are unable to understand such
no worries

why would someone repeatedly update about a situation in which they claim no need for such?
lol
perhaps because they do actually?

the full house vote you refuse to acknowledge in the nixon event was passed by a 410–4 margin
the full house vote you refuse to acknowledge in the clinton event was passed by a 258-176 margin

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
nope
simple legal precedent
seems you are unable to understand such
no worries

why would someone repeatedly update about a situation in which they claim no need for such?
lol
perhaps because they do actually?

As I have also shown you numerous times, legal precedent is judicial, not legislative.

a reply to: Gryphon66
as is the enforcement of subpoenas some congressional committees may issue
best of luck with that

you know a simple vote would remedy that
wonder why the house dems refuse such?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
as is the enforcement of subpoenas some congressional committees may issue
best of luck with that

you know a simple vote would remedy that
wonder why the house dems refuse such?

The Committees' subpoena power is voted on when the Rules are approved for the given Congressional Session. Citation listed above, do try to keep up.

Because Dem rhymes with dim as some of you love to point out? Who knows. It's stupid, almost as stupid as "vote on it so you can know what's in it." She's right that there doesn't have to be a vote to start impeachment though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The Committees' subpoena power is voted on when the Rules are approved for the given Congressional Session. Citation listed above, do try to keep up.

Citation including impeaching the president?
You may attempt to continue to pretend this is a typical legislative investigation; it is not
Perhaps that is where the confusion lies?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

The Committees' subpoena power is voted on when the Rules are approved for the given Congressional Session. Citation listed above, do try to keep up.

Citation including impeaching the president?
You may attempt to continue to pretend this is a typical legislative investigation; it is not
Perhaps that is where the confusion lies?

See above for clear citations for all my claims.

Yes, this is the 116th Congress, the Rules don't change due to the desperation of Trump supporters.

I'm not confused at all. Now you've left denying the facts to special pleading.

The only mention of the President in regard to the impeachment process is that the trial in the Senate is presided over by the Chief Justice. I've told you that multiple times as well.

lol
continue to pretend an investigation by the legislative branch into the executive branch is covered by the daily rules
lol
no worries
the judicial branch will get to sort it out eventually

it will be a site to see

or on the other hand take a simple full house vote as done in past events

originally posted by: shooterbrody
lol
continue to pretend an investigation by the legislative branch into the executive branch is covered by the daily rules
lol
no worries
the judicial branch will get to sort it out eventually

it will be a site to see

or on the other hand take a simple full house vote as done in past events

I don't have to pretend; I've shown you and everyone reading multiple times with excellent sources. You just keep droning on.

If the President and Executive Branch continue to try to ignore Congressional subpoena, and Contempt of Congress is declared, you can bet your bippy that the courts will be involved probably all the way to SCOTUS.

Either the President is subject to US law or he isn't. I'll be glad to have a ruling on what used to be obvious to me.

I don't have to pretend; I've shown you and everyone reading multiple times with excellent sources.

simply no

If the President and Executive Branch continue to try to ignore Congressional subpoena, and Contempt of Congress is declared, you can bet your bippy that the courts will be involved probably all the way to SCOTUS.

yeah
how did that work out for holder?
he was found in contempt
went on home, had dinner, back to work the next day
guess why.....
no enforcement
same as today

you can pretend all you like that the vote is not needed
you can pretend the meetings and pressers the speaker of the house is holding have no interest in this event
you can pretend the previous 2 events did not include such votes

no worries

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for clarifying that.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
It is more than clear, by the direct statement of the Congressional Research Service which is authorized by Congress to provide information to the Congress on matters of legal import for their proper use, that a reference from the IG is more than enough to initiate an impeachment process.

Sorry. Words from the CRS don't over-ride the Constitution.

According to the Constitution, only "The House of Representatives" has the sole Power of Impoeachment, and that power cannot be delegated to anyone, including the IG.

"The House of Representatives" can only act in one way - by voting on a bill/resolution.

Have they done so?

Any continued claims from members here to the contrary are quite simply absurd; this point cannot be made any more clear.

This is substantied further by the absence in the Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, Jefferson's Manual, and Federal law of any formal requirements for a majority vote in the House before investigation by the Intelligence committee of the matter.

Your problem is your refusal to understand the bare and simple fact that there is one, and only one way that "The House of Representatives" acts, and that is by voting on a bill/resolution. Since that is the only way the whole House can act, then they have to have a vote in order to formally pursue an impeachment inquiry - or they could go straight to a vote on Impeachment itself. Either way, it has to be by a vote of the whole House.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I don't have to pretend; I've shown you and everyone reading multiple times with excellent sources.

You just keep droning on.

If the President and Executive Branch continue to try to ignore Congressional subpoena, and Contempt of Congress is declared, you can bet your bippy that the courts will be involved probably all the way to SCOTUS.

Yeah, good luck with that. Why do you think they aren't doing that? Because they know they will lose big time. Their only hope is to try gin up popular support for impeachment through their continuing charade. Too bad for them they keep shooting themselves in the foot.

Either the President is subject to US law or he isn't. I'll be glad to have a ruling on what used to be obvious to me.

He absolutely is. What law are you suggesting he has broken or is breaking?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Committees' subpoena power is voted on when the Rules are approved for the given Congressional Session. Citation listed above, do try to keep up.

Way ahead of you it seems. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that their ordinary powers of legislative oversight have nothing to do with their extraordinary Power of Impeachment.

Show me some rule or rules they have written that deal with impeachment and I'll listen.

She's right that there doesn't have to be a vote to start impeachment though.

She's right that they can yammer all day long about impeachment without taking a vote, but no one has to listen.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You're still only using yourself as your own authority.

In contrast, I have used the Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, Jefferson's Manual and two separate reports from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, SCOTUS decisions and direct quotations from US Code which clearly dispute your claims.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

You're still only using yourself as your own authority.

In contrast, I have used the Constitution,

Wrong, you are ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.

the Rules of the House of Representatives,

You have yet to reference any rules with respect to the Power of Impeachment.

Jefferson's Manual and two separate reports from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, SCOTUS decisions and direct quotations from US Code which clearly dispute your claims.

Actually, none of them address the point in question.

You are deliberately choosing to believe the ludicrous proposition that the Speaker of the House is the same as "The House of Representatives" and can unilaterally decide to pursue impeachment without a vote of the full House.

Again...

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

Not the Speaker. Not the chairman of some committee.

"The House of Representatives".

papost.org... -proceed-without-a-house-vote/

For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require–

(1) by subpoena or otherwise–

(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and

(B) the production of such things; and

(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation.

Another section says:

Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness.

For the purpose of making such investigation, the committee is authorized to require–

(1) by subpoena or otherwise–

(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and

(B) the production of such things; and

(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it deems necessary to such investigation.

Another section says:

Subpoenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them, and may be served by any person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or, with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness.

This info seems to support the idea that as a co-equal, check and balance, that the House represents, no vote is needed, as long as there is sufficient evidence for such an inquiry. After all, the inquiry is just that: to investigate whistleblower information, and the impeachment proceedings, themselves, gives the house the ability to subpoena records and people's testimony in order to substantiate possible abuse of power and/or wrong doing. This is inherent in the co equal checks and balances on the executive branch, in order to ensure a lack of authoritarianism. Therefore, a vote isn't necessary. What is necessary is direct evidence warranting an investigation, and the point of an impeachment inquiry is it allows for things like "executive privilege" not to be used to hide factual evidence.
tetra50

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

You're still only using yourself as your own authority.

In contrast, I have used the Constitution,

Wrong, you are ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.

the Rules of the House of Representatives,

You have yet to reference any rules with respect to the Power of Impeachment.

Jefferson's Manual and two separate reports from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, SCOTUS decisions and direct quotations from US Code which clearly dispute your claims.

Actually, none of them address the point in question.

You are deliberately choosing to believe the ludicrous proposition that the Speaker of the House is the same as "The House of Representatives" and can unilaterally decide to pursue impeachment without a vote of the full House.

Again...

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

Not the Speaker. Not the chairman of some committee.

"The House of Representatives".

From Wikipedia:

House of Representatives: Impeachment[edit]
"House Manager" redirects here. For theater operations, see House management.
Impeachment proceedings may be requested by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be requested by non-members. For example, when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests a federal judge be impeached, a charge of actions constituting grounds for impeachment may come from a special prosecutor, the President, or state or territorial legislature, grand jury, or by petition. An impeachment proceeding formally begins with a resolution adopted by the full House of Representatives, which typically includes a referral to a House committee.

The type of impeachment resolution determines the committee to which it is referred. A resolution impeaching a particular individual is typically referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. A resolution to authorize an investigation regarding impeachable conduct is referred to the House Committee on Rules, and then to the Judiciary Committee. The House Committee on the Judiciary, by majority vote, will determine whether grounds for impeachment exist (this vote is not law and is not required, US Constitution and US law). If the Committee finds grounds for impeachment, it will set forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment. The Impeachment Resolution, or Articles of Impeachment, are then reported to the full House with the committee's recommendations.

The House debates the resolution and may at the conclusion consider the resolution as a whole or vote on each article of impeachment individually. A simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article for the resolution as a whole to pass. If the House votes to impeach, managers (typically referred to as "House managers", with a "lead House manager") are selected to present the case to the Senate. Recently, managers have been selected by resolution, while historically the House would occasionally elect the managers or pass a resolution allowing the appointment of managers at the discretion of the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. These managers are roughly the equivalent of the prosecution or district attorney in a standard criminal trial.

So, any member of the House can request an appropriate committee, such as the Intelligence Committee, headed by Adam Schiff to investigate charges which may lead thereafter to impeachment proceedings. In fact, non members can request investigations leading to impeachment, even by petition, or by a special prosecutor. Then "impeachment proceedings" are really an investigation into possible criminal high crimes or misdemeanors, like a grand jury indicting someone whereby an investigation then takes place. If enough evidence is presented, then a trial for impeachment takes place.

originally posted by: tetra50
"Again...

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

Not the Speaker. Not the chairman of some committee.

"The House of Representatives"."

From Wikipedia:

rotflmao!

You are using Wikipedia to challenge what the Constitution itself plainly states?

Next...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The Committees' subpoena power is voted on when the Rules are approved for the given Congressional Session. Citation listed above, do try to keep up.

It was then pointed out that there was no reference to impeachment proceedings, which nullifies your citation as irrelevant.