No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: shooterbrody

Maybe Nancy heard from chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts? He would be the one to preside over the Senate impeachment trial. I bet he told Nancy to follow precedent, or stop making a mockery of what should be a serious and solemn impeachment process.

perhaps
a full partisan majority effort in the house would surely be responded to in kind by the senate? would it not?

a reply to: Oraculi

Technically? Maybe, but then again, most folks understand the notion of due process and know the average American criminal is treated better than the Democrats are treating Trump in this. They also are capable of recalling how both Clinton, a democrat, and Nixon, a Republican, were treated during their own impeachment processes, and those were far, far different than this is being carried out after a Special Prosecutor returned a report that turned up nothing on collusion and couldn't even really recommend prosecution on obstruction.

This is politically dangerous because it undermines the notion of rule of law and how Americans see fair trials. Thanks to the progressive education system, most Americans neither know nor care the technicalities of this only that it stinks whether you love or hate the guy in office.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: shooterbrody

Maybe we need to revisit Nancy's purchase of the VISA IPO and how she was even allowed to participate in the offering...

Nah.

That's so 2008.

60 minutes did a report on it in 2011.

She declined to comment about it...

So a reporter questioned her on that and the response was...

Wonder if this had anything to do with the promotion and passage of the STOCK Act that made it illegal for Congress people to engage in insider trading.

Yes, you guessed it, before the passage of this act, it was perfectly legal for Congress people - who are in a much, much better position to get valuable insider information than you or I - to do what would get you or I up to 20 years in jail.

This is just one of many symptoms of what is wrong with our system. As great as our Constitution is, its one major failing is the fact that there are no built in penalties for those in power who violate its provisions, and there should be.

They don't need a vote. Just another Trump talking point. He is terrified, little rudy is going to jail soon.

originally posted by: Arnie123
But all the left leaning posters on ATS assured us that Trump is and will finally be impeached, so what happened?

Either or, while they probably could and would have voted on articles, it would arrogantly and expectedly fail in the Senate, thus robbing leftist progs of the full realization of their short sighted victory.

I honestly don't think they have the votes to pass either an inquiry or Articles...

originally posted by: Theyy
They don't need a vote. Just another Trump talking point. He is terrified, little rudy is going to jail soon.

Strong, TDS is, in this one...

originally posted by: Theyy
They don't need a vote. Just another Trump talking point. He is terrified, little rudy is going to jail soon.

this was a pelosi presser, trump was no where in sight.
are you implying she holds pressers for imaginary purposes? I might agree with that as she is pretty far out there.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
Can you enumerate these "Impeachment powers" please?

The impeachment power is enumerated directly in the Constitution.

The House of Representatives has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Not some Committee that didn't even exist when it was written. Not the Speaker.

The (whole) House.

damage control damage control!

rudy rudy rudy....

originally posted by: Theyy
damage control damage control!

rudy rudy rudy....

pelosi held a presser because of rudy?
that is an interesting theory
first I have heard of such

originally posted by: Oraculi
You realize there is no vote only because one is not needed?

You realize your comment is in direct contradiction to the Constitution itself?

No, the word 'vote doesn't exist anywhere.

It is directly implied by the reference to 'The House of Representatives', because the only way that the House of Representatives acts and makes its will know is by voting on bills/resolutions.

sorry you guys are wrong again

the constitution has spoken

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Again, I'd love to see anything, any citation from the Constitution, the Rules of the House, the Rules of any committee that says any vote is required to START impeachment ... because frankly, that doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong.

This has already been done, multiple times.

The sole Power of Impeachment belongs to The House of Representatives. Not some committee. Not the Speaker.

The House of Representatives makes its will know by voting on bills/resolutions.

The only Constitutionally valid way The House of Representatives can initiate a formal impeachment inquiry (I don't think even you are stupid enough to argue they could somehow limit a vote on an actual Impeachment to just some Committee).

PERIOD. Prove me wrong (withe evidence and or rational, logical argument, or just stfu about it. Please.

Substantiate an argument that 'The House of Representatives' as used in the Constitution doesn't actually mean the WHOLE House, but can mean some Committee that didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

I'll wait...

originally posted by: Theyy
sorry you guys are wrong again

the constitution has spoken

Can you please quote which part of the constitution is speaking to you?
Otherwise you are just being silly....

Lolz🤪

a reply to: tanstaafl
It wont reply to the actual question at hand I doubt.

It is too smart for that.

It will probably tell you how it is perfectly legal to investigate Trump all the way through his loss in 2020.

But try to explain how Drunk Nancy and pencil neck are not trying to effect the election in anyway....

Bets?

Lol,🤪

a reply to: tanstaafl

Yeah, you've repeated the same thing multiple times and it still isn't true.

You confuse your interpretation with the meaning of the Constitution.

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.

You keep citing your own authority. Fine. That's what you believe.

The fact is that the impeachment investigations have started. I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you have to prove that you're right.

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

After trump is impeached, his children should be investigated. Someone should ask the Saudis about Ivanka.

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

did she forget her burka again?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Yeah, you've repeated the same thing multiple times and it still isn't true.

You confuse your interpretation with the meaning of the Constitution.

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.

You keep citing your own authority. Fine. That's what you believe.

The fact is that the impeachment investigations have started. I don't have to prove that you're wrong; you have to prove that you're right.

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

So your interpretation is that Drunk Nancy can personally start an impeachment investigation into a sitting United States president.

That is the checks and balances that you think are appropriate!

We now have that on the record.....

Lolz🤪

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.