No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

No buddy it goes like this.you wanna play games and not even take a vote in the House in order to keep Republicans from getting subpoena power well then that very much looks like you a playing a dirty game. If you wanna play dirty then it should be struck down... as it will.

If you want to do a vote in the house then I am all for it and I am all for the investigation and then a fair vote in the Senate. If they believe they have so much evidence then get the vote in the house and do it the right way, do it like it's always done, with dignity.

The Democrats are the ones making themselves look like they are trying to play a dirty political game not the Republicans. It would be due diligence if the Republicans struck it down in the Senate if the Dems dont do a formal vote in the house.

Impeachment isn't going to happen if they don't do a vote in the house. You know it and I know it. And we just got word yesterday that there isn't going to be a vote in the house.....so guess what? Kiss your impeachment dreams goodbye. You are wasting your breath.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Thanks for that. Actually honesty!

But you skipped the part about all of the crimes that Trump has committed being handed to them on a silver platter.....

Nancy and Schiff shouldnt impeach on the nonsense they are on right now. You finally admitted they are being ridiculous!

Lolz🤪

a reply to: tanstaafl

No.

The words "impeachment inquiry" are not to be found in the Constitution or any Rules of the House or Committees.

An inquiry is a term of parliance. The House through its Committees has the power to investigate matters within it's purview. You don't disagree that matters of impeachment are assigned to the House in the Constitution. This is established law and legal precedent.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Crimes are not a necessity of impeachment.

Nancy and Schiff are not going to impeach anybody or anything; a simple House majority is required.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your claim is that the House cannot investigate impeachable matters without a full House vote. You are mistaken.

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

A simple yes or no will suffice.

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.

Since you are the one claiming that the word 'vote' doesn't appear in the Constitution's clause delegating 'the sole Power of Impeachment' to "The House of Representatives", please, by all means, show me where the word 'resolution' appears in said clause.

The rest of your posts on this matter are nonsense.

Tsk, tsk, I hope you aren't letting anyone else see you arguing with yourself in the mirror like this... doesn't look good. If there were Red Flag laws in effect, I'd have to call it in on you.

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.

a reply to: tanstaafl

My argument is simple. I'm not interested in your interpretations.

You have made a claim. You can't back it up.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Should I post the report on the matter from CRS again? Are you a better source than the Library of Congress?

Here you go.

Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee. The impeachment process may be triggered by non-Members, such as when the Judicial Conference of the United States suggests that the House may wish to consider impeachment of a federal judge, where an independent counsel advises the House of any substantial and credible information which he or she believes might constitute grounds for impeachment, by message from the President, by a charge from a state or territorial legislature or grand jury, or by petition.

Impeachment and Removal -Congressional Research Service

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

No.

The words "impeachment inquiry" are not to be found in the Constitution or any Rules of the House or Committees.

Ahem...

That wasn't the question. Try again.

Here is the question - again:

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

Hint: you need to be able to read, with comprehension, in order to engage in logical written debate.

An inquiry is a term of parliance.

We aren't talking about just any inquiry. We are talking about an impeachment inquiry.

The House through its Committees has the power to investigate matters within it's purview.

Absolutely true, except, the 'Power of Impeachment' is a special power, with its very own clause in the Constitution, delegating said power to "The House of Representatives", not some Committee.

You don't disagree that matters of impeachment are assigned to the House in the Constitution. This is established law and legal precedent.

Precisely. They are assigned to "The House'. Not some committee.

Now, a second question (not that I have high expectations, since you have already demonstrated an incapacity to read questions with any degree of comprehension)...

How does "The House of Representatives" make its will known?

Read... with comprehension... then think really hard before answering, otherwise you'll just be yammering about blathering again.

a reply to: tanstaafl

See above.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
Should I post the report on the matter from CRS again? Are you a better source than the Library of Congress?

Thank you. No, I'm not a better source, but again, your lack or reading and comprehension skills is your problem, because this merely backs up my argument.

Here you go.

"Impeachment proceedings may be commenced in the House of Representatives by a Member declaring a charge of impeachment on his or her own initiative, by a Member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath, or by a Member depositing a resolution in the hopper, which is then referred to the appropriate committee...."

Your failure is in comprehending that all of the above would then be subject to a vote of the whole House.

"A member declaring a charge of impeachment" would have to then be voted on.

"A member presenting a memorial listing charges under oath" would then have to be voted on.

"A member depositing a resolution in the hopper" would then have to be voted on.

This is how "The House of Representatives" officially acts - by voting.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Crimes are not a necessity of impeachment.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
for someone who continually references the constitution, you must have missed this part

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

what a woppper,
ahahahahahaha

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Crimes are not a necessity of impeachment.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA
for someone who continually references the constitution, you must have missed this part

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

what a woppper,
ahahahahahaha

Are you sure you want to leave this on the public record? I know you know better.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

all CLEARLY crimes
again YOUR contribution

Crimes are not a necessity of impeachment.

the constitution CLEARLY disagrees

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

My argument is simple.

So... make your argument.

Argue against the three claims I have presented:

Claim 1:

The term 'impeachment inquiry' (or investigation or any variation thereof) is included within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution.

Claim 2:

"The House of Representatives", as that term is used in the Constitution, means the whole House, not some committee t hat didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

Claim 3:

The process by which "The House of Representatives" officially acts and makes its will known, is by voting on bills/resolutions.

Now, either argue against these claims, or admit you can't.

Of course, you can always just say 'you're wrong', but if you did that, who do you think would win in any debate forum?

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?

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.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

My argument is simple.

So... make your argument.

Argue against the three claims I have presented:

Claim 1:

The term 'impeachment inquiry' (or investigation or any variation thereof) is included within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution.

Claim 2:

"The House of Representatives", as that term is used in the Constitution, means the whole House, not some committee t hat didn't even exist when the Constitution was written.

Claim 3:

The process by which "The House of Representatives" officially acts and makes its will known, is by voting on bills/resolutions.

Now, either argue against these claims, or admit you can't.

Of course, you can always just say 'you're wrong', but if you did that, who do you think would win in any debate forum?

You've got it backward. You argue for your claims.

Do so.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh what the heck, just for fun:

Claim 1:. At the beginning of each Congress each chamber votes on its Rules for that Congressional session. The authority to hold investigations and issue executable subpoenas is found in that document.

Claim 2:. Yes the House means the House. Well done.

Claim 3: I provided a link to the specific document "Impeachment and Removal" above. This is an official reference document provided from the Congressional Research Service which is a department of the Library of Congress. That document lists the specific ways that impeachment is initiated and I accept their authority of interpretation as superior to yours.

QED

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

a reply to: Scepticaldem

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.