No House vote on impeachment at this time

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Bribing foriegn leaders for personal gain is indeed a crime of high magnitude.

sure
but our potus discussing a joint treaty is in no way such
your objection to a difference in foreign policy is not a crime no matter how you attempt to spin it so

The house committee can investigate anything they want.

which one?
I am unfamiliar with "the house committee"

but various ones can investigate various crimes.....

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

great
I have no issue with such
I made this thread to discuss that very fact, and the presser Speaker Pelosi had saying there has been no formal vote to hold such an inquiry. We are in agreement in that fact.

. After that the house votes on it. A house vote is not necessary to start an investigation,

then what is that vote for?

You are a fool if you truly believe they don't have the right to do this.

Oh make no mistake I think they do, they just have to follow the rules.

or not, at their peril

I don't think Pelosi is up for a separation of powers fight; we all know trump is always up for a fight.

a reply to: Oraculi

The fact remains that the impeachment inquiry is underway

Pelosi stated otherwise
sorry for your confusion

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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.

Objection: non-responsive.

Your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that "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.".

But, it does trigger a follow-up question:

Can House Rules over-ride the Constitution?

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

Good, at least I won't have to bring that one up again.

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.

Objection: non-responsive.

Again, your response has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that "The process by which "The House of Representatives" officially acts and makes its will known, is by voting on bills/resolutions.".

You have made it abundantly clear that you are totally incapable of reading with comprehension, and/or engaging in rational, logical thought.

QED

Only in your wildest dreams...

a reply to: UKTruth

Actually tax evasion is not an impeachable offense according to a Supreme Court ruling. One of the specifics was that if it was a crime that only benefited the president personally but did not hurt the country as a whole (and we can assume another person directly such as using the office to swindle someone) then it wasn’t impeachable unless a felony.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

That's not what the document says, clearly. As with the Constitution you are adding your own words.

Nope, I am simply demonstrating how reading with comprehension works.

In the adult world, documents are not written to the level of a 1st grader, unless it is a textbook aimed at 1st graders.

The on and only way "The House of Representatives' acts and makes its will known, is by voting on bills/resolutions. It doesn't have to be said, it is understood (if you have the mental capacity of a normal adult).

Do you usually get away with such shoddy argumentation?

I usually get by with much shoddier... I've actually been pretty patient trying to explain things to you, but obviously it is a waste of time.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

The democrats are using “Impeachment inquiry “ as a way to openly influence the outcome of an election.

Its nothing more than labeling....We keep seeing it in everything dealing with the Democrats...

The labeling will be "If the President didn't do anything wrong why would the house hold impeachment inquiries" They establish the label, allow the media to spin it as if he did EVERYTHING wrong while not actually doing a damn thing in the inquiry, like voting, outside of the off chance something actually stuck on the wall.

The Dems have truly gone totally presumed guilty first and not just with Trump...

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: UKTruth

Actually tax evasion is not an impeachable offense according to a Supreme Court ruling. One of the specifics was that if it was a crime that only benefited the president personally but did not hurt the country as a whole (and we can assume another person directly such as using the office to swindle someone) then it wasn’t impeachable unless a felony.

There are many misdemeanors, some felonies and nearly all infractions that would not meet the threshold for impeachment if the full context of the actual drafting and debating of constitution was ever actually consulted. I see so many references to the House being entitled to impeach for whatever they want (not on here, generally, but on the interweb through comments and sometimes aven articles).

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.

originally posted by: Theyy
sorry you guys are wrong again

the constitution has spoken

Is this a parody account?

originally posted by: shooterbrody

but our potus discussing a joint treaty is in no way such
your objection to a difference in foreign policy is not a crime no matter how you attempt to spin it so

So the President of Ukraine has come out and said Trump never talked about the 400 million, he had no clue they were even thinking about holding it back and the discussion covered ALL closed cases under the fire prosecutor, and that was just one of many things they talked about.

The Dems think the narrative was that Trump called him to only tell him he would hold up 400 million if he didn't fully investigate Hunter activities. Kind of what Biden did with a billion...

They have the transcript and they have direct statements from the President of Ukraine, so what else do they need?

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.

"without a premise" does precedent mean anything to you?

So in the past they have always held a vote i.e. precedent, so who is spinning what here. No vote means no actions required while still suggesting he "should" be impeached.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oraculi

The fact remains that the impeachment inquiry is underway

Pelosi stated otherwise
sorry for your confusion

Ketsuko posted a well articulated post explaining her position, so I replied in turn and explained mine. You are just trying to be facetious so I will reply at your level.

shooterbrody, we are not 2 years old. Just because we close our eyes, the reality does not disappear. What you are experiencing is denial. Just because you refuse to accept the fact that in the real world the impeachment inquiry is ongoing and netting a lot of testimony does not mean you can make it disappear by wishing it away.

Here are the US Government officials who have complied with the current Impeachment Inquiry, and other important events:

The inquiry officially began on September 24. Since then legal testimony has been on the record with Kurt Volker, Marie Yovanovich, Fiona Hill, George Kent, Bill Taylor with many more scheduled and coming up. Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Trump and Giuliani have been arrested and charged. We just learned that the FBI today arrested another associate of theirs, David Correia, just hours ago. This is really happening. In real life.

Go ahead and close your eyes. Open them again. The reality is still here.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Jefferson's Manual? Someone else cited that in another thread recently in this regard.

Jefferson's Manual . (This version also includes annotations and explanatory notes citing legal references.)

Could you point out the page that requires that the House close all other business besides impeachment proceedings? The motion to bring Articles to the floor are specifically priviliged but I can find no reference to all other business shutting down.

*********

While looking at Jefferson's Manual again, I did find a few tidbits that bring interest to this discussion, so since we have your endorsement of the source, I thought I might share them.

In the House common fame has been held sufficient to justify procedure for inquiry (III, 2701), as in a case wherein it was stated on the authority of common rumor that a Member had been menaced (III, 2678). The House also has voted to investigate with a view to impeachment on the basis of common fame, as in the cases of Judges Chase (III, 2342), Humphreys (III, 2385), and Durell (III, 2506).

Page 166

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

The House, in an inquiry preliminary to an impeachment trial, gave leave to its managers to examine Members, and leave to its Members to attend for the purpose (III, 2033).

"In an inquiry preliminary to an impeachment trial" ... hmmm.

In the House various events have been credited with setting an impeachment in motion: charges made on the floor on the responsibility of a Member or Delegate (II, 1303; III, 2342, 2400, 2469; VI, 525, 526, 528, 535, 536); charges preferred by a memorial, which is usually referred to a committee for examination (III, 2364, 2491, 2494, 2496, 2499, 2515; VI, 543); a resolution introduced by a Member and referred to a committee (Apr. 15, 1970, p. 11941; Oct. 23, 1973, p. 34873); a message from the President (III, 2294, 2319; VI, 498); charges transmitted from the legislature of a State (III, 2469) or territory (III, 2487) or from a grand jury (III, 2488); or facts developed and reported by an investigating committee § 603. Inception of impeachment proceedings in the House. § 602. Parliamentary law as to accusation in impeachment. VerDate Nov 24 2008 13:11 Jun 09, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00330 Fmt 0843 Sfmt 0843 H:BIN-HPUBLICATIONSMANUAL11263-700.TXT 209-5A [315] § 604 JEFFERSON’S MANUAL mittee of the House (III, 2399, 2444).

The language quoted above from "Impeachment and Removal" by the CRS echoes these requirements which clearly do not require an individual vote of the entire House.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
I've actually been pretty patient trying to explain things to you, but obviously it is a waste of time.

I know exactly how you feel friend.

One last review of the facts ....

The power of impeachment is granted by the Constitution to the House of Representatives.

In order to impeach an official, there must be an official act of the House with a majority vote.

Investigations by House Committes do not require a majority vote in the House to commence. The power to investigate and issue subpoenas is provided to Committees at the beginning of each Congressional session by a HOUSE VOTE to approve the "Rules of the House of Representatives" for a given Congress.

Not only have you given zero evidence other than your own vain appeal to authority (yours) but I have given clear evidence from two unimpeachable sources (Congressional Research Service and the Jefferson Manual itself) that show clearly that there are multiple ways in which an investigation or an inquiry can begin.

a reply to: Xtrozero

No one that I have seen is "spinning" the statement that a vote doesn't have to open investigation.

The only ones "spinning" are those who insist in the light of clear evidence to the contrary that a vote is needed to open investigation.

Yes, the inquiries previous into Presidents have been opened with a resolution, but many officials have been impeached without such a resolution, and, the only Constitutional requirement that is different for a President is that the Chief Justice preside over the trial in the Senate. Personally, I think it's insane to diverge from tradition but I am not the Speaker of the House, so what?

In short, the only "spinning" on view here is from those desperate to deny the reality of the fact that President Trump is being investigated prior to impeachment.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Personally, I think it's insane to diverge from tradition but I am not the Speaker of the House, so what?

In short, the only "spinning" on view here is from those desperate to deny the reality of the fact that President Trump is being investigated prior to impeachment.

One investigation of dozens right? geez And I explained why she has diverged and why a vote will never happen. We will wait and see will we not....lol

Important to note that lying is for damn sure an impeachable offense (when a Democratic president does it), and requires immediate impeachment (you know, since as you say it hurts the country so much). When Trump does it though it kicks ass y'all!

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Important to note that lying is for damn sure an impeachable offense (when a Democratic president does it), and requires immediate impeachment (you know, since as you say it hurts the country so much). When Trump does it though it kicks ass y'all!

I'd love to see any argument that the impeachment of Bill Clinton (or the acquital of same) was anything but a base political act.

I see the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" often applied here pejoratively to any criticism of Trump by some of the same sources that whined and complained that any criticism of Obama was met with cries of racism.

The rules never apply when your guy is in power though it seems.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You gave your opinion on diverging from tradition, technically.

Yes we will see what happens.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Important to note that lying is for damn sure an impeachable offense (when a Democratic president does it), and requires immediate impeachment (you know, since as you say it hurts the country so much). When Trump does it though it kicks ass y'all!

Clinton should have been put up on rape charges, but impeachment for blowing his wad on a blue dress...maybe not... I was against the political attacks with Bork, Clinton, Kavanaugh, and now Trump.