No House vote on impeachment at this time

a reply to: Xtrozero

Of course. I just wish we could all agree that this back and forth is perpetual/eternal vindication for some past slight. As you say, the Republicans gamed the system to lash out at a Democrat for a past slight; so how is this any different and why are you and everyone else acting shocked/surprised at it?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Your summary is correct.
Personally, I don't think it should be a debate as to whether the House majority CAN instigate an impeachment enquiry (with or without a vote), rather their reasons for doing so. Power can be abused. It's a much more reasonable debate to assess their motivation and the process they have decided to follow, which as always, has two sides to the story.

a reply to: UKTruth

I absolutely agree with you, from a slightly different angle. Pelosi often gets praise that she is brilliant or something. In my experience, she's a dolt. She comes off like she's scared witless (yes, I'm aware of the plastic surgery) or just plain witless. I haven't seen any signs of alcholism myself, I'd guess more along the lines of amphetimines.

This was the DUMBEST move to go after impeachment of Trump on, and what they've done so far is ridiculous from one aspect: optics.

She and Schiff LOOKED shifty at the presser, much like she and Schumer looked like Gomez and Morticia. It was DUMB DUMB DUMB to eject Gaetz, and it played exactly into his hands. He got EXACTLY what he and the President wanted.

There's nothing structurally wrong with what they're doing (although, if we have that Constitutional Convention any time soon I think we should change that) but in terms of viablility with many if not most Americans ... it's grossly stupid.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd be happy if they'd get back to legislation, you know, being the Legislative Branch and all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wayfarer

I'd be happy if they'd get back to legislation, you know, being the Legislative Branch and all.

The whole concept seems so far in the past now that its like hearing about a fairy tale. Everyone knows the story but people don't believe it realistically exists anymore.

a reply to: Wayfarer

I hate to sound partisan, but I knew there was a problem when they investigated Hillary Clinton seven different times for the same things.

That "abuse of power" however looks different to the average Trump supporter ... I'm willing to bet.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

I absolutely agree with you, from a slightly different angle. Pelosi often gets praise that she is brilliant or something. In my experience, she's a dolt. She comes off like she's scared witless (yes, I'm aware of the plastic surgery) or just plain witless. I haven't seen any signs of alcholism myself, I'd guess more along the lines of amphetimines.

This was the DUMBEST move to go after impeachment of Trump on, and what they've done so far is ridiculous from one aspect: optics.

She and Schiff LOOKED shifty at the presser, much like she and Schumer looked like Gomez and Morticia. It was DUMB DUMB DUMB to eject Gaetz, and it played exactly into his hands. He got EXACTLY what he and the President wanted.

There's nothing structurally wrong with what they're doing (although, if we have that Constitutional Convention any time soon I think we should change that) but in terms of viablility with many if not most Americans ... it's grossly stupid.

I think for once we are in pretty much complete agreement.
I actually don't even disagree with the investigation - as long as it's a fair process. Whilst I don't agree that what we KNOW about Trump's dealings with foreign leaders is an impeachable offence, what I don't know is if any other information points to more nefarious motives. An open investigation to uncover that would be fine in my view, but I call it a sham enquiry BECAUSE of the process they are following and the public determinations of guilt even though what is in the public domain falls well short of an impeachable offence (IMO).

American politics has always been partisan, but what we're witnessing now is, frankly, quite shocking - and dangerous.

a reply to: Theyy

It's funny, I see you talking, but your not saying anything.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Wayfarer

I hate to sound partisan, but I knew there was a problem when they investigated Hillary Clinton seven different times for the same things.

That "abuse of power" however looks different to the average Trump supporter ... I'm willing to bet.

Likely so.

Heck, its important to recognize that most of what we as people lambaste each other for we too are guilty of. I don't blame Republicans for it anymore than I blame myself for taking some enjoyment at Trump's suffering. We're all human, we're all far more similar than most of us want to admit, and we are all engaging in frightfully similar actions wherein we are each flavoring our perceptions to match our own preferences/ego's.

If I'm being honest with myself, I'm certain I'd be more likely to forgive/overlook Obama doing something untoward than Trump (if only because I personally like Obama more than Trump). Can't fault Trump supporters for doing it then/now.

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.

so trump made pelosi have the presser and make that statement?
lol
sure he did
he is all powerful

a reply to: Wayfarer

100%

The only way through is to focus on facts and express opinions as opinions.

IN my opinion, of course.

a reply to: Oraculi
tell that to pelosi and her no vote to begin an impeachment inquiry statement

The inquiry officially began on September 24.

pelosi said otherwise
she is only the speaker of the house

originally posted by: Wayfarer


Of course. I just wish we could all agree that this back and forth is perpetual/eternal vindication for some past slight. As you say, the Republicans gamed the system to lash out at a Democrat for a past slight; so how is this any different and why are you and everyone else acting shocked/surprised at it?

I'm not surprised or shocked by it since they started this campaign before his first day in office. I just wish they would do other things that they were voted in office to do. The one side note is the Democrats have taken all this to the extreme and it has not bold well with them so far, and is setting future events that will most likely keep very capable people from ever thinking of running for anything while setting themselves up for the same extreme treatment.

This truly falls under the Tropic Thunder movie saying "you never go full retard" and they have gone full retard...

The interesting part is the Republicans lost the House mainly on the premise to openly say they would not do impeachment proceedings on Obama for just about anything, and that is what they did...none. This made their more extreme base to feel that they got screwed as they got Reps into traditional Dem seats to give them majority.

And the Republicans were against Obama from Day One,
and the Democrats were against Bush from Day One,
and the Repubicans were against Clinton from Day one,
and so on and so on and so on.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

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?

Both Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquires were voted on, but there was not requirement to vote on the inquires. It was political messaging.

Of the several dozen impeachment proceedings the house has engaged in (Judiciary included) very, very few have involved a vote to begin proceedings.

There is absolutely ZERO constitutional or legal requirement that the house vote to begin impeachment proceedings.

The responses by the WH in refusing to abide to congressional Subpoenas is simple and effective rhetorical delay tactics. No one is confused about the constitutional legitimacy of the Subpoenas, they just understand that enforcement is a long legal process for congress. The House can enforce through the courts, but it would take many months if not a year plus and impeachment proceedings should be expeditious in order to afford the accused a chance to respond in the Senate.

So in the past they have always held a vote i.e. precedent, so who is spinning what here.

Only for Nixon and Clinton. Not for the several dozen judges or President Johnson.

Voting to begin an inquiry (impeachment "proceedings") is a political messaging maneuver.

No constitutional or legal requirement nor any internal house rules require a vote.

A vote is required on actual articles of impeachment though.

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

lying to congress is a crime, and was back then
it is commonly called perjury

wherein it was stated on the authority of common rumor

sorry for your confusion

also you can keep pretending the house did not take votes to begin the process with nixon or clinton, but the house dems do so at their peril
americans are actually fair minded and in a serious situation like this will seek for the process to be above board

originally posted by: shooterbrody

americans are actually fair minded and in a serious situation like this will seek for the process to be above board

Correct. The vast majority of Americans see the "It's not legit unless they vote" as the illegitimate defense it is.

The House of Representatives has sole constitutional dominion over how they conduct impeachment proceedings.

They do have to vote on Articles of Impeachment before they send to the senate once the Inquiry is concluded.
Patience.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And the Republicans were against Obama from Day One,
and the Democrats were against Bush from Day One,
and the Repubicans were against Clinton from Day one,
and so on and so on and so on.

And Trump gleefully made real all the false corruption levied at past Presidents.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

so trump made pelosi have the presser and make that statement?

Please quote her. Be precise and full.
Then explain to me what you have been told to think it means.

a reply to: Extorris

I can't contest that. ETA: IN MY OPINION, Trump is everything Obama was accused of being.