Let's Make Things Clear

a reply to: tanstaafl

Oh, and one more thing ... how does the House act to "Impeach" the President? Do you understand that? If so, outline that process for us. Thx.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The claim has been made that investigation requires an act of the entire House.

Wrong.

The claim has been made that an impeachment investigation/inquiry requires an act of the entire House.

You are apparently incapable of comprehending the difference between just some random 'investigation', and an impeachment investigation.

One falls within the ordinary power of certain House Committees that have been assigned certain legislative oversight responsibilities.

The other is an extraordinary Power specifically delegated to The House of Representatives by the Constitution.

Can you substantiate that claim?

I have. Repeatedly. Like my 5 year old daughter, you pretend not to hear anything.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, and one more thing ... how does the House act to "Impeach" the President?

The actual act of Impeachment is done by one Member submitting Articles of Impeachment to The House for a vote.

The initiation of an impeachment inquiry is done by one member submitting a formal resolution to initiate an impeachment inquiry/investigation, and assigning the investigative authority to one committee, which has historically been the Judiciary committee, and which may or may not precede a vote on actual Articles of Impeachment, depending on the outcome of the inquiry/investigation.

Do you understand that?

Better than you apparently.

If so, outline that process for us.

Just did.

Thx.

You're welcome.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You haven't substantiated ANYTHING. You keep droning on saying the same things, which have no basis nor standing in fact. I'm not ignoring your explanations because I don't understand them, or as you like to chant, don't comprehend them, it's that they're meaningless. I don't care about your opinions, interpretations, analysis or anything else. You have no authority other than yourself in these ad nauseam claims about non-existent distinctions like "ordinary" and "extraordinary" powers. You've demonstrated to me that you have no desire to discuss the matter logically, and frankly, you're boring me and I participate here for enjoyment.

Capiche?

I care about documented proof that any investigative action of a Congressional Committee requires a full House vote to proceed. One last time: DO YOU HAVE THAT PROOF?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I care about documented proof that any investigative action of a Congressional Committee requires a full House vote to proceed. One last time: DO YOU HAVE THAT PROOF?

Already provided, multiple times. No amount of pretending I haven't will change that reality.

I'm very sorry for you that you are so ignorant and/or mentally challenged that you cannot comprehend that an impeachment investigation is not the same as any other congressional investigation, and that it falls under the meaning of 'impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution.

Capiche?

Oh - I also do this for fun, in between my day job responsibilities...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

You haven't substantiated ANYTHING. You keep droning on saying the same things, which have no basis nor standing in fact. I'm not ignoring your explanations because I don't understand them, or as you like to chant, don't comprehend them, it's that they're meaningless. I don't care about your opinions, interpretations, analysis or anything else. You have no authority other than yourself in these ad nauseam claims about non-existent distinctions like "ordinary" and "extraordinary" powers. You've demonstrated to me that you have no desire to discuss the matter logically, and frankly, you're boring me and I participate here for enjoyment.

Capiche?

I care about documented proof that any investigative action of a Congressional Committee requires a full House vote to proceed. One last time: DO YOU HAVE THAT PROOF?

So they will eventually vote right? I feel like you think Drunk Nancy can impeach both Trump and pence and take it all over without any vote.....

Members of congress will eventually have to swear their loyalty to Drunk Nancy and shifty Schiff right?

Feels like you are arguing against due process so I just want to clear that up.......

Lolz🤪

a reply to: tanstaafl

Your ad hom proves nothing, and is out of place here.

You've provided no evidence. Your opinions are not evidence. We're done.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

So, no authority other than your own. Gotcha.

??? Not mine, it is right in the Constitution.

Oh, and someone else pointed out that The House's own rules say the same thing.

"Someone said" eh? I've linked the House Rules multiple times ... go look for yourself.

You don't seem to comprehend the difference between what the Constitution says and what you think it means. You will find nothing in the Constitution that refers to Congressional investigations in impeachment mattters (or anything else).

According to your logic 3 "rogue" congressman can say that something was a little fishy with the whole Epstein situation and the Democrats, we now have full supeana power over any and all Americans, right?

Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your ad hom proves nothing, and is out of place here.

By all means, explain how this argument:

"you cannot comprehend that an impeachment investigation is not the same as any other congressional investigation, and that it falls under the meaning of 'impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution."

is ad hom...

You've provided no evidence.

That you are capable of understanding...

Your opinions are not evidence.

I'm quoting the Constitution, and explaining the meanings of certain terms. You have yet to rebut anything.

You're the one spouting nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

We're done.

Promises, promises...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Your ad hom proves nothing, and is out of place here.

By all means, explain how this argument:

"you cannot comprehend that an impeachment investigation is not the same as any other congressional investigation, and that it falls under the meaning of 'impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution."

is ad hom...

You've provided no evidence.

That you are capable of understanding...

Your opinions are not evidence.

I'm quoting the Constitution, and explaining the meanings of certain terms. You have yet to rebut anything.

You're the one spouting nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.

We're done.

Promises, promises...

He cant even answer why he doesnt think Pelosi will be the president after this impeachment so dont expect much......

Lolz🤪

a reply to: Scepticaldem

Why would I explain that? Not only is that irrelevant to the discussion at hand but you don't make any sense honestly. If Trump were impeached, Pence would nominate a new VP. Are you assuming that Pence will be impeached as well?

a reply to: tanstaafl

So you ARE aware that Articles of Impeachment are a part of the process, but you accuse me of being dishonest when I referred to that fact?

Specious posting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
So you ARE aware that Articles of Impeachment are a part of the process, but you accuse me of being dishonest when I referred to that fact?

No, I say you are dishonest because you refuse to acknowledge that initiating an impeachment inquiry/investigation is also a part of the process.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm dishonest because I don't agree with you?

Whatever dude.

a reply to: Scepticaldem

See "straw man argument" at your local Google machine. Thx.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm dishonest because I don't agree with you?

No, you're dishonest because you are incapable of admitting a simple truth - you are wrong, and 'impeachment inquiry/investigation' falls within the meaning of 'Impeachment' as that term is used in the Constitution.

Oh - and you're also suffering from TDS, possibly the first level 7 I've ever encountered.

Get some help dude.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm not incapable of anything regarding this discussion. You don't seem to be able to understand that because YOU BELIEVE that there is some sort of Constitutional requirement for a formal resolution of the House before impeachment can begin that there actually is such a requirement. You don't have, or have not presented, any evidence for your belief. You keep droning on that your interpretation is the only one, and it's not, and you've resorted to insults which if anything weakens your case. All of this is absurd, frankly, in a fact-based discussion. We're not in the Mud Pit, you don't get to act this way.

You and others are MISLEAD in your belief which you apparently have picked up from the White House Counsel's letter. There is NO Constitutional requirement for a resolution to begin impeachment. Yes, that has been done before, but it is not required, not in the COTUS, not in the Rules, any procedure manual, anywhere.

You keep whining that you've proven something from the Constitution, but, all you have is YOUR interpretation and made up categories like ordinary and extraordinary powers. If that helps your understanding, fine, make up whatever you want, but those are not constitutional concepts. SCOTUS has refered to ennumerated powers (which are explicitly stated) and implied powers (required by the Necessary and Proper Clause). For example, in this case currently under discussion, the power to impeach is ennumerated, and the power to conduct investigations is implied. There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this distinction, however, but the Supreme Court is empowered to make such decisions. There is no reference anywhere to "ordinary and extraordinary powers" as you have used the terms. If you do have an official source, feel free to provide it.

Here are all references in the COTUS to impeachment:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. — Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. —Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. —Article II, Section 2

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. —Article II, Section 4

Your tried to make a big deal about my use of the phrase "Articles of Impeachment."

originally posted by: tanstaafl

By your own words, the Constitution doesn't say anything about voting, nor does it define the Power of Impeachment as 'voting on Articles of Impeachment'.

Remember when you accused me of reading meaning into these words of trhe Constitution that you claim wasn't there? Pot, meet kettle...

You thought this was your AHA! moment, because that is the phrasing used by practice, and your argument seems to be that a resolution is required for the same reason. You are mistaken.

The House could send over something titled "A Declaration of Impeachment" or "The Conclusion of the Trump Presidency" or WHATEVER a simple majority of the House membership voted on. No, "Articles..." is not a constitutional requirement. (I never claimed it was, to put the lie to your previous comments.)

Neither is a Resolution, Act, Movement, REQUIRED to begin investigations as you keep crying.

So, yes, the two Impeachments to date, Johnson and Clinton, were opened with a Resolution. The current House leadership chose not to do that. The irony here is ... I don't agree with that decision (which has not come up here). In my opinion it's just dumb to do it differently THIS TIME of all times. If Trump deserves impeachment, then for godssakes it should be "by the book" ... but, that is my OPINION, not fact.

PS: "TDS Level 7" is also a made-up term just like "extraordinary powers." You seem to have gone beyond Trump support into Trump zealotry. You're arguing from Republican/Trump talking points like they're holy writ. There are many here so you are in good company.

Best.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: DBCowboy

Sadly and I think gryphon is correct in that the house has some pretty lax and wide open allowances on how they get things to the Senate that this is indeed legit. The real trial happens in the Senate so until then I think this is just a show to make trump look as bad as possible before the elections. I am pretty confident that this won't pass muster in the Senate where we currently sit. Trump will get his chance to refute these charges in the Senate under more court like conditions.

And my two tithes as for a concerned less than ley opinion...

With the controversy centered around who's making the rules
about investigating the alleged wrongdoing: and the procedure is
of itself the sword of Damocles by having an even committee roll
call describing the yea or nay of a legislator's vote to impeach:

I don't believe EITHER side of the aisle wants to go out on a
limb and publicly, saying GET TRUMP unless or until the description
of sufficient crimes / misdemeanors / hairstyling / misc. is verified
by the Judiciary or Intelligence Subcommittees. Or Both... Or Never.

I myself am enjoying the [insert Extended Graphics Character(s) before]
show of amputated hands-- that decided the Rule of Law is defined by
partisan arguing of legal terms to suit THEIR position.
With the primary function of a degreed barrister being argument: and
with approximately 70% of our legislators bedeviled with that stigma:

I hold out no hope for resolution of this dung infested ball of music wire
until the SCOTUS actually rules on the rules determining who gets to
make the rules. Because it all looks to my stupid @$$ like we seem to be
making it up as we go along to get along over to DespoTyranny hell.
That noun was just fabricated by a non-lawyer... so come at me fro.

As it is in optics, so uncomfortably it may also be in partisan politics. And
that is I believe the razor's edge nobody wants to dance upon with all the cameras.
They (MOST of them) just would love this year a lot of exposure without saying
anything politically damaging to them.
Vote for me, I DID THIS. Yes, Congressman. You sure got a lot done for WtP this
session... tripping all over yourselves and countless bushels full of raw sewage
proving to yourselves and everyone else watching [everybody BUT] Orange Man Baaa.

One reflection comes with a pool: two can indeed happen with a couple of mirrors:
but if you get a couple of really big mirrors pointed directly AT each other you can
get the kind of infinite echo that only can happen in D.C., with nothing resolved.
Perfect... endless "quiet war". Look that little term up in your 1856 Bouvier's.
MRS. WALKER BREAK BOTH THE DAMNED MIRRORS ALREADY: ala "Tommy"...

An excellent summary on the question at hand ...

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry? - Lawfare

And regarding the author's credentials:

Keith E. Whittington is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics at Princeton University. He teaches and writes about American constitutional theory and development, federalism, judicial politics, and the presidency. He is the author most recently of "Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech."

Read it before you do a knee-jerk damnation of the source.

Another decent, non-partisan/fact-based discussion of the matter:

Is the House impeachment inquiry illegitimate? Three questions. The Christian Science Monitor

The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives - Congressional Research Service

“The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution,”