Let's Make Things Clear

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Perhaps you missed it:

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
*snip*
as there was a vote this session, and they have not changed the rules I am confident that the speaker is simply wrong and this is much ado about nothing

Trimmed for relevance, emphasis mine.

/shrug

oh I am even more confident that the speaker is wrong.
unless you are implying they will have the house bailiff attempt to arrest people and hold them until they comply?
we both know the executive branch will be no help
that only leaves the judicial which established in reed v county commissioners that a full vote is required to enforce subpoenas

an "investigation" without powers to compel people to comply is folly
nice try tho

a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL, legal precedent applies in court as it is an aspect of Common Law. Claiming precedent as relevant in the matter under discussion or that it overwhelms the Constitution and House rules is ABSURD.

Sadly so.

a reply to: shooterbrody

They may be.

Rashida Tlaib is offering to jail folks in Detroit until they comply. Haven't you heard?

a reply to: shooterbrody

An impeachment vote doesn't require subpoenas or would you like to try to misrepresent that as well. You've been shown to be incorrect or deceptive in every claim you've made in this discussion.

Got facts?

a reply to: ketsuko

LOL. It's amusing who gets under your skin Ketsuko.

a reply to: Oraculi

As to the original op:
While the house of representatives has the constitutional right to draw up articles of impeachment because trump farted and that being defined as a "high crime or misdomenor as it is clearly not bribery or treason"; having the doj or any other law enforcement agency interpret that as an actual crime will be important.
Overturning the election on only partisan bs sets a dangerous precedent.
Having the speaker of the house empower an "impeachment inquiry" with no scope or definition sets a dangerous precedent.

We will have to live with the consequences of such actions, like the questionable actions of dems before them. Nuclear option and Harry Reid comes to mind. That one blew up in your face.
Having a similar open impeachment inquiry into RBG, an impeachable officer, during the next session and forcing her out of office by such and replacing her with a more conservative justice, using the nuclear option, could be the outcome.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

LOL. It's amusing who gets under your skin Ketsuko.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was taking Tlaib seriously? Next time I'll remember to add the proper emoji.

a reply to: Gryphon66
with what evidence will be provided to persuade the vote?
how will they get evidence?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump's Twitter feed? LOL

a reply to: ketsuko

Heh.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

Trump's Twitter feed? LOL

appropriate from the source

good luck selling this bs to the american public
"we want to impeach just because"
"oh we don't actually have any evidence because the bad people wouldn't give it to us"

no worries
when this blows over in a couple days things will calm down again

a reply to: shooterbrody

We will see.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody

We will see.

the only thing we are seeing so far is how the dems will stretch the rules to obtain their political goal

when all they would have to do is take a simple house vote
interesting that they refuse

a reply to: shooterbrody

What would you like the House to vote on?

Can you state that in one sentence?

a reply to: Gryphon66
a simple resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry
as both events in modern impeachment history have had

a reply to: shooterbrody

... so you're echoing the Republican/White House talking points on the issue.

As we've established that there is no need for Pelosi to do so ... not in the Constitution, Rules of the House, Jefferson Manual, etc. etc. I'm not sure what difference you guys think that would make, particularly since so many appreciate Mr. Trump's thumbing his nose at tradition.

I guess that's only for him though?

Thanks for answering succinctly; I do appreciate that.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
It started with a simple phonecall and a clear reason to start an impeachmemt procedure.

If you say so... but either way, we're still waiting for them to hold a vote to start an Impeachment Inquiry, so it is kind of a moot point right now, eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not sure what difference you guys think that would make

I provided the link to the precedent
The house vote is required for subpoenas to be enforceable.

Why you are advocating for a sham investigation I will never understand.


as to the talking point reference, is that you nancy?
all you have posted is dem talking point garbage

the only house dem that has the courage of his convictions imo is Congressman Green
I do not agree with his politics
I admire his courage and resolve

originally posted by: Gryphon66
The right of the House to investigate the President and the Executive branch in the course of oversight is clear based on legal precedent.

Ok... and your evidence is... ?

The House has legislative oversight powers... not random fishing expedition investigatory powers.

The right of the House to investigate the President in light of Articles of Impeachment being issued is clear based on the US Constitution.

Your sentence is broken.

No Articles of Impeachment have been issued. No Impeachment Inquiry has been started. The only thing that has happened is a few radical-leftist-demwits have been yammering a lot, pretending like they have initiated an Impeachment Inquiry, but until this is voted on by the whole House, it is just democrat fantasy-land.

The idea that somehow because the House is controlled by a party that some here don't like that suddenly the Legislative Branch is illegitimate is patently ridiculous.

Or said another way... the idea that the fact that the House is controlled by a bunch of radical-leftist whack-jobs suffering from TDS level 6 somehow gives them special powers not granted to them by the Constitution and/or makes them above the law, is patently ridiculous.

The President can choose not to cooperate with the Congress in terms of its legal authority,

We are still waiting on Congress to hold a vote, until they do, they have no authority to issue (legally enforceable) subpoenas or otherwise go on random fishing expeditions.

and that adds another to a long list of impeachable offenses.

Well, we sure do wish your side with get on with it and hold a vote.

Regardless, Congress certainly has no authority to interfere in the lawful exercise of Presidential Powers (ie, foreign policy).

I sincerely believe the House is just getting started with the Ukrainian matter.

Actually, in this case, you are right... it is only a matter of time before the chips start falling.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Please cite the part of the Constitution that requires that Articles of Impeachment preceed an investigation into whether Articles of Impeachment are necessary.

Please cite the part of the Constitution that says that The Speaker of The House - or The Judiciary Committee, or some other committee, or some Chairman of some Committee, has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Hint: it doesn't. It says 'The House of Representatives' has the sole Power of Impeachment.

Now, an elementary question for you to put this in perspective...

How does The House of Representatives make its will know to The People of our great nation?

Does it do so by having The Speaker of the House, or a chair-person of some Committee, holding a press conference?

Or does it do it through the process of someone (a Member of The House of Representatives) submitting a Bill or Resolution, and then the whole House votes on it?