No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Ahabstar
You are assuming that the motion would be to “officially” open impeachment proceedings. If the motion was to present the Articles of Impeachment, then Trump and the Republicans remained locked out of the process. And it would be a floor vote without the ability to return to committees.

There are two different impeachment related votes The House can hold...

1. A vote to initiate formal impeachment proceedings,

or

2. A vote on actual Articles of Impeachment

There are a ton of votes they "can" hold "related" to impeachment, like holding those who refuse Subpoenas in contempt etc.

The only vote they are "Required" to hold if they want to send it to the Senate is the vote on Articles of Impeachment.

originally posted by: Extorris
Trump hotel in New York got a huge revenue boost from Saudi crown prince’s entourage, report says
www.cnbc.com...

Yeah...

Check in with us when you have more than just rumors and gossip.

originally posted by: Extorris
There are a ton of votes they "can" hold "related" to impeachment, like holding those who refuse Subpoenas in contempt etc.

They can hold any votes they want, yes... but without a formal vote of the whole House, there is no formal impeachment inquiry, just a lot of yammering and blathering.

The only vote they are "Required" to hold if they want to send it to the Senate is the vote on Articles of Impeachment.

True - unless they want the expanded powers to compel witnesses/produce evidence with regard to areas/issues that they normally would not have the power to investigate through their normal legislative oversight authority. More importantly, it provides a fair and balanced environment where both sides share equal power to compel witnesses, question witnesses, attend hearings, decide on whether or not hearings are open or closed, etc.

You know... that strange old notion of 'due process' that seems to have eluded the dems of late.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
There are a ton of votes they "can" hold "related" to impeachment, like holding those who refuse Subpoenas in contempt etc.

They can hold any votes they want, yes... but without a formal vote of the whole House, there is no formal impeachment inquiry, just a lot of yammering and blathering.

That is a rhetorical defense that the WH is trying to sell as Talking Points.
It is not supported by any law and the constitution gives the House sole dominion over impeachment proceedings.
Repeating talking points does not change the constitution.

True - unless they want the expanded powers to compel witnesses/produce evidence with regard to areas/issues that they normally would not have the power to investigate through their normal legislative oversight authority. More importantly, it provides a fair and balanced environment where both sides share equal power to compel witnesses, question witnesses, attend hearings, decide on whether or not hearings are open or closed, etc.

You know... that strange old notion of 'due process' that seems to have eluded the dems of late.

That too is complete and utter misinformation.
A "vote" to begin an impeachment inquiry does none of those things.

The house could establish rules that giving GOP the ability to "share equal power to compel witnesses, question witnesses, attend hearings, decide on whether or not hearings are open or closed, etc."

But that would not be a function of any vote on the impeachment inquiry. Put another way, the house could vote tomorrow on the impeachment inquiry and it would not give any GOP in the house any additional powers OR the house could vote for a rules change giving the GOP those powers without voting on the impeachment inquiry. Two completely separate things.


www.nytimes.com...

www.npr.org...

That said the idea that the Majority party in the house would vote to give the minority equal powers?

That would be a first.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Extorris
Trump hotel in New York got a huge revenue boost from Saudi crown prince’s entourage, report says
www.cnbc.com...

Yeah...

Check in with us when you have more than just rumors and gossip.

Hilarious that this is breaking news right now

U.S. to Host 2020 Group of Seven Summit at Trump’s Doral Resort Near Miami
www.wsj.com...

originally posted by: Extorris
That is a rhetorical defense that the WH is trying to sell as Talking Points.
It is not supported by any law and the constitution gives the House sole dominion over impeachment proceedings.
Repeating talking points does not change the constitution.

I agree. The Constitution says what it means and means what it says.

You however seem to be under the mis-impression that 'The House of Representatives' means something less than the whole House.
It doesn't mean the Speaker. It doesn't mean some committee. It means the whole House, and the only way the whole House can act is bu voting on bills/resolutions, otherwise it is just actions of (one or more) individual members.

Here is

Put another way, the house could vote tomorrow on the impeachment inquiry and it would not give any GOP in the house any additional powers

Yes, it would, as long as that requirement was in the resolution being voted on, which is the case in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiry resolutions, and I might add, the entire point.

I guarantee you the dems wouldn't want to be on the record as voting against an amendment to the formal impeachment resolution that gave equal subpoena power to the minority party.

This is why Pelosi and company don't want a vote.

OR the house could vote for a rules change giving the GOP those powers without voting on the impeachment inquiry. Two completely separate things.

True, they could, but that is precisely what they don't want, so no chance of that happening.

ETA:

That said the idea that the Majority party in the house would vote to give the minority equal powers?

That would be a first.

Nope - this is precisely what was done with both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries.

originally posted by: Extorris
"Check in with us when you have more than just rumors and gossip."

Hilarious that this is breaking news right now

U.S. to Host 2020 Group of Seven Summit at Trump’s Doral Resort Near Miami
www.wsj.com...

So what? Is it a nice Hotel/Resort? Are they price gouging?

They have to stay somewhere, right?

Or maybe Trump should let them all stay for free? Oh wait, then you'd say he was bribing them.

Sorry dude, you just need to get over the fact that a successful real-estate mogul won the Presidency.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Nope - this is precisely what was done with both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries.

That was a function of both of those inquiries being Special Prosecutor referrals for impeachment.

No such referral was made from the Special "Counsel" since the law was changed since that time aka "Counsel" vs. "Prosecutor".

Trump is ALREADY under double-secret probation.

You don't need an official Impeachment vote when that's the case.

originally posted by: Extorris
"Nope - this is precisely what was done with both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries."

That was a function of both of those inquiries being Special Prosecutor referrals for impeachment.

??? yes, but is totally irrelevant.

The vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry was submitted by someone (don't care enough to go see who), and it contained a provision that the other side would have co-equal subpoena etc powers.

No such referral was made from the Special "Counsel" since the law was changed since that time aka "Counsel" vs. "Prosecutor".

Interesting that you would bring that up - of course he could have outlined the exact charges he felt were worthy of prosecution/impeachment, but he didn't. Why is that?

Because there weren't any, so all he could do is provide some obfuscated fear-fodder for the dems to play with, which is what they've been doing since his report was released.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
obviously crimes
as opposed to the drivel you offered
at least as serious as treason or bribery

Not your interpretation, the actual Constitution. What does that phrase mean? Does it include parking tickets? Littering?

You'd have to refer way back to the debates at the Philadelphia Convention and have a good understanding of the terms used in British Law at the time (from which they were taken) and also the reasons why 'maladministration' was rejected.

One thing for sure is that the language does not mean 'anything we like' and does not mean all misdemeanors in modern day language.

VERY astute observation there. It was debated and that phrase was specifically removed because the framers thought it was to vague and could be used for just about anything......

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

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

The transcript of the phone call in question has been released. I've been looking for the part where he bribed a foriegn leader. Perhaps you could help me?

When they respond it will be another twist of the truth just like their overlords do. a reply to: Alien Abduct

The Intelligence Committee was empowered to investigate matters brought before it at the beginning of the 116th Congress by the adoption (by a majority vote of the House) of the Rules of the House of the Representatives. House Res. 6 (2019-2020)

The power to investigate necessitates the power to compel witnesses by subpoena also expressly granted to the Intelligence Committee as determined by the Supreme Court McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927).

The matter of the whistleblower was required by law to be shared with Congress and that was done formally by the Intelligence Community IG (50 US Code 3033.)

That reference brings the matter within the purview of the House's investigative powers and qualifies as initiation of an impeachment inquiry:

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.

Impeachment and Removal - CRS

It is more than clear, by the direct statement of the Congressional Research Service which is authorized by Congress to provide information to the Congress on matters of legal import for their proper use, that a reference from the IG is more than enough to initiate an impeachment process.

Any continued claims from members here to the contrary are quite simply absurd; this point cannot be made any more clear.

This is substantied further by the absence in the Constitution, the Rules of the House of Representatives, Jefferson's Manual, and Federal law of any formal requirements for a majority vote in the House before investigation by the Intelligence committee of the matter.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you aware that Pelosi announced there will not be a vote in the house for impeachment? No vote, no impeachment. Period.

Also the transcript of the phone call in question has been released and guess what? No one so far could quote me where President Trump committed a crime in that conversation, perhaps you could be the first?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Any continued claims from members here to the contrary are quite simply absurd; this point cannot be made any more clear.

nope
you are simply wrong
as illustrated by the continued pelosi press conferences about not taking the vote

why address something they don't have to do?
whats next? a presser to tell us she wont be having steak for dinner?

sorry for your misunderstanding

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

Any continued claims from members here to the contrary are quite simply absurd; this point cannot be made any more clear.

nope
you are simply wrong
as illustrated by the continued pelosi press conferences about not taking the vote

why address something they don't have to do?
whats next? a presser to tell us she wont be having steak for dinner?

sorry for your misunderstanding

Nope, not wrong, see multiple references above.

Nope, arguing that Pelosi saying the House didn't have to vote is not proof that the House has to vote.

I'm not the one with misunderstanding, and I posit, neither are you or any other poster here.

Sorry Charley.

a reply to: Gryphon66
lol
the only other 2 events prove the point
tho some pretend they did not happen

something about precedence.....

"we are gathered here today so I can again tell you we discussed it and we won't be taking the vote today"
lol

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you aware that Pelosi announced there will not be a vote in the house for impeachment? No vote, no impeachment. Period.

Also the transcript of the phone call in question has been released and guess what? No one so far could quote me where President Trump committed a crime in that conversation, perhaps you could be the first?

No, not aware of that because that's not what Pelosi said.

There's no need for a vote to "start" impeachment inquiry as I've shown multiple times above. Here, want to see it again?

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.

That's directly from the Congressional Research Service which is a department of the Library of Congress.

I want to emphasize one part again because some folks just don't seem to be able to see it:

The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events

one of which is ...

including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source

and another that is

investigations by congressional committees under their general authority

and BOTH of those conditions have been met. Clearly.

I can't show you in the transcript where Trump committed a crime because I don't believe he did frankly. I'm on record as saying this is the DUMBEST justification for impeachment there could be, aside from the guy who brought a resolution several times claiming that Trump was a racist.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
lol
the only other 2 events prove the point
tho some pretend they did not happen

something about precedence.....

"we are gathered here today so I can again tell you we discussed it and we won't be taking the vote today"
lol

Fallacious reasoning.
Strawman.
Ignorance or blatant deceit.