Impeachment - what the Constitution requires

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Regarding House RESOLUTIONS ... from Impeachment and Removal, pg. 18 as noted above.

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote. Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special committee.

-sigh-

I feel like I do when I'm trying trying to explain what farts are to my 4 yr old daughter.

Oh well... ok, next to last sentence above...

Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special committee.

Do you really not understand the meaning of that word 'resolution'? A resolution is something that the whole House votes on. Something that has yet to occur with regard to President Trump.

So, according to this document that has been submitted as being authoritative by not me, while the resolution could delegate the investigation to the Judiciary Committee, as it has done historically, there is nothing preventing said resolution from delegating it to a select or special committee.

Does that clarify things for you? Come back if you are still having trouble, I have a lot of patience - I have to, my 4 yr old is always asking me silly questions too. My twin 2 yr olds are not far off from doing the same thing. Well, at least I've got a bit of practice in now.

a reply to: tanstaafl

From your quote:

Usually an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented. However, it is possible that this investigation could be carried out by a select or special committee.

Have any charges been presented to the House? No.

What does "after charges have been presented" mean? Charges would have to be presented before something else happens.

Now, put the two together ...

A resolution will be voted upon after charges have been presented to assign the matter to the relevant committee for the official investigation as in past impeachments.

However, at our current step we are here:

In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote.

The House, via appropriate committees as noted in the Rules, is examining the charges prior to voting on a resolution.

It's a basic cause-and-effect sequence if as according to you a resolution has to be voted on by the House.

Here, let me make it simple:

The matter regarding Trump's dealins with Ukraine has been referred to the House by Independent Counsel as required in Federal law. This triggers the impeachment process. The appropriate Committee examines the matter to see if it merits formal charges to be brought to the House to TRIGGER THE RESOLUTION that you claim has to happen.

In order to make this as simple as possible, let's review another document from the Library of Congress specifically dealing with The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives

The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment. Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.

Emphasis mine.

The impeachment process has been initiated by referral from an Independent Counsel as Federal law requires and now the appropriate Committees under their general investigatory authority are seeking information and researching charges PRIOR to the adoption of a resolution ... which would be voted on by ... wait for it ... the (whole) House.

a reply to: Gryphon66

The LIE-brary of Congress is obviously a Deep State institution and hates you-know-who.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

The LIE-brary of Congress is obviously a Deep State institution and hates you-know-who.

It wouldn't really surprise me if that is in the next post actually.

It's RIGHT THERE IN THE TITLE!!!

Holy Mother.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Woke minds like me see through the BS of everything right to the truth, plus I stayed at a Holiday Inn so I know everything.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Woke minds like me see through the BS of everything right to the truth, plus I stayed at a Holiday Inn so I know everything.

I'll risk it. You literally just made me spit coffee over everything on my desk. Well done.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Word to your maternal parental unit.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Gryphon66

Woke minds like me see through the BS of everything right to the truth, plus I stayed at a Holiday Inn so I know everything.

No you didn't, you darn upscale upstart!

You stayed at some fancy-schmancy hotel with hot and cold room service... and beer! I distinctly remember beer. The fancy-schmancy stuff. I was the one slumming at Holiday Inn...

...no, wait. It was the Best Western dinosaur inn. Hmm.....

a reply to: tanstaafl

Another 'liar liar pants on fire' response.

You keep repeating this because you lost.

You have nothing to say.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Have any charges been presented to the House? No.

Really? Treason? Obstruction of Justice? Orange Man Bad?

You seem to be confusing:

a) formal charges, as in 'Articles of Impeachment', with simple "Orange Man Traitor! Orange Man Obstructed Justice!", and

b) formal impeachment inquiry with 'initial investigation'.

Charges, in this sense, obviously mean simple declarations that someone believes impeachable offenses occurred.

Read it again...

an initial investigation is conducted by the Judiciary Committee, to which investigating and reporting duties are delegated by resolution after charges have been presented.

The initial investigation must be authorized by resolution. The initial investigation is what happens even before the formal investigation.

It really is easy, your TDS is just getting in the way if your ability to reason.

However, at our current step we are here:

"In all prior impeachment proceedings, the House has examined the charges prior to entertaining any vote."

Again, you are confusing two different things.

They are not 'examining' anything, they are in full blown investigation mode.

The initial examination only involves examining, or looking at, evidence already in possession. It does not involve acts of formal investigation - you know, like the power to compel witnesses and document/evidence production (aka subpoena power).

Here, let me make it simple:

The matter regarding Trump's dealins with Ukraine has been referred to the House by Independent Counsel as required in Federal law.

Yeah... except that you neglected to provide any proof to back up this claim - because is an outright, blatant lie and you full well know it.

Look at Ken Starr's report regarding Clinton to see how a referral to the House is worded.

If you want to back up your claim, by all means, provide the citation in Muellers report where he refers anything to Congress.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
"Another 'liar liar pants on fire' response."

You keep repeating this because you lost.

You have nothing to say.

Rotflmao! It couldn't get more absurd. Another 'liar liar' response void of any substance whatsoever, in support of the other 'liar liar' responses, as if that proves anything other than the obvious fact that they are liars.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"The House impeachment process generally proceeds in three phases: (1) initiation of the impeachment process; (2) Judiciary Committee investigation, hearings, and markup of articles of impeachment; and (3) full House consideration of the articles of impeachment. Impeachment proceedings are usually initiated in the House when a Member submits a resolution through the hopper (in the same way that all House resolutions are submitted). A resolution calling for the impeachment of an officer will be referred to the Judiciary Committee; a resolution simply authorizing an investigation of an officer will be referred to the Rules Committee. In either case, the committee could then report a privileged resolution authorizing the investigation. In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation."

Emphasis mine.

Oh - and sure, individual members and committees can 'seek information and research charges' all they want. This does not in any way equate to the power to compel witnesses and evidence. That requires subpoena power, and that requires a vote of the whole House.

Of course, you can just claim otherwise (liar liar), and in your mind, you'll 'win' the argument, which is fine by me. I allow everyone the freedom to live within a delusional world of their own making - as long as they don't demand at gunpoint that I be made to falsely acknowledge their delusion as some kind of reality.

The "Power of Impeachment" means that only the HoR can impeach, which itself means suggesting removing someone from office.

Yes and no.

Only the House can begin it.

Only the Senate can end it.

Clinton was impeached by the House, and shot down in the Senate.

Then went on to become a multi millionaire, and create a foundation worth over $2 billion dollars.

Impeachment doesn't really mean much.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I figure it will be a sad day for you once the vote happens and the impeachment proceedings get televised, which they will be. I’d enjoy the “secrecy” for now, if I were you. It gives Republicans something to complain about, too, since they can’t defend Trump’s actions anymore.

a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL.

As usual, your response to clearly cited evidence is to regurgitate logical fallacies.

a reply to: darkbake

There comes a time when one must simply let delusions rest I guess.

Impeachment is proceeding, recognized by a Federal court, and the fallacious blathering continues.

Trump is awesome president despite everything.

Didnt start any wars (yet) , Killed a terrorist after geniously removing most of the army from the endless battlefield, and did so far everything he said he will do.

Also he posts awesome tweets!!!

It amazes me how much effort everyone puts in to this discussion. Bottom line Trump will not be removed from office. House will vote to impeach. The senate will take a couple of days and say not guilty. Nancy knows this she cant be that stupid.

So then why push forward well as long as they can keep Trump tied up they don't have to worry about what else he may change.

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: tanstaafl

I figure it will be a sad day for you once the vote happens and the impeachment proceedings get televised, which they will be. I’d enjoy the “secrecy” for now, if I were you. It gives Republicans something to complain about, too, since they can’t defend Trump’s actions anymore.

I truly wonder how you can look at Trump and think/know that he has done horrible things that require his impeachment and removal, and I can look at the same person, same data, and same information, and not see anything like that. He is not presidential, and not conventional, but he seems to be getting things done and they are good for us.

It's almost like you and yours are angry we aren't at war more than we already are. I'd love to know what drives the hatred.