Here are the house rules… Where is the process you describe outlined? I’m having trouble finding it…
1 Like
I’m not going to play fetch for you nor am I going to read through the entire document to find an answer.
I’ll let this play out in the courts which it will over the next few weeks and we can discuss the rulings as they come down.
Citation please.
Be specific.
Ain’t nothin gonna happen
1 Like
LOL… So now the courts are going to tell the house how they conduct business? Yeah, we can discuss the rulings as they come down… I’m pretty sure you aren’t going to like how the court rules…
1 Like
I’m sure one of us won’t.
Unless they take a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry they aren’t going to get the broad authority to issue and enforce subpoenas.
Without such a vote, they are going to remain limited to “legitimate legislative purposes” and the purely partisan “inquiry” by Schifty’s committee isn’t going to pass the smell test in the courts.
Barr, Pomeo, and the WHC’s office are all going to tell him to get stuffed and properly so.
There goes the “no pressure” ■■■■■■■■ talking point.
Lol, they don’t need a stinking vote to start the inquiry.
No formal actions of any kind can be undertaken by the house without a vote.
The courts are not going to allow them to violate the separation of powers just because Schifty wants to do so and Nancy wants to avoid red state dem’s from having to go on record with a vote she knows is going to hurt them in 2020 when it comes to reelection which is why she’s avoided taking that step so far.
There is absolutely no requirement to vote on an impeachment inquiry…Not in the constitution, statute or the house rules… None… The house and only the house decides what is required for an impeachment inquiry… Separation of powers…
Andrew Johnson was impeached without a vote on an inquiry… How did that happen?
Violate the separation of powers? The impeachment process lies solely with the House…
2 Likes
Citation please.
Be specific.
They first voted to begin impeachment proceedings against him, a week later drafted and passed articles of impeachment.
Three weeks later his trial began in the Senate.
Nonsense… They voted to IMPEACH him… Not an inquiry but to impeach… Shall I go pull records from the archive?
This is the second thread this morning where I’ve seen WildRose respond to evidence by just saying in effect, “no that’s not evidence.” What is missing in these responses is any explanation of why the facts presented are not evidence.
I didnt’ day inquiry did I?
They voted to open the proceedings, then drafted and passed the articles of impeachment, there was no “inquiry” prior and they took no official actions without first voting on them.
No, I’m simply not seeing what isn’t there. There is no quid pro quo and no coercion.
Of course not. There are proper channels for investigating anyone. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that an investigation carried out under US law by US authorities is different than an investigation carried out by Chinese or Ukrainian (two countries where the rule of law barely applies) at the request of one of the candidates.
4 Likes
Just pointing out that you never explain your details… just insist on them.
I am very much reminded of Monty Python’s Dead Parrot sketch – and you are playing the shopkeeper.
12 Likes
