The Latest: House won't vote to formalize impeachment probe

Of course not. They have nothing and simply want to weaponize impeachment to influence the election. That's why is in secret, they even want witnesses to testify from hidden locations behind dark screens and their voices altered. But this is about a more drip drip drip of leaks which turn out bogus and out of context statements and baseless claims of 'WE GOT HIM NOW' to influence the outcome of the election.

Is this REALLY how you want the government to operate from now on?

The Latest: House won't vote to formalize impeachment probe

House Democrats won't be voting soon to formalize the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

That's according to people familiar with Speaker Nancy Pelosi's message behind closed doors to her colleagues Tuesday.

Pelosi had gathered lawmakers for a closed session after House leaders surveyed rank-and-file members about it.

https://news.yahoo.com/latest-giuliani-acknowledges-500k-parnas-180516456.html

The Constitution requires the HOUSE, as a body start an impeachment. Not the Speaker, not some committee chairman, not a singular member of the HOUSE, ONLY the HOUSE has the power to conduct an impeachment. Either vote to start one or stop harassing the Executive Branch and playing politics with a very serious mechanism in our government to remove a duly elected President.

 

After all that "now we got 'em" talk...

Anybody who thought otherwise is probably a leftist.

 

The words 'start an impeachment' do not exist in the constitution. There are no instructions in the Constitution whatsoever on how the process starts. That is left entirely to the House of Representatives and the rules they set up.

In this case, this process started just exactly like any other House function of business. The Speaker referred the matters in question to committees with jurisdiction over the general subjects of law, intelligence and rules for them to decide their own procedures and scope to begin the inquiry. This is exactly the same way bills or other matters are created and considered and it is entirely consistent with her authority as Speaker. First the committee, upon a Speaker's referral, studies a subject and relevant laws, begins to invite testimony and subpoena recalcitrant witnesses , accept evidence, and then the committee goes into work session to write a bill or articles as well as a committee report and after a series of votes on amendments, they vote it out.

Once a finished product comes out,. the full house considers what to do with the product. There are plenty of remedies for the republicans here. They can move to table the articles , make a motion to re-commit them, or send them to another committee for more work, or they can vote them down. If they are unhappy with the decisions of the Speaker, they can move to replace her with someone who will make different decisions with respect to impeachment. The majority of House members seem satisfied in the way Pelosi is handling this.

Republicans have their remedies. They don't have the votes. Dems will face the same predicament in the Senate.

 

The house sets its own rules. And the rules don’t say a vote is required. Besides, the house has no power to remove anyone.

 

Womp womp.

 

The legitimacy of the investigation "aka witchhunt" is required if the libs are in any way serious about impeachment.... not that the left had much of it to begin with, but now with Pelosi literally announcing "we have zilch but the fishing expedition goes on", the jig is up, dude. It's an indisputable admission that she does not have a case and she does not have the votes. it's over.

 

Funny enough, im watching the democrat debate and they are still talking about the Mueller report.

 

The Constitution says the HOUSE has the SOLE power, not the SPEAKER not a committee CHAIRMEN

 

Speaker is not impeaching. Committee chairs are not impeaching.These committees are engaged in a probe/inquiry about whether to impeach. The constitution says the House has the sole power to impeach. And it may decide to impeach, after articles of impeachment get through a committee to be considered for a vote to impeach. Other impeachments have been done exactly like this one, including several federal judges and a cabinet official.

by the way. The House has sole power to originate revenue bills. But The constitution does not require that the full house authorize a a committee to consider having a session about a revenue bill.

 

The words

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The HOUSE should vote to start an impeachment if the HOUSE wants to impeach.

But we do have precedent upon which much of our government and how it operates gives great deference especially in such a serious matter, a constitutional crisis.

YES not just the Speaker of a Committee chairman.

This is not like another House function in the least. It is the most serious function the CONGRESS can engage. Removing a duly elected President is a VERY serious matter and should follow the precedent of the previous impeachments and be as transparent as possible and not done in secret

Nadler is shutdown, he came up empty handed so she switched it to Schiff and they learned not to do it in public but hide what is going on and shut down Republicans and refuse to let the President respond to the witnesses or have his attorneys question them.

How about the HOUSE go on record they want to go down this road.

The reason is this is about weaponizing the impeachment process to influence an election. They can't remove Trump so they want to make they do everything they can including a sham impeachment to make sure he loses the election.

They don't have anything here, they can't even call a witness.

 

I bet Pelosi couldn't get the votes.

 

And what do House rules say about it?

 

The House does not know yet if they want to impeach, because the committees with jurisdiction have not completed their investigation and weighed the evidence, secondary to stonewalling tactics. That will slow down this process considerably as subpoenas get litigated. Sometimes after they finish their probe, they decide to pursue that remedy by writing articles. Sometimes they do not. There are impeachments that have formal vote of recommendation to investigate in their records, and there are impeachments that did not have formal votes of recommendation to investigate. There have been very few impeachments that involved Presidential impeachments so the sample size of this subset is awful puny compared to the total number of House impeachments.

I can't think of any reason to vote on whether to consider something that has yet to be investigated, yet to have testimony taken and yet to have been written. Its stupid, just as it is stupid to vote to consider legislation that has not even been studied, discussed or written . Let the committee do its job, and then every member of the House can vote on every single article that comes out of the committee. The impeachment comes when the final vote tally comes, just as the law is passed after the vote on the law is tallied.

 

All of this is just a play for the MSM to report leaks,

 

They have more than the 218 votes necessary!!!!

 

They aren't voting to impeach for wrongdoing. They are voting because they hate him, are you OK with that?

 

Would House rules overrule the Constitution?

 

Not a surprise. They don't want input from Republicans OR other Democrats. And why Pelosi put Schiff in charge. Because he is a biased person that runs a biased Commitee. Republicans have tried to be too fair when they were the Majority.

I am tired of this "clown show". The perfect subscription of what is going on.

 

I bet Schiff is coming up with another nothingburger

 

I doubt it.

 

Of course. Its so lame and boring.

 

Constitution doesn’t say a vote is needed lol

 

I keep covering the same thing. I will put it this way. I 100% agree with you that the full house has to impeach as a collective body per the constitution. So lets see if and when that vote happens. Trump is not impeached until it does. Before the DA's office formally indicts someone in a grand jury, just how many witnesses are called by defense counsel?

 

Bold: This is false. There have been 3 Presidential impeachment proceedings in the entire US history. One of them went straight to the Senate after a house vote with no investigation. Though the Senate did allow 3 days for the defense to "investigate" and bring forth witnesses that they could get a hold of in that time frame. The other two Presidential impeachments began with the House voting and declaring that an Impeachment investigation will be had. At that time they hashed out the rules of what would and wouldn't be acceptable during the investigation. Then they had the investigation and then they considered each charge and then voted to impeach.

When impeachment happens the House gains extra authority that it does not have without impeachment authority. Such as being able to view documents that are normally able to be with held due to executive privilege.

 

Learn to read. The impeachment powers per the constitution are not divided by profession with different processes for each. That means we do not cherry pick Presidents as the relevant subset, because the constitution talks about an entire set. So I recommend you stop looking at the puny subset, and research how the House impeaches all the people within their jurisdiction for such discipline. Then you will find out this is true. Sometimes there is a full house preliminary vote. Sometimes impeachment inquiries start through the routine process this Speaker used.