Maybe it's just me, but I think this is an interesting question.

So.....you're saying the Dems should not participate in what you anticipate will be a corrupt process orchestrated by Mitch McTreason? While the latter is possible it would be a mistake for the Dems not to shine a light on it.
But, as I said, the more vexing question is how the Repubs will rationalize not convicting on which ever article of impeachment accuses Trump of illegally obstructing the investigation by refusing to comply with subpoenas for documents and testimony. Because by the time the matter reaches the Senate, if it does, articles of impeachment will have been passed in the House..........removing the false pretense Trump has created for not honoring demands for his cooperation.

 

The democrats are doing it for the republicans By not having a formal impeachment investigation vote, they are jeopardizing the chances that it will be taken up by the senate.

 

No one I'm aware of said the House can compel the Senate to convict. If you want to have that debate it may require a mirror.

What I find telling about the matter of an authorizing House vote is neither minority leader McCarthy (R), in a letter to Speaker Pelosi, or WH Counsel Pat Cipollone, in the political screed he wrote declaring the WH's intention to stonewall the impeachment inquiry, pointed to any House rule or constitutional stipulation that such a vote be taken.

Why is that? Because there are none.

 

Yes, they did it in Nixon, they didn't do it here...which the OP is forgetting

 

You are mistaken. How could I forget when the minions repeat it constantly? The point is, there is no constitutional requirement or rule of the House that makes an authorizing vote for an impeachment inquiry mandatory. If you are aware of either, please post a link to substantiate your assertion.

The question remains, how will Senate Repubs weasel their way around not voting to convict on the charge of obstruction?

 

Lindsay not voting doesn't preclude his ability as a lawyer to interpret the rules.

 

No, they certainly did take a vote for Nixon, and yes there is a rule...I have repeatedly posted it...directly from the House's own website

 

What rules? No House rule requires a vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. The various House committees are fully authorized to conduct an investigation.

 

"Impeachment" of Nixon didn't begin as a temper tantrum two days after the election, on November 7, 1968 as it did with Trump. Pelosi doesn't have the votes or she would have held a vote. There's a difference between oversight, harassment, and unprecedented interference in the campaign of a successor and failure to accept the results of an election. Obama has earned a legacy to go with owning the worst record before the Supreme Court since Zachary Taylor and probably the absolute worst for any full term president.

 

Not voting and the secret meeting are necessary to expedite the impeachment process. The Democrats want the impeachment before the
election, and the Republicans should want that so that the Senate can find him innocent.

 

Help me out, what secret meeting?

 

Closed door depositions and interviews are nothing new, from police interviews all the way up to Congress.

 

Why would you hold a vote for impeachment before you've done the investigation to determine if impeachment is warranted? Have you ever, EVER, seen an episode of Law & Order?

You don't charge the person with a crime and THEN do the investigation to see if a crime was committed.

The same mechanic holds true here. You don't impeach before you investigate to see if impeachment is warranted.

 

That's my point. Democrats are still digging for a reason to impeach.

If Democrats believed their own propaganda they would have had an impeachment vote long ago. Why investigate when you know he's guilty. You got the Mueller report. Should be all you need... right?

 

What the minions seem to forget is Repubs on the 3 committees conducting the witness depositions are allowed to attend. The reason we aren't hearing from them is the testimony is really bad for the Obstructionist-in-Chief.

 

They are digging for the facts which is what they're supposed to do. I know you understand this, you just want them to rush this to the Senate before they have a chance to find even more dirt. Dirt you know is almost certainly there because you know Donald Trump is corrupt and arrogant enough to think he is above the law. You support him anyway, but you know he's corrupt and that worries you. What else will the Democrats find must be a thought that weighs heavily on your mind, along with which of his former staff or which Republicans are going to turn on him next?

Your unease and worry is obvious.

 

Except in the Senate. All you need in the house is a bare majority for anything. The fact is Nixon got better treatment in the hose than Trump is getting. snf the Dems had more of a majority then than they do now.

 

Because there is no obstruction

House Rules: https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/

"The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry."

 

The reason we aren't hearing from then is because they aren't allowed to say anything.

 

The way I see it... the more the Democrats chase trump the less they time they spend destroying America and fundamentally transforming it into a global socialist police state run by oligarchs out of Europe.

Trump is taking all the arrows Democrats would be slinging at America and Americans if he wasn't there.

Trump is a true American hero

 

Shift's actions, behind closed doors, are coming to light....he apparently really is running a Star Chamber and pressuring witnesses:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...olker-to-say-ukraine-felt-pressure-from-trump

 

Which us like claiming ducks don't exist merely because you don't like ducks.It was done with both Nixon and Clinton it is only being refused now for purely partisan political reasons.

 

That was some great narrative writing. You might have a future as a fiction author!

 

It makes no difference if it was done for the impeachments of Clinton and Nixon.

What I find telling about the matter of an authorizing House vote is neither minority leader McCarthy (R), in a letter to Speaker Pelosi, or WH Counsel Pat Cipollone, in the political screed he wrote declaring the WH's intention to stonewall the impeachment inquiry, pointed to any House rule or constitutional stipulation that such a vote be taken.

Why is that? Because there are none.

 

But their purely political decision not to do so makes the process look exactly like the political witch hun it is and is exactly the reason the Senate will in good conscience punt this nonsense into the Potomac about three days after it hits McConnell's desk.