Quote:

---

But Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s top Republican, said the resolution doesn’t give the committee any more authority than it already had, and the full House has to vote before there are impeachment investigations.

Collins described the Democrats’ strategy as “Fantasy Island,” going down a yellow brick road like in “The Wizard of Oz,” and like “a giant Instagram filter: To make it appear that something is happening when it’s not.”

“We’re not in an impeachment inquiry,” Collins said at one point, as he banged the dais in front of him with the side of his hand.

---

Quote:

---

“Nomenclature”: Nadler pushes “impeachment” rules through Judiciary

Ed MorrisseyPosted at 12:01 pm on September 12, 2019

Are House Democrats pursuing impeachment or not? Jerrold Nadler sloughed off the question as mere “nomenclature” as he expanded the rules for the House Judiciary Committee’s investigations into Donald Trump. Nadler still couldn’t give a straight answer to the question, however, and neither could anyone else in the House Democrat caucus:

See Also: Debate night in America: Three full hours of left-wing geriatrics bickering with each other

Thursday’s vote, which does not need to be approved by the full House, gives Nadler the ability to deem committee hearings as impeachment hearings. It allows staff to question witnesses at those hearings for an hour after members conclude, gives the President’s lawyers the ability to respond in writing to public testimony and allows the committee to collect information in a closed setting.

But the dissonant messages over the probe have prompted frustration among rank-and-file members, particularly those in competitive races wary of impeachment, and it even led to the House’s No. 2 Democrat walking back his statement on the committee’s investigation on Wednesday. …

“This Committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature,” the New York Democrat said. “But let me clear up any remaining doubt: The conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat. And we are doing so.”

Search for hours in that statement and you still won’t find an answer in that question. Ranking member Doug Collins offered one up, however, in response to the rule changes. The Judiciary chair, Collins said, was living on “Fantasy Island,” and the rules changes don’t mean anything:
Recommended

Breaking: FBI arrests top FEMA administrator, two others for Hurricane Maria relief fraud

But Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s top Republican, said the resolution doesn’t give the committee any more authority than it already had, and the full House has to vote before there are impeachment investigations.

Collins described the Democrats’ strategy as “Fantasy Island,” going down a yellow brick road like in “The Wizard of Oz,” and like “a giant Instagram filter: To make it appear that something is happening when it’s not.”

“We’re not in an impeachment inquiry,” Collins said at one point, as he banged the dais in front of him with the side of his hand.

Don’t forget that the House had an opportunity to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry this summer. Rep. Al Green (D-TX) used a privileged motion mechanism to force a full floor vote by the House, which failed by a 95-332 vote. Nevertheless, Nadler has been trying to sell Judiciary’s investigations as “formal impeachment proceedings,” which the House explicitly rejected and his own party’s leadership keeps dodging.

CNN’s Manu Raju tried to get Nadler to explain that, but Nadler waved him off after the hearing:

At least that much is clear — no one wants to answer it. Why? Because Democrats are trying to mollify their progressive base by going through the motions on impeachment while putting off their moderates and suburban voters by telling them they aren’t conducting an impeachment inquiry. They’re talking out of both sides of their mouths and aren’t happy to be called out for it, as Judiciary member and caucus leader Hakeem Jeffries told the New York Times yesterday:

“I don’t want to get caught in semantics. We all agree, from Speaker Pelosi through every single member of the House Democratic Caucus, that we have a constitutional responsibility to hold an out-of-control executive accountable,” said Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the leader of the Democratic caucus who also sits on the Judiciary Committee. “That’s what six committees are doing — not simply the Judiciary Committee — and the committees should be allowed to do their work without getting involved in semantical distinctions.”

That’s pretty tough to avoid when Nadler and others use the “semantics” of impeachment to expand their authority, even nominally, as happened today. It’s not a semantic argument anyway, but a political and legal issue. If Democrats want to pursue impeachment, then the full House needs to authorize it — or else explain to their voters why they aren’t going to do it.

Former Barack Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer put it plainly yesterday:

To which another Obama adviser scored an even better point:

The general election is now less than fourteen months away. The clock is running out on impeachment, and in fact may have already on the grounds being pursued by House committees. Without “Russia collusion,” Trump’s win in 2016 was legitimate and removal would be illegitimate. The latter will go nowhere in the Senate anyway. At some point, voters are going to assume that Democrats literally have nothing else to offer except anti-Trump paranoia and rethink their 2020 choices in that context.

After all, when you’ve lost MSNBC — and apparently literally lost them …

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Because Dems just make shit up as they go along.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Jefferson Manual helps define the House Rules.

The House Practice: A uide to the Rules

---

Quote:

---

Rules

A number of rules have been adopted by the House and Senate, and are honored by tradition.

Jefferson's Manual, which is integral to the Rules of the House of Representatives,[16] states that impeachment is set in motion by charges made on the floor, charges proferred by a memorial, a member's resolution referred to a committee, a message from the president, or from facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House. It further states that a proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House and at once supersedes business otherwise in order under the rules governing the order of business.

The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House[17] is a reference source for information on the rules and selected precedents governing the House procedure, prepared by the House Parliamentarian. The manual has a chapter on the House's rules, procedures, and precedent for impeachment.

In 1974, as part of the preliminary investigation in the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry of the House Judiciary Committee prepared a report, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment.[6] The primary focus of the Report is the definition of the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and the relationship to criminality, which the Report traces through history from English roots, through the debates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, and the history of the impeachments before 1974.

The 1974 report has been expanded and revised on several occasions by the Congressional Research Service, and the current version Impeachment and Removal dates from October 2015.[1] While this document is only staff recommendation, as a practical matter, today it is probably the single most influential definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

The Senate has formal Rules and Procedures of Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials.[18]
Calls for impeachment, and Congressional power to investigate
See also: Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials

While the actual impeachment of a federal public official is a rare event, demands for impeachment, especially of presidents, are common,[19][20] going back to the administration of George Washington in the mid-1790s.

While almost all of them were for the most part frivolous and were buried as soon as they were introduced, several did have their intended effect. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon[21] and Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas both resigned in response to the threat of impeachment hearings, and, most famously, President Richard Nixon resigned from office after the House Judiciary Committee had already reported articles of impeachment to the floor.

In advance of the formal resolution by the full House, the relevant committee may investigate, subpoena witnesses, and prepare a preliminary report of findings. For example:

In 1970, then–House minority leader Gerald R. Ford attempted to initiate impeachment proceedings against Associate Justice William O. Douglas; the attempt included a 90-minute speech on the House floor.[22] The House did not vote to initiate proceedings.
In 1973, the Senate Watergate hearings (with testimony from John Dean, and the revelation of the White House tapes by Alexander Butterfield) were held in May and June 1973, and the House Judiciary Committee authorized Chairman Rodino to commence an investigation, with subpoena power, on October 30, 1973. The full House voted to initiate impeachment proceedings on February 6, 1974, that is, after nine months of formal investigations by various Congressional committees.
Other examples are discussed in the article on Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials.

---

Quote:

---

U.S. House of Representatives

The House of Representatives formally incorporated Jefferson's Manual into its rules in 1837, stipulating that the manual "should govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the standing rules and order of the House and the joint rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives." Since then, the House has regularly printed an abridged version of the Manual in its publication entitled Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House of Representatives.[4]
Impeachment

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (July 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

In recent years, Jefferson's Manual has been cited to support the idea that state legislatures can initiate congressional impeachment proceedings. While precedent for an impeachment so initiated does exist, it still requires a direct proposition to impeach be made by a Member of the House, who may incorporate the communication of the legislature in his or her remarks or any impeachment resolution submitted to the House.

It is commonly repeated that Thomas Jefferson wrote in Section 603 of his Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States that “In the House there are various methods of setting an impeachment in motion,” including “by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State or territory." The source of this error is a misreading of the House of Representatives' House Rules and Manual, as disseminated online. That House document does contain the complete text of Jefferson's Manual, but it also includes commentary (and authorities for that commentary) on subsequent congressional practice. The assertion that state legislatures can initiate impeachment proceedings is part of the House Rules and Manual, but it was never part of Jefferson's own text. The House document (not Jefferson's Manual) labels this section “§603 Inception of Impeachment Proceedings in the House.” The House document is available online in both Text and PDF versions. The text version is the source of the misunderstanding, since Jefferson's words on impeachment and the congressional gloss are indistinguishable. In the PDF version, however, it is clear that Jefferson's Manual is printed in large font, while the subsequent commentary appears in smaller type. Jefferson's Manual in its original form, with its final Section LIII on “Impeachment” may also be viewed online.

The confusion of authorship, however, does not implicate the validity of the commentary or the precedents cited. As §603's notes make clear, the House has recognized the validity of an impeachment proceeding initiated by charges transmitted from the legislature of a State. (Hinds' precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States, volume III, section 2469).[5]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-115/pdf/GPO-HPRACTIC
E-115.pdf

Chapter 27, pg 603-618.

Subsec 6 on pg 614


Subsec 7 on pg 615.
Committee Impeachment Investigations. The full House determines what to refer to the Committee, not the Committee on it's own without full House authority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
I hate Pelosi.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


Care to share your opinion on Pelosi exactly two weeks later, Captain?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:


Care to share your opinion on Pelosi exactly two weeks later, Captain?

---

Lord, you people are dense. And you think you can think...

One sentence has you people running in circles

He said he hates Pelosi because she should have announced the impeachment inquiry long before now, and theoretically we'd be done with Chump.

DEEEEERRRRRRRRRP. Was it REALLY that hard, kids??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
JSF -

Why Is House Not Following Impeachment Rules?

Because Pelosi changed the rules.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-cha
nges-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WISHIMAY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Care to share your opinion on Pelosi exactly two weeks later, Captain?

---

Lord, you people are dense. And you think you can think...

One sentence has you people running in circles

He said he hates Pelosi because she should have announced the impeachment inquiry long before now, and theoretically we'd be done with Chump.

DEEEEERRRRRRRRRP. Was it REALLY that hard, kids??

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
There was no impeachment Resolution which the House approved. Correct.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
JSF -

Why Is House Not Following Impeachment Rules?

Because Pelosi changed the rules.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-cha
nges-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

---

Thanks for the post.
The links within that story:
https://www.scribd.com/document/396700100/Pelosi-House-Rules-for-New-C
ongressional-Session-2019

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/02/speaker-nancy-pelosi-o
utlines-new-rules-for-116th-congressional-session-includes-schedule-for-process-of-trump-impeachment/


I haven't been able to chew through all of that. But from what the article that you linked said, there seems to be no changes to the initiation of Investigation or Inquiry, which must be voted on by the full House. The Rules which are changed don't seem to include those points, from what I found so far.

And so at the point that I started this thread, the full House had not voted to Authorize Investigation or Inquiry. Correct? There was no Resolution which the House approved.

---