REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Why Is House Not Following Impeachment Rules?

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Monday, October 7, 2019 20:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 290
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, September 12, 2019 7:47 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I keep hearing about the Dems in the House not following Impeachment rules and procedures.
MSM seems to be only publishing the Democrat claims of what powers they are granting themselves. I am unclear about which of these are actually provided in the Constitution.


The Dem claims:
https://www.680news.com/2019/09/12/some-democrats-concerned-as-judicia
ry-sets-impeachment-rules
/


Nadler denying that he is avoiding and evading the rules for Impeachment:
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/09/12/nomenclature-nadle
r-pushes-impeachment-rules-judiciary
/



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 …

This happened on 12 September 2019, with a vote of 24-17, a party-line vote.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 13, 2019 1:08 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Because Dems just make shit up as they go along.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:53 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

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

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Because they want Low-Information Voters to think they are doing something, while all reasonable folk know they are still not doing anything.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 14, 2019 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Jefferson Manual helps define the House Rules.

The House Practice: A uide to the Rules

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 14, 2019 7:00 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


And I thought I was cynical. But cynical or not, what you 2 post makes sense to me.

The article could be summarized in a very few sentences. Democrats want to proceed with 'something' that could lead to impeachment to satisfy their more avid constituents, which is why the passed a meaningless committee resolution for an inquiry (something they already have the power to do.). But they want to avoiding making it an official house-wide impeachment vote to protect their more threatened House members. And Nadler vows to go 'beyond the four corners of the Mueller report' - which seems to mean a witch hunt over everything and nothing. It might even end in a blue semen-stained dress.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/impeachment-investigation-vote
-house-judiciary-committee/index.html


(CNN)The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday approved a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation, the first vote the committee has taken related to the potential impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The party-line vote came as House Democrats have struggled to define the committee's probe, with Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler saying the committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders are refraining from calling it that.

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. At her weekly news conference Thursday, Pelosi once again declined to say the committee was conducting an impeachment investigation, which happened minutes after the committee adopted its resolution stating that's what it was in fact doing.

Nadler sought to clarify the committee's intentions in his opening statement at Thursday's committee meeting, acknowledging there was confusion but arguing that the language used to describe the investigation wasn't the important point.

Why Pelosi has yet to embrace impeachment

"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."

But Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, charged that the committee had become "a giant Instagram filter" — that Democrats were trying to dress up what they were really doing to make it look better. He argued that the Democratic resolution was "not anything special" because it grants the chairman powers that he already has access to.

"The difference between formal impeachment proceedings and what we're doing today is a world apart no matter what the chairman just said," Collins said, adding later, "The chairman can do this at any time, because he wants the appearance of something that it's not. You're not in an impeachment inquiry."

After the committee vote, Collins accused Democrats of "trying to cover" for their moderate members by not voting in the full House to formally establish an impeachment inquiry.

Nadler vows 'aggressive series of hearings'

The committee's new procedures for its hearings could be on display as soon as next week, when former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski is scheduled to appear on Tuesday. The committee in July subpoenaed Lewandowski and former White House aides Rick Dearborn and Rob Porter to testify on Tuesday, but it's not clear if the White House will direct Dearborn and Porter not to appear, making the same immunity claims it has with former White House counsel Don McGahn and others.

Nadler vowed an "aggressive series of hearings" under the committee's procedures approved on Thursday.

"The investigation will go well beyond the four corners of the Mueller report, and we will be starting with a first hearing on September 17th, we expect among others, we expect Mr. Lewandowski to testify," he said.

Nadler and committee members say that adopting the resolution will make their investigation more effective as they gather information -- through subpoenas, hearings and the courts -- to decide whether to introduce articles of impeachment against the President.

But the broader question -- is the committee conducting an impeachment inquiry? -- has flustered Democrats all week.

To Nadler and many on the committee, the committee is conducting an impeachment investigation. They argue that the debate over how to label the investigation is merely semantics: they have stated publicly and in court filings that their investigation is part of an active effort to decide whether to pursue impeachment.

House leaders' different approach

House leadership, however, has taken a different tack. Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have declined this week to say affirmatively that the committee's investigation was an impeachment investigation or an impeachment inquiry, as Nadler has described it.

"I stand by what he have been doing all along. I support what is happening in the Judiciary Committee that enables them to do their process of interrogation and their investigation, and I salute them for that work," Pelosi said when asked if the committee was conducting an impeachment investigation.

When reporters pressed her if she was uncomfortable with the term "impeachment inquiry," which was embraced by many Democrats, Pelosi turned to the Senate instead.
"Why don't we spend some time going over to see Mitch McConnell and asking him why he doesn't want to save lives?" she asked reporters, referring to Democratic efforts to advance House-passed background checks legislation in the Senate. "Why is it that you're hung up on a word over here, when lives are at stake over there?"

Hoyer responded "no" on Wednesday when asked whether the House was in an impeachment inquiry. But later that day, he issued a statement clarifying his comments.

"I thought the question was in regards to whether the full House is actively considering articles of impeachment, which we are not at this time," Hoyer said. "I strongly support Chairman Nadler and the Judiciary Committee Democrats as they proceed with their investigation 'to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment to the full House,' as the resolution states. It is critical that Congress have access to all of the relevant facts, and we will follow those facts wherever they lead, including impeachment."

Hoyer's statement, however, refrained from referencing an impeachment inquiry or investigation. Asked by CNN Wednesday evening whether he believed the committee was conducting an impeachment investigation, he declined to say: "You saw my statement -- I'm not going to say anything else."

And House Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, who is a Judiciary Committee member, said Wednesday he didn't "want to get caught in semantics" when asked if the committee's probe was an impeachment inquiry.

Following Thursday's vote on the committee resolution, Jeffries told CNN that the committee was "conducting an impeachment investigation into the culture of corruption, abuse of power and obstruction of justice."

Semantic battle symbolizes broader divide

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee who has called the probe an impeachment inquiry, said the dispute is emblematic of broader divisions about what to do about impeachment. Is it wise to pursue, he said some have suggested, when the House knows the Senate won't act?

"There are 100 views out there about the right way of dealing with the President, even among people who agree he's committed high crimes and misdemeanors," Raskin said. "If you believe that we are not of one mind about how to proceed, you're absolutely right. Nobody knows exactly, ultimately about how to proceed. But everybody believes we cannot let the President get away with corruption and malpractice in office."

While Democrats have suggested the dispute over labeling the panel's investigation isn't important as the work itself, the question of whether the committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry could have implications when the Judiciary Committee's lawsuits go before a judge in the coming weeks.
The committee is suing to obtain former special counsel Robert Mueller's grand jury material and to force McGahn to testify, and it has argued in court filings its investigation is part of an active consideration of whether to impeach the President.

"It's the facts that we need to see," said Rep. Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Democrat who has pushed for Trump's impeachment. "Proof needs to come out, and what they call it makes no difference to me and I don't know what it's called. But this will be an investigation for impeachment. There is no question about it. People are stumbling over it because of politics, so be it. It's the facts that need to be introduced to the American people to hear for the most impeachable President in the history of this country."

This story has been updated with additional developments Thursday.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 9:34 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...


I hate Pelosi.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:33 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

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

The House Practice: A uide to the Rules

Was interrupted.

Completing:
The reason I was trying to post what the Rules are is that online references are at best fluid in the past few days of Libtard revisions, and trying to nail down facts which don't get deleted the next day is challenging.

One online writing had numerous errors and omissions regarding the Impeachment Process, it seemed to be a slapdash mishmash of last-minute posturing, and this was the sole reference I found which could support the current (this week) claims of the Democrats on House Judiciary Committee.

I have not found a copy of a book by Charles Black titled Impeachment, which is supposed to have many details.


From Wiki:
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.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:39 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Jefferson's Manual.

From Wiki:
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]


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:40 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


From the wiki reference:
Parliamentarian of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, at https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/house-practice. Each Congress adopts its own rules, available at https://rules.house.gov/resources

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:46 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


https://www.govinfo.gov/collection/house-practice?path=/GPO/House%20Pr
actice


About House Practice

The House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House is a reference source for information on the rules and selected precedents governing the House procedure. This one volume publication was prepared by William Holmes Brown, House Parliamentarian from 1974 to 1994, and was published at the end of the 104th Congress after the Office of the House Parliamentarian made modifications. This reference source was designed to replace the Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Periodic preparation by the House Parliamentarian of condensed and amplified versions of House precedents is required by Public Law 91-510.

The House Practice is organized into chapters covering fifty-nine subjects of House procedures. These chapters are listed alphabetically. Each chapter opens with an outline of the chapter’s main topics and their House Practice section numbers.

The House Practice is a summary review of selected precedents and not an exhaustive survey of all applicable rulings. The House Rules and Manual and the published volumes of House precedents remain the primary sources for in-depth analysis and authoritative citations. As required by law, the House Practice is a concordance or quick reference guide to those works.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 15, 2019 4:52 PM

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.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2019 4:54 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.


Subsec 6 on pg 614.
Generally:
Under modern practice, an impeachment is normally instituted by the House by the adoption of a resolution calling for a committee investigation of charges against the officer in question.


Subsec 7, pg 615, Committee Investigations.
Committee impeachment investigations are govrerned by those portions of rule XI relating to committee investigative and hearing procedures, and by any rules and special procedures adopted by the House
Initiation of Charges:
On pg 615, one method has been from charges arising from an independent counsel investigation (NOT a Special Counsel "investigation") under section 595(c) of title 28, USC.

Referral to Committee:
on pg 615, Resolutions introduced through the hopper that directly call for an impeachment are referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, whereas resolutions merely calling for a committee investigation with a view toward impeachment are referred to the Committee on Rules.
All impeachments to reach the Senate since 1900 have been based on resolutions reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Before that committee's creation in 1813, impeachments were referred to a special committee for investigation.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, September 29, 2019 6:39 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Quote:

Originally posted by CAPTAINCRUNCH:
I hate Pelosi.




That statement was written on September 15th.

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

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 12:52 AM

WISHIMAY

You can't even run your own life, I'll beat you to death if you try to run mine... sunshine.


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??



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 7:12 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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??





He wrote that 15 days ago.

Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry 6 days ago.

Yup. I did the math, Nilbog.



So. I'm just wondering if he likes her now.


And no. Impeachment will not remove Trump, nor "theoretically" would it have removed him before. Impeachment at this point all but guarantees that you're stuck with him until 2020, and it's a good chance the GOP takes the house back as well.

Impeach away. I've been asking for this for as long as you have. Go ahead. Look at my previous posts.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 7:41 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 8:38 PM

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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 8:42 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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??

Nilbog.

Misery.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, September 30, 2019 9:45 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


There was no impeachment Resolution which the House approved. Correct.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, October 1, 2019 8:46 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


Quote:

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

And I didn't see any Rule changes which bypassed the requirement for the full House to authorize Investigation or Inquiry. Or did you find some?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 7, 2019 4:36 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


I need to remember to review if an Impeachment can carry over from one Congress to another. That is, can the House Impeach in 2020, and then the next-elected Senate, seated in 2021, execute the Trial.

I don't think so, but I'll check.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 7, 2019 8:14 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Would be good to know. Let us know what you dig up.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Some Say Boxing Is A Sport
Mon, October 21, 2019 16:45 - 23 posts
Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
Mon, October 21, 2019 15:49 - 723 posts
Trump is not a sociopath or a narcissist, he has ADHD. Get over it.
Mon, October 21, 2019 15:31 - 136 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Mon, October 21, 2019 14:10 - 193 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Mon, October 21, 2019 12:40 - 3054 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Mon, October 21, 2019 11:44 - 3011 posts
Let The Hypocricy Begin
Mon, October 21, 2019 10:34 - 106 posts
FACTS
Mon, October 21, 2019 10:14 - 116 posts
I wonder why anyone would NEED TO STATE THAT ?
Sun, October 20, 2019 22:02 - 6 posts
Intellectual Pastimes
Sun, October 20, 2019 19:35 - 30 posts
Where has SIG and 1kiki's outrage about anyone allying with Saudia Araba gone ?
Sun, October 20, 2019 16:34 - 87 posts
Who Is Running In 2020?
Sun, October 20, 2019 15:51 - 286 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL