Pelosi: There Is No Requirement To Hold An Impeachment Inquiry Vote

[iceberg]

Every vote they do should be shown to all Americans. They work for us, not the other way around.

Yes Every one of the Republicans who support corruption, support Trump lying, Support Trump's stealing children, supporting Trumps obstruction of Justice should have their names on record.

what a drama queen.

Sorry, he doesn't have the tits to be a drama queen. Let's get creative with words about him., like "his words wreak of flatulence" if you wish to show your scatological side, and "he's lying" if you prefer Missionary Position.

Putting it to Abba, dancing queen is as creative as he deserves

 

[iceberg]

View attachment 282800

Is that why Democrats are too cowardly to make a vote and put their names on record?

225 of them have made it known they support impeachment.
Only 10 of them havent.

Why don't they take the vote, then? Time for them to shit or get off the pot.

Neither the Constitution nor House rules require that Pelosi hold a floor vote to proceed with an impeachment inquiry.

The reason republicans want a formal vote on inquiry is that it can give them the possibility to subpoena their own witnesses or information.
In theory, the GOP could subpoena Joe Biden and/or Hunter, or steer inquiry into another direction.

Dubya's chief of staff supports impeachment inquiry.
No reason to oppose it, unless youre a Trump ballwasher.

No reason to go after it, unless you're a fucking idiot.

 

[regent]

Impeachment is primarily a political process. Anyone have a definition for "high crimes" or "high Misdemeanors"?

 

[regent]

Impeachment is primarily a political process. Anyone have a definition for "high crimes" or "high Misdemeanors"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Impeachment is primarily a political process. Anyone have a definition for "high crimes" or "high Misdemeanors"?

Yes, there IS a definition for that. The fact that most Americans are functionally illiterate AND ignorant of history doesn't magically make it meaningless.

"Originating in English Common
Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S. law. They refer to criminal actions as well as any serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from Tax Evasion to Obstruction of Justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as dishonesty, negligence, perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of public funds or assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, including such offenses as tax evasion. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. The word "High" refers to the office and not the offense. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute.See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for “intentional, evil deeds” that “drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency” — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.""

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

I'm not normally a fan of Wikipedia, but they had a pretty good, concise summary of the concept.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course there is. But Democrats don’t want to go on record, they know it’s a quick trip out of DC.

FYI: The instant that Democrat vote for impeachment, REPUBLICANS GET TO SUBPOENA PEOPLE TOO!

THIS is why they won't have a vote. Democrats want a ONE-SIDED effort.

Twitter

Of course there is.

Show us, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nah, right, we don't need no vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Never mind that that's what was done when the House voted to begin impeachment inquiries against Nixon and Clinton. Who needs tradition anyway?

A resolution was passed. It was not required.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nah, right, we don't need no vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Never mind that that's what was done when the House voted to begin impeachment inquiries against Nixon and Clinton. Who needs tradition anyway?

A resolution was passed. It was not required.

When you find yourself spending a lot of time explaining to the people why politicians don't have to answer to them or even conduct business where they can see it, you know you're doing it wrong.

 

[DGS49]

No vote is required by the Constitution, by law, or by House rules. The determination of what constitutes HC&D is entirely up to the House of Representatives.

But neither of these facts excuses the inexcusable behavior - both politically and ethically - of Pelosi and Schiff.

And the Media are complicit in not calling Pelosi for not holding a vote, WHICH SHE WOULD DO IF SHE HAD THE VOTES. She may be old and senile, but she can still count.

 

[Polishprince]

Of course there is. But Democrats don’t want to go on record, they know it’s a quick trip out of DC.

FYI: The instant that Democrat vote for impeachment, REPUBLICANS GET TO SUBPOENA PEOPLE TOO!

THIS is why they won't have a vote. Democrats want a ONE-SIDED effort.

Twitter

Sure.

But there is no way for anyone to be impeached without a recorded vote in the House of Representatives. And there is no way that representatives from Trump districts will be voting "aye" if the procedure is crooked.

The facts are this is a PHONY impeachment. There will be no impeachment, and certainly no trial. If Nance were to actually get an impeachment vote through, that would be the worst thing possible. The control of the whole event gets turned over to the Senate and The Turtle is in charge. She loses all ability to shape the narrative.

 

[regent]

Mike Griffiths high axhool

 

[regent]

There are no detailed procedural rules on how to conduct a presidential impeachment in the house. It is assumed that it be conducted with due process similar to a criminal investigation before it is debated on the floor and voted on.

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

 

[Polishprince]

There are no detailed procedural rules on how to conduct a presidential impeachment in the house. It is assumed that it be conducted with due process similar to a criminal investigation before it is debated on the floor and voted on.

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

 

[regent]

There are no detailed procedural rules on how to conduct a presidential impeachment in the house. It is assumed that it be conducted with due process similar to a criminal investigation before it is debated on the floor and voted on.

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

Ni one needs to b e found guilty of a crime to be removed in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political process. .

 

[SAYIT]

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

Ni one needs to b e found guilty of a crime to be removed in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political process. .

At least one Dem Rep - who will not run for reelection - does not approve of what her colleagues are doing:

Tulsi Gabbard criticizes "partisan" impeachment inquiry: "It needs to be a transparent process"
Tulsi Gabbard has poured cold water on the impeachment inquiry, raising concerns about its transparency and suggesting it is being run in a "partisan" way...

"I think it needs to be a transparent process," she said. "I have long expressed my concern about going through impeachment proceedings in a very, very partisan way because it will only tear apart an already divided country."

 

[Meister]

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

Ni one needs to b e found guilty of a crime to be removed in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political process. .

The FF's were concerned that the impeachment process would be used as a political weapon.
They were a very very smart lot, a lot smarter than what we have lurking on the Hill.

“The Framers meant for the phrase ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ to signify only conduct that seriously harms the public and seriously compromises the officer’s ability to continue. If the phrase is given a less rigorous interpretation, it could allow Congress to influence and control the President and the courts,” said Kinkopf.
What the Founders thought about impeachment and the President - National Constitution Center

 

[Polishprince]

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

Ni one needs to b e found guilty of a crime to be removed in impeachment proceedings. Impeachment is a political process. .

Traditionally, impeachment has been considered "quasi judicial", and the Constitution lists wrongdoing as the reasons for impeachment/removal ("high crimes and misdemeanors")
Of course, this is changing with the secret Soviet-style hearings of Pencil Necked Geek Schiff. And now, any president can expect the Loyal Opposition to work on drumming them out of office from the minute they take the oath. If something happened and Pence took office, the D's would just be looking to impeach him as well.

And if both Trump and Pence left office, Ms. Pelosi could expect the same treatment too.

The liberal fit that has been thrown over the past 3 years is a new precedent.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Nah, right, we don't need no vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Never mind that that's what was done when the House voted to begin impeachment inquiries against Nixon and Clinton. Who needs tradition anyway?

A resolution was passed. It was not required.

When you find yourself spending a lot of time explaining to the people why politicians don't have to answer to them or even conduct business where they can see it, you know you're doing it wrong.

It's not required, dope.

As there was not a special counsel appointted to investigate the latest corruption, the House must do it themselves.
Not unlike a Mueller or Starr grand jury, It's done in secret.

Due process only comes into play when and if it reaches a trial in the Senate.


Until then. Sit back, shut up and hold on, dope. Just like your leaders. They know.

It was you idiots who backed this clown.

Take your medicine, son.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No vote is required by the Constitution, by law, or by House rules. The determination of what constitutes HC&D is entirely up to the House of Representatives.

But neither of these facts excuses the inexcusable behavior - both politically and ethically - of Pelosi and Schiff.

And the Media are complicit in not calling Pelosi for not holding a vote, WHICH SHE WOULD DO IF SHE HAD THE VOTES. She may be old and senile, but she can still count.

Nope, dope.

Show us.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are no detailed procedural rules on how to conduct a presidential impeachment in the house. It is assumed that it be conducted with due process similar to a criminal investigation before it is debated on the floor and voted on.

Bottom line - Democrats are terrified to go on record.

So what if they are? If this goes to a vote a lot of politicians in both parties will have to calculate their vote by what their conscience says vs. their wish to have a continued political career.

The fact Democrats are terrified to take an official position shows how this whole thing is fabricated BS.

Impeachment is a political process not a courtroom thing.

Sort of. Someone still has to be found guilty of a crime to be removed. And here in America, it really hasn't been a tradition to impeach someone just because you don't care for their policies. This apparently is changing.

Nope.