Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

[corrected formatting]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Your source is behind a paywall.

Question for you: Do you believe it's inappropriate for the President, VP, or a member of Congress to work with a foreign government, especially one that is hostile, to get information on an opponent? Does that meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Ah, but you have not answered my question, and I asked first.

What's your source for the claim that a House vote has to be held before an investigation can be held by subcommittee?

The cry here is to more forward formally to impeach the President. From every Dem that takes the mic. THAT requires a vote. That's what I am referring to - the screaming from the Democratic party and from DCUM that he must be impeached, not investigated. You guys have been holding "inquiries" for his whole time in office, which, frankly, are starting to resemble the hysteria of the Salem witch trials.

That's ... not "announcing an impeachment."

I can see you have much confusion.

There is nothing improper about a subcommittee holding an impeachment inquiry. That's how it's been done before in 2 of the 3 impeachment sagas of our history.

You can spout of on whatever other things you want as distractions, but you are just flat out wrong on this. Or -- cite something, hmm? If you can. (You can't.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[corrected formatting]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Your source is behind a paywall.

Question for you: Do you believe it's inappropriate for the President, VP, or a member of Congress to work with a foreign government, especially one that is hostile, to get information on an opponent? Does that meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Ah, but you have not answered my question, and I asked first.

What's your source for the claim that a House vote has to be held before an investigation can be held by subcommittee?

The cry here is to more forward formally to impeach the President. From every Dem that takes the mic. THAT requires a vote. That's what I am referring to - the screaming from the Democratic party and from DCUM that he must be impeached, not investigated. You guys have been holding "inquiries" for his whole time in office, which, frankly, are starting to resemble the hysteria of the Salem witch trials.

That's ... not "announcing an impeachment."

I can see you have much confusion.

There is nothing improper about a subcommittee holding an impeachment inquiry. That's how it's been done before in 2 of the 3 impeachment sagas of our history.

You can spout of on whatever other things you want as distractions, but you are just flat out wrong on this. Or -- cite something, hmm? If you can. (You can't.)

Might've spoken too soon:

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[corrected formatting]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Your source is behind a paywall.

Question for you: Do you believe it's inappropriate for the President, VP, or a member of Congress to work with a foreign government, especially one that is hostile, to get information on an opponent? Does that meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Ah, but you have not answered my question, and I asked first.

What's your source for the claim that a House vote has to be held before an investigation can be held by subcommittee?

The cry here is to more forward formally to impeach the President. From every Dem that takes the mic. THAT requires a vote. That's what I am referring to - the screaming from the Democratic party and from DCUM that he must be impeached, not investigated. You guys have been holding "inquiries" for his whole time in office, which, frankly, are starting to resemble the hysteria of the Salem witch trials.

That's ... not "announcing an impeachment."

I can see you have much confusion.

There is nothing improper about a subcommittee holding an impeachment inquiry. That's how it's been done before in 2 of the 3 impeachment sagas of our history.

You can spout of on whatever other things you want as distractions, but you are just flat out wrong on this. Or -- cite something, hmm? If you can. (You can't.)

Might've spoken too soon:

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

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

Right, because the party of No is known for their good-faith work on bipartisan issues...

Are you saying that the minority would be helpful in any of this process? Who, Jordan? Meadows? Nunes? Burr maybe, but he's a senator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I just said that I was incorrect - that an inquiry doesn't actually require a vote but that the Democrats are not talking publicly about "let's have an inquiry". They are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment. You are saying they are not doing that? Seriously? There's video.

I missed that you said you were incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

As your "conservative treehouse" (?) link indicates, there is no requirement for a formal full House vote before inquiry. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was conducting an investigative inquiry into Watergate for about a full year before the House held a vote. As for Clinton, an investigation was done by Ken Starr, appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation, with that morphing into an investigation into the Lewinsky scandal and whether Clinton lied under oath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just said that I was incorrect - that an inquiry doesn't actually require a vote but that the Democrats are not talking publicly about "let's have an inquiry". They are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment. You are saying they are not doing that? Seriously? There's video.

I missed that you said you were incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

As your "conservative treehouse" (?) link indicates, there is no requirement for a formal full House vote before inquiry. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was conducting an investigative inquiry into Watergate for about a full year before the House held a vote. As for Clinton, an investigation was done by Ken Starr, appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation, with that morphing into an investigation into the Lewinsky scandal and whether Clinton lied under oath.

It also says this (which you conveniently ignored, but I'm not surprised at all by that)

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[corrected formatting]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pence knew

https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1177994106636832768

I'm beginning to think that liberals don't respect the Constitution at all. Sounds like they want to overthrow the electoral college and put a Democrat in office.

Impeach != overthrow. And impeachment is in the Constitution.

When you announce an impeachment BEFORE you know the actual facts, then yes, it's it's overthrowing.

Impeachment is very specifically defined in the constitution.

Do you honestly know how bad it will look to mainstream America if you manage to throw Trump and Pence out of office and Pelosi becomes President? You probably don't because you live in the DC bubble. Probably are a Fed or a contractor.

I honestly can't tell -- don't you know the difference between an "impeachment" and an "impeachment inquiry?"

(still interested in an answer for this)

I absolutely do. Why announce an inquiry before you have the transcript of the call? Why tweet about a whistleblower complaint end of August that comes to fruition end of September (hint, Schiff already knew). And why not read the transcript as is to the American people instead of creating what Schiff now calls a 'parody'.

I don't think they expected a transcript.

You are the PP that was quoted? And you think an impeachment has been announced?

The point of an inquiry is to gather facts.

It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?

This is how it works. This is how it worked for Nixon in Watergate, as well, and for the Clinton investigation -- a subcommittee initiated an investigation and then recommended articles of impeachment to the full House. I mean, the House could just hold a floor vote, but why on earth would you think that is the only way forward?

**Care to cite a source for that claim?**

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/impeachment-trump-explained.html?module=inline
How the Impeachment Process Works

Your source is behind a paywall.

Question for you: Do you believe it's inappropriate for the President, VP, or a member of Congress to work with a foreign government, especially one that is hostile, to get information on an opponent? Does that meet the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Ah, but you have not answered my question, and I asked first.

What's your source for the claim that a House vote has to be held before an investigation can be held by subcommittee?

The cry here is to more forward formally to impeach the President. From every Dem that takes the mic. THAT requires a vote. That's what I am referring to - the screaming from the Democratic party and from DCUM that he must be impeached, not investigated. You guys have been holding "inquiries" for his whole time in office, which, frankly, are starting to resemble the hysteria of the Salem witch trials.

That's ... not "announcing an impeachment."

I can see you have much confusion.

There is nothing improper about a subcommittee holding an impeachment inquiry. That's how it's been done before in 2 of the 3 impeachment sagas of our history.

You can spout of on whatever other things you want as distractions, but you are just flat out wrong on this. Or -- cite something, hmm? If you can. (You can't.)

Might've spoken too soon:

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

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

Right, because the party of No is known for their good-faith work on bipartisan issues...

Are you saying that the minority would be helpful in any of this process? Who, Jordan? Meadows? Nunes? Burr maybe, but he's a senator.

So you are saying that the minority has to be helpful? Typical liberal thinking - you MUST agree with US. Facist

[Anonymous]

Wow, Jeff took out the footnote, which came directly from the Whistleblower's statement. Talk about dishonesty!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just said that I was incorrect - that an inquiry doesn't actually require a vote but that the Democrats are not talking publicly about "let's have an inquiry". They are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment. You are saying they are not doing that? Seriously? There's video.

I missed that you said you were incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

As your "conservative treehouse" (?) link indicates, there is no requirement for a formal full House vote before inquiry. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was conducting an investigative inquiry into Watergate for about a full year before the House held a vote. As for Clinton, an investigation was done by Ken Starr, appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation, with that morphing into an investigation into the Lewinsky scandal and whether Clinton lied under oath.

I suppose you're not going to comment about the footnote in the whistleblower's statement I posted?

[Anonymous]

This is the footnote. The whistleblower referenced it three times in his/her statement Follow the money (re the OCCRP).

"In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I just said that I was incorrect - that an inquiry doesn't actually require a vote but that the Democrats are not talking publicly about "let's have an inquiry". They are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment. You are saying they are not doing that? Seriously? There's video.

I missed that you said you were incorrect. Thanks for clarifying.

As your "conservative treehouse" (?) link indicates, there is no requirement for a formal full House vote before inquiry. The Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities was conducting an investigative inquiry into Watergate for about a full year before the House held a vote. As for Clinton, an investigation was done by Ken Starr, appointed by a special three-judge division of the D.C. Circuit to continue the Whitewater investigation, with that morphing into an investigation into the Lewinsky scandal and whether Clinton lied under oath.

It also says this (which you conveniently ignored, but I'm not surprised at all by that)

A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi’s changed House rules.

I'm sorry, I thought you said "It should be, yes. But there's a process that one has to go through in order to officially open an inquiry. And that includes a house vote. Has that taken place?"

Which is not required.

[Anonymous]

Congressional Research Service: The Impeachment Process in the House
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

“In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation.”

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of traditions (tax returns, blue slips) that have been ignored in the last couple of years. Why should the vote on an impeachment inquiry be any different?

[Anonymous]

iThey are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment.

If you actually read the statements from 85-90% of the representatives, they’re really not. They want the facts about what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

iThey are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment.

If you actually read the statements from 85-90% of the representatives, they’re really not. They want the facts about what happened.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

iThey are screaming 'corruption' and 'impeachment.

If you actually read the statements from 85-90% of the representatives, they’re really not. They want the facts about what happened.

Exactly.

No, they aren't at all. LOL. Three years of this garbage. There was a list of what, 152 of them supporting impeachment a year ago. Please.