Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm sure the dems are confident enough they have enough votes...
Ok, I will help you out. Because if they actually vote on it, the President has a chance to call witnesses and it gives him subpoena power. They don't want him to have it. Maybe you can think about why.
I have no idea how old you are, but one thing you should learn about politics is that it usually moves slowly. I remember being amazed at Trump's ignorance when he believed that the Mueller investigation was going to end by Christmas.
This will move even more slowly since Trump, presumably because he's starting to realize what trouble he's in, is doing everything possible to obstruct.
She couldn't call a vote right now? See above post. I am old enough to see through the BS.
Yet every single time there has been an official impeachment inquiry of a president there has been a vote authorizing it. If they didn't really need one, why has it literally always happened?
All two other times?
The fact is the House and the Senate are each free to define the process of "how" their respective portions of the impeachment process work.
Further facts - there is nothing requiring a vote for an impeachment inquiry to be "official".
Yet without it they lack the legitimacy to compel cooperation....which is why that kind of vote has literally always happened when it comes to authorizing official impeachment inquires of the president.
Incorrect, see below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
When Nixon was impeached, an inquiry vote was taken because the House committees did not have subpoena power. The vote was needed to grant those powers. Several years ago, when the Republicans held the majority in the House, they voted a rule change that gave the majority permanent standing subpoena power. Therefore no inquiry vote is needed today because it would be redundant, the committee majority already has all the subpoena power they need.
Nothing in the Constitution requires a full House vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
You realize what you just posted doesn't help you right? It says
Has the house initiated proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing and inquiry? I'm pretty sure they didn't.
Don't just re-post talking points, actually read it.
You realize the meaning of the word "could", right?
The fact is that the Constitution doesn't require a vote for the House to start an impeachment inquiry. The fact is that the House rules don't require a vote to start in impeachment inquiry.
I have no idea how old you are, but one thing you should learn about politics is that it usually moves slowly. I remember being amazed at Trump's ignorance when he believed that the Mueller investigation was going to end by Christmas.
This will move even more slowly since Trump, presumably because he's starting to realize what trouble he's in, is doing everything possible to obstruct.
His sorry behind getting impeached. And having his corruption exposed and whatever legacy he has destroyed. It's coming anyway. Probably by the ballot box and a bunch of books that will be written by former Trump admin officials.
Telling your people not to respond to a subpoena is obstruction. Plain and simple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
