Why won't they put impeachment to a vote?

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by natalie469

They are going through the proper procedure. Do you not think Pelosi knows more about government and our constitution then Trump. Inquiry first. There doesn’t need to be a house vote. Trump is just trying to stall. if the Trump administration doesn’t comply then they are obstructionists. And that leaves many wondering what he is trying to hide.

She knows how to fool her idiot followers, that are buying this crap as an "impeachment inquiry"
It is normal oversight and separation of powers playing the normal games that are played, in a politically split government.

[natalie469]

Originally Posted by BentBow

natalie does not understand how separation of powers works in the land of consent.

Read article 2, section. Trump should read it as well.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Grlzrl

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.

The questioning from the witnesses the President calls could be quite entertaining and quite the mess for Biden and (Hillary) Clinton.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by bobbythegreat

It's simply not false, you don't know what you are talking about.

That said, I'll play along, by all means tell me when there has been a presidential impeachment inquiry in this nation's history that was not first authorized by passing a resolution in the house. I'll wait.

Normally courts avoid inter-branch issues on the basis of separation of powers or the "political question" doctrine. The use of the contempt powers to fine or imprison, however, implicates the courts. That's where the need for a "presidential impeachment inquiry" likely comes into play. The courts don't like to enforce a "Wild West" type of a subpoena process. They want to see some indication of regularity.