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.
Why would you post that when it undercuts your position?
I mean, yeah, that's what authorized the House Judiciary Committee to hold an official inquiry.....now post the House resolution authorizing the current alleged inquiry. Clinton's was passed 258 - 176, how about the current one? Oh wait, there never was one.
You post the House resolution requiring a full House majority vote to authorize the Judiciary committee to hold an official inquiry.
You post the House resolution requiring a full House majority vote to authorize the Judiciary committee to hold an official inquiry.
This from the person who was spamming this?
Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry.
Now does it say, "the House Judiciary Committee could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution within their own committee authorizing themselves to conduct an inquiry" or does it say the House could do it? Also, literally 100% of precedent in the history of the country suggests that the House authorizes those inquires, not the Judiciary committee going around the House by authorizing themselves.
There's a reason why they are breaking with precedent and putting their credibility at risk, they are just that afraid of doing things the right way, and it shows.
A newly unearthed document shows that Ukrainian officials had opened a new probe into the firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump's phone call with that country's leader, Fox News contributor John Solomon reported late Tuesday.
"The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation," he claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky," he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine's president at that time.
"This is a significant shift in the factual timeline."
Not just anyone has the power to tell them that they don't have to cooperate, without a legitimate inquiry taking place, the executive does though. So unless they want to authorize a legitimate inquiry, they have no standing to compel the executive to cooperate in any way.
The courts are going to have quite a different view of that.
So you are trying to say that the House Judiciary Committee has the authority to pass a resolution merely within their committee to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an inquiry? See how that doesn't make sense? Yeah, that's why that has never been how it has been done before. They've always had the actual House authorize the inquiry...and that's exactly what would take place this time if Pelosi wasn't afraid of the potential repercussions of having a legitimate process.
Precisely. The HJC is where impeachment starts.
I knew if you hung around long enough you'd learn something.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought none of this was legitimate, and therefore had no legal standing with the courts. If any of this is going to court, it means that it's all correct and proper.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways.
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.
