Democrats keep impeachment alive by skirting House rules

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Impeachment Inquiry? Impeachment Investigation? Nadler Refuses to ‘Argue About Nomenclature’

Nadler said, "The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power."
...
Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said, "Welcome to Fantasy Island." He tweeted that the only way to launch authentic impeachment proceedings is for the full House to take a vote.

"Democrats followed the yellow brick road, and now they’re fully lost in impeachment Oz -- try as they might, they can’t find their way out of the mess they’ve made because they think 'words don’t matter,'" Collins tweeted.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted, "Democrats have NO IDEA what they are doing. Right at this moment they are holding an imaginary impeachment hearing that means nothing. But you can't impeach a president who hasn't done anything wrong!"
...
"The problem is, currently what the law requires to impeach any president is a vote of the full House of Representatives on a resolution for articles of impeachment. Problem for the Democrats is, they've tried that three times and it failed three times. So today they want to change the rules to keep impeachment alive," Ratcliffe said
.​
 
  • Informative
Reactions: brinny

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,692
LA
✟551,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
But you can't impeach a president who hasn't done anything wrong!"

1. You can impeach a president who hasn’t done anything wrong. It might not go anywhere but you can do it.
2. President Trump has done things that are wrong. The problem is Republicans have lowered their standards for unacceptable, impeachable behavior from a president.
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They have to do what they have to do because no GOP backbone has existed since 2016. Archaeologists are stunned by the disappearance of vertebrae in this subset of mammals.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Impeachment Inquiry? Impeachment Investigation? Nadler Refuses to ‘Argue About Nomenclature’

Nadler said, "The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power."
...
Ranking Judiciary Committee Member Doug Collins (R-Ga.) said, "Welcome to Fantasy Island." He tweeted that the only way to launch authentic impeachment proceedings is for the full House to take a vote.

"Democrats followed the yellow brick road, and now they’re fully lost in impeachment Oz -- try as they might, they can’t find their way out of the mess they’ve made because they think 'words don’t matter,'" Collins tweeted.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) tweeted, "Democrats have NO IDEA what they are doing. Right at this moment they are holding an imaginary impeachment hearing that means nothing. But you can't impeach a president who hasn't done anything wrong!"
...
"The problem is, currently what the law requires to impeach any president is a vote of the full House of Representatives on a resolution for articles of impeachment. Problem for the Democrats is, they've tried that three times and it failed three times. So today they want to change the rules to keep impeachment alive," Ratcliffe said
.​

Your article doesn't allege any skirting of any rules. The rules require a full House vote for an actual impeachment, not for an investigation.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Your article doesn't allege any skirting of any rules. The rules require a full House vote for an actual impeachment, not for an investigation.
Incorrect.

Lawmakers Consider Resolution for Impeachment Procedures

IN THE 206 YEARS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS SAT, IT HAS NEVER CONDUCTED AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITHOUT FIRST BEING AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY A VOTE OF THE FULL HOUSE. THAT'S BECAUSE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BELONGS TO THE WHOLE HOUSE AND THE WHOLE HOUSE HAS NOT DELEGATED THAT POWER TO ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES. IT MUST FIRST MAKE THAT DELEGATION AND TO THIS DATE, IT HAS NOT. COMMITTEES ARE CREATURES OF THE HOUSE. THEIR ONLY POWERS ARE THOSE THAT ARE DELEGATED BY THE HOUSE. COMMITTEES CAN'T FREELANCE. IF THE MAJORITY WANTS TO EXERCISE THE HOUSE'S POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE TO DO SO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE THAT IT DIRECT AND AUTHORIZE THIS COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. RESOLVE THAT THE HOUSE AUTHORIZES THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

I DARE YOU TO DO IT. IN FACT, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO DO IT. HAVE THE HOUSE VOTE ON THOSE 18 WORDS AND THEN GO AT IT. WHY WON'T YOU DO THAT? IT'S BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ILLUSION OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT THE REALITY OF IT. YOU'RE DUPING THAT PORTION OF YOUR BASE THAT IS CLAMBERING FOR IMPEACHMENT INTO THINKING YOU ARE WHEN YOU AREN'T. SOME DEMOCRATS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THEY'RE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHILE OTHERS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THAT THEY AREN'T. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR IMPEACHMENT AND DENY IT TOO. THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T PASS THIS RESOLUTION.

IF THIS PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF SUCH HEINOUS CRIMES AS YOU IRRESPONSIBLEABLY CHARGE, WHY ARE YOU SO RELUCTANT TO IMPEACH HIM? IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE THESE ACCUSATIONS, WHY WON'T YOU DO SO BEFORE THE SUN GOES DOWN? YOU WON'T DO SO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER TRULY LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT'S UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW
.​

- Tom McClintock (R) CA
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Incorrect.

Lawmakers Consider Resolution for Impeachment Procedures

IN THE 206 YEARS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS SAT, IT HAS NEVER CONDUCTED AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITHOUT FIRST BEING AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY A VOTE OF THE FULL HOUSE. THAT'S BECAUSE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BELONGS TO THE WHOLE HOUSE AND THE WHOLE HOUSE HAS NOT DELEGATED THAT POWER TO ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES. IT MUST FIRST MAKE THAT DELEGATION AND TO THIS DATE, IT HAS NOT. COMMITTEES ARE CREATURES OF THE HOUSE. THEIR ONLY POWERS ARE THOSE THAT ARE DELEGATED BY THE HOUSE. COMMITTEES CAN'T FREELANCE. IF THE MAJORITY WANTS TO EXERCISE THE HOUSE'S POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE TO DO SO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE THAT IT DIRECT AND AUTHORIZE THIS COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. RESOLVE THAT THE HOUSE AUTHORIZES THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

I DARE YOU TO DO IT. IN FACT, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO DO IT. HAVE THE HOUSE VOTE ON THOSE 18 WORDS AND THEN GO AT IT. WHY WON'T YOU DO THAT? IT'S BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ILLUSION OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT THE REALITY OF IT. YOU'RE DUPING THAT PORTION OF YOUR BASE THAT IS CLAMBERING FOR IMPEACHMENT INTO THINKING YOU ARE WHEN YOU AREN'T. SOME DEMOCRATS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THEY'RE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHILE OTHERS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THAT THEY AREN'T. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR IMPEACHMENT AND DENY IT TOO. THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T PASS THIS RESOLUTION.

IF THIS PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF SUCH HEINOUS CRIMES AS YOU IRRESPONSIBLEABLY CHARGE, WHY ARE YOU SO RELUCTANT TO IMPEACH HIM? IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE THESE ACCUSATIONS, WHY WON'T YOU DO SO BEFORE THE SUN GOES DOWN? YOU WON'T DO SO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER TRULY LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT'S UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW
.​

- Tom McClintock (R) CA
Lo6 like you proved Iluvatars’ point. It is a precedent but not violating a rule.
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Incorrect.

Lawmakers Consider Resolution for Impeachment Procedures

IN THE 206 YEARS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS SAT, IT HAS NEVER CONDUCTED AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING WITHOUT FIRST BEING AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY A VOTE OF THE FULL HOUSE. THAT'S BECAUSE THE POWER OF IMPEACHMENT BELONGS TO THE WHOLE HOUSE AND THE WHOLE HOUSE HAS NOT DELEGATED THAT POWER TO ANY OF ITS COMMITTEES. IT MUST FIRST MAKE THAT DELEGATION AND TO THIS DATE, IT HAS NOT. COMMITTEES ARE CREATURES OF THE HOUSE. THEIR ONLY POWERS ARE THOSE THAT ARE DELEGATED BY THE HOUSE. COMMITTEES CAN'T FREELANCE. IF THE MAJORITY WANTS TO EXERCISE THE HOUSE'S POWER OF IMPEACHMENT, ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE TO DO SO. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS ASK THE HOUSE THAT IT DIRECT AND AUTHORIZE THIS COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DO. RESOLVE THAT THE HOUSE AUTHORIZES THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT AN INQUIRY INTO THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

I DARE YOU TO DO IT. IN FACT, I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU TO DO IT. HAVE THE HOUSE VOTE ON THOSE 18 WORDS AND THEN GO AT IT. WHY WON'T YOU DO THAT? IT'S BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GIVE THE ILLUSION OF IMPEACHMENT WITHOUT THE REALITY OF IT. YOU'RE DUPING THAT PORTION OF YOUR BASE THAT IS CLAMBERING FOR IMPEACHMENT INTO THINKING YOU ARE WHEN YOU AREN'T. SOME DEMOCRATS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THEY'RE CONDUCTING AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY WHILE OTHERS CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENCIES THAT THEY AREN'T. YOU CAN HAVE YOUR IMPEACHMENT AND DENY IT TOO. THAT'S WHY YOU WON'T PASS THIS RESOLUTION.

IF THIS PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF SUCH HEINOUS CRIMES AS YOU IRRESPONSIBLEABLY CHARGE, WHY ARE YOU SO RELUCTANT TO IMPEACH HIM? IF YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE THESE ACCUSATIONS, WHY WON'T YOU DO SO BEFORE THE SUN GOES DOWN? YOU WON'T DO SO BECAUSE YOU CAN'T. AND IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT AN ABUSE OF POWER TRULY LOOKS LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT'S UNFOLDING RIGHT NOW
.​

- Tom McClintock (R) CA

As Tom McClintock pointed out, precedent is the rule ... just as precedent sets law in the legal system.

Perhaps you or McClintock or someone else could show us all how/when the House Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to begin its impeachment investigation of Nixon in 1974.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps you or McClintock or someone else could show us all how/when the House Judiciary Committee was authorized by the full House to begin its impeachment investigation of Nixon in 1974.
The very way Tom McClintock has already indicated:
Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia
An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal.​

You're welcome. Is there anything else you would like me to Google for you?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The very way Tom McClintock has already indicated:
Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia
An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal.​

You're welcome. Is there anything else you would like me to Google for you?

No, actually, that's perfect. I was hoping you'd give that answer, because as that page points out, preliminary investigations and proceedings began before that:

Impeachment process against Richard Nixon - Wikipedia

The Judiciary committee began its investigation in 1973 and both parties in the House had started hiring legal staff for the Impeachment Inquiry before that February 1974 vote.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
No, actually, that's perfect. I was hoping you'd give that answer, because as that page points out, preliminary investigations and proceedings began before that:
Curiously, I don't see that stated anywhere there. Instead, I see numerous references to the fact that the Judiciary was reluctant to get involved with impeachment inquiries, despite a few house members formally calling for initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Perhaps, you can provide a quote from the article to substantiate your claim?
 
Upvote 0

iluvatar5150

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2012
25,027
23,936
Baltimore
✟551,742.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Curiously, I don't see that stated anywhere there. Instead, I see numerous references to the fact that the Judiciary was reluctant to get involved with impeachment inquiries, despite a few house members formally calling for initiation of impeachment proceedings.

Perhaps, you can provide a quote from the article to substantiate your claim?

It's the entire sub-section I linked to:

After the Saturday Night Massacre, Rodino began his committee's investigation. On October 30, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee began consideration of the possible impeachment of Richard Nixon. The initial straight party-line votes by a 21–17 margin were focused around how extensive the subpoena powers Rodino would have would be.[20]

Over the next two months, as the impeachment investigations began, there was speculation in Washington that Nixon might resign. Despite several attempts to do so, Nixon had not been able to put Watergate behind him, and the momentum of events was against him.[21] At one point during November 1973 he felt forced to say, "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook."[22] There were rumors in Washington that Nixon was in poor mental and physical shape; in December 1973 Senator Barry Goldwater wrote a private note that said, "I have reason to suspect that all might not be well mentally in the White House. This is the only copy that will ever be made of this; it will be locked in my safe."[23]

By early January 1974 there was sufficient chance of impeachment moving forward that Nixon wrote in his diary that his main approach to defending against such a move would be to "act like a president" with respect to foreign and domestic duties.[25] At the end of his January 30 State of the Union address, Nixon asked for an expeditious resolution to any impeachment proceedings against him, so that the government could function fully effectively again.[26]

The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff.[27] Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff.[28] Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process.[19]

Albert E. Jenner, Jr. was named in January 1974 as top counsel on the Impeachment Inquiry staff for the Republican minority on the committee.[29] Attorney Sam Garrison, who had been an aide to Vice President Agnew, also joined the minority legal staff following Agnew's resignation.[30]
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Not hardly. But nice try.
You're right of course. Democrats are quite free to ignore the civil precedents which have allowed the House of Representatives to function for more than two centuries. There is a price to be paid though. There's always a price.

Not long after Harry Reid broke the filibuster precedent ... Democrats complained long and loud when Republicans, who had recaptured the Senate, decided to do the very same thing. Karma bites ...
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're right of course. Democrats are quite free to ignore the civil precedents which have allowed the House of Representatives to function for more than two centuries. There is a price to be paid though. There's always a price.

Not long after Harry Reid broke the filibuster precedent ... Democrats complained long and loud when Republicans, who had recaptured the Senate, decided to do the very same thing. Karma bites ...
Welcome to America. The party in power decides the rules. The GOP sets the Senate rules, the Dems do it in the House.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Welcome to America. The party in power decides the rules. The GOP sets the Senate rules, the Dems do it in the House.
Noting that that's the way 3rd-world countries ... and tyrannical regimes ... operate.

Anything to win ... the end justifies the means. :(
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Noting that that's the way 3rd-world countries ... and tyrannical regimes ... operate.

Anything to win ... the end justifies the means. :(
The current President has always adhered to this philosophy. His fantasy is a Putin style government.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟781,037.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
The current President has always adhered to this philosophy. His fantasy is a Putin style government.
Yet, curiously, Trump has not faced any criminal charges. Ever, that I know of ... despite being the target of a multi-year criminal investigation.

His adversaries, the ones making unfounded allegations, are now beginning to face criminal prosecution ... for employing "end justifies the means" tactics. Jus' sayin ...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Gigimo
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

essentialsaltes

Stranger in a Strange Land
Oct 17, 2011
32,823
36,111
Los Angeles Area
✟820,460.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
IT HAS NEVER CONDUCTED AN IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDING

I don't want to argue nomenclature either, but an impeachment investigation isn't an impeachment proceeding.

YOU'RE DUPING THAT PORTION OF YOUR BASE THAT IS CLAMBERING FOR IMPEACHMENT INTO THINKING YOU ARE WHEN YOU AREN'T.

Those of us here seem to understand just fine.
 
Upvote 0