Trump Impeachment: Pelosi to Announce Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump

Arcangl86 · Oct 15, 2019

Bobber said:
The tradition of how this has been dealt with two times has set the accepted criteria. Anything less is a scam. While Nixon resigned before the House voted it was certainly going the direction for a vote to take place and with Bill Clinton there was allowed a vote by all....and why? To do everything possible not to leave the appearance of it being a partisan endeavour.

The framers of the Constitution definitely would have agreed with this and I'm sure would have assumed it would naturally take place. To stand on the idea there's no legal requirement sets aside really all ethical standards which have already by precedent been put forth and agreed to. I think for the Dems to do this they really throw a money wrench into sound nation building and really create a new type of country. I suggest it would have LOST something precious along the way.

In the years up ahead the power may be reversed...the Dems have the Presidency, the Repubs have the House....there will be no grounds for complaint in future years if Repubs refuse a vote. If this is the type of nation they want then so be it but know they're the ones who in future years created the sad scenario. I think the question I'd ask some here would be IS THIS what you really want?

There was no formal impeachment inquiry for Clinton. They voted to impeach based on the Special Counsel investigation. And as for Nixon, the impeachment inquiry started in the Judiciary Committee before public pressure eventually lead to a impeachment inquiry vote. To use other examples, when the House impeached Judge Thomas Porteous the inquiry started in the Judiciary Committee before there was a full vote in the next session of Congress. The impeachment of Judge Samuel Kent did have a full vote to start an inquiry even though he was currently serving a federal prison sentence. I can't find if the House formally voted to start an impeachment inquiry into Judge Walter Nixon. The impeachment inquiry of then Judge Alcee Hastings started in the House Judiciary Committee without a full House vote. Judge Harry Claiborne was impeached without a prior inquiry. The attempted impeachment of Justice William O. Douglas started with a motion to impeach that was referred to the House Judiciary committee who then launched an investigation. So the tradition of how impeachments have been handled in the past doesn't really support your position.

civilwarbuff · Oct 15, 2019

Arcangl86 said:
Show me the law or rule where it's required for a full House vote before starting an inquiry. There is no legal or procedural requirement.

Since there has only been 3 incidents it is by precedent.

Arcangl86 · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Since there has only been 3 incidents it is by precedent.

1) Precedent isn't binding on the House, who has the sole authority to impeach. 2) There has been many more then 3 incidents. The only difference between impeaching a President and any other officer of the United States is the presiding officer in the removal trial, which makes sense since you don't want the person benefiting to be the judge. 3) Even if you only count Presidents, there has been multiple impeachment attempts even though only 2 of them were successful. 4) Even the three successful or almost successful examples of a President being impeached don't help your case. For Jackson the House voted to impeach him before ordering the House Judiciary COmmittee to draw up articles of Impeachment. For Nixon the investigation was started by the House Judiciary Committee on it's own authority. And for Clinton, the House didn't have an inquiry at all, instead voting for articles of impeachment based on the Starr Report.

Bobber · Oct 16, 2019

I Asked : So tell us Wing if you would....why did the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? I guess they were dumb to do this? Wise to? Right to? What exactly was their motives for doing so?

wing2000 said:
You would have to ask them. The fact is, each House has conducted the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiries differently.

Nope, with all due respect I'm asking you. This is a discussion forum where everyone does their best to make a reasonable assessment. Isn't the question rather simple? Again why would the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? Isn't the answer as simple as 1 + 1 ='s __________

You can't see that's it's as simple as to ensure the process isn't partisan? I get it...to admit this basic truth does put one into a position where they genuinely have to conclude that wait a minute! They ARE violating the spirit of the Constitution and it's intent by not having a vote!

Arcangl86 · Oct 16, 2019

Bobber said:
I Asked : So tell us Wing if you would....why did the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? I guess they were dumb to do this? Wise to? Right to? What exactly was their motives for doing so?

Nope, with all due respect I'm asking you. This is a discussion forum where everyone does their best to make a reasonable assessment. Isn't the question rather simple? Again why would the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? Isn't the answer as simple as 1 + 1 ='s __________

You can't see that's it's as simple as to ensure the process isn't partisan? I get it...to admit this basic truth does put one into a position where they genuinely have to conclude that wait a minute! They ARE violating the spirit of the Constitution and it's intent by not having a vote!

They didn't. They voted to impeach Clinton, not to start an investigation.

Zanting · Oct 16, 2019

Very good...it isn't looking good for the democrats on that front anyway...they don't have anything to base an impeachment inquiry on.

cow451 · Oct 16, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Since there has only been 3 incidents it is by precedent.

Trump is admired by his base because he has no respect for precedent.

cow451 · Oct 16, 2019

Bobber said:
I Asked : So tell us Wing if you would....why did the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? I guess they were dumb to do this? Wise to? Right to? What exactly was their motives for doing so?

Nope, with all due respect I'm asking you. This is a discussion forum where everyone does their best to make a reasonable assessment. Isn't the question rather simple? Again why would the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? Isn't the answer as simple as 1 + 1 ='s __________

You can't see that's it's as simple as to ensure the process isn't partisan? I get it...to admit this basic truth does put one into a position where they genuinely have to conclude that wait a minute! They ARE violating the spirit of the Constitution and it's intent by not having a vote!

Even if we assume you are correct. They cannot have a trial that excludes the GOP. Each side is using the legal tactics they think will work. Nothing new about having strategies.

wing2000 · Oct 16, 2019

Bobber said:
Nope, with all due respect I'm asking you. This is a discussion forum where everyone does their best to make a reasonable assessment. Isn't the question rather simple? Again why would the Republican-controlled House allow a vote when Clinton was impeached? Isn't the answer as simple as 1 + 1 ='s

September 24, 1998: The House Judiciary Committee announces the committee will consider a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry against President Clinton in an open session on October 5 or October 6.

October 5, 1998: On a 21-16 vote, the House Judiciary Committee recommends a full impeachment inquiry.

October 8, 1998: The House of Representatives authorizes a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry of President Clinton on a 258-176 vote. Thirty-one Democrats join Republicans in supporting the investigation.

To answer the question as to "why the Republican-controlled House allow a vote" - I would need go back and review the Judiciary Committee members' and the House leadership's comments at the time (hence my response). But if I were to guess, the 1998 mid-term general elections were less than a month away when that decision was made. Most likely the GOP felt it was to their political advantage to have every member of Congress go on record with a vote before the election. In hind sight, we know their calculation was wrong (i.e. they lost seats).

wing2000 · Oct 17, 2019

Mick Mulvaney, without consulting with the WH legal counsel, just sped up the impeachment case:

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Thursday that President Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kyiv to secure a politically motivated investigation of Democrats, a startling acknowledgment after the president’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo.

Mulvaney defended the maneuver as “absolutely appropriate.”

“Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it, that’s why we held up the money,” Mulvaney said, referring to an unproven conspiracy theory that a hacked Democratic National Committee computer server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that Kyiv, not Moscow, interfered in the last U.S. presidential election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4b30d0-f0ee-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

evoeth · Oct 17, 2019

wing2000 said:
Mick Mulvaney, without consulting with the WH legal counsel, just sped up the impeachment case:

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told reporters Thursday that President Trump blocked nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine in part to force the government in Kyiv to secure a politically motivated investigation of Democrats, a startling acknowledgment after the president’s repeated denials of a quid pro quo.

Mulvaney defended the maneuver as “absolutely appropriate.”

“Did he also mention to me in the past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question about that. But that’s it, that’s why we held up the money,” Mulvaney said, referring to an unproven conspiracy theory that a hacked Democratic National Committee computer server was taken to Ukraine in 2016 to hide evidence that Kyiv, not Moscow, interfered in the last U.S. presidential election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4b30d0-f0ee-11e9-b648-76bcf86eb67e_story.html

Incorrect. There was only ever one GOP defense. Crimes aren't crimes.

This is a political argument that Dems are bad so give us license.

DaisyDay · Oct 18, 2019

lasthero said:
When you really think about it, even if the narrative that Republicans are pushing is true, it doesn't put Trump in a good light. Even if I accept that he was just investigating something in the pursuit of justice, it still makes him look like a fool for beating a horse that's been dead for years, and not realizing how bad this would make him look.

At worst he's a crook, at best he's an idiot. That's your president, folks.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times...

Trump Impeachment: Pelosi to Announce Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

not so new

Standing with Ukraine.

Standing with Ukraine.

E pluribus unum

E pluribus unum

Man trying to figure things out

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Similar threads