Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Zaydin]

By not conducting a full House vote to authorize impeachment investigation and establishing the rules thereof as were done for both Clinton and Nixon.

There is no legally binding requirement to do so.

I don't recall the GOP ever voting in the full house to authorize their nine Benghazi witch hunts, either.

[nonameelf]

By not conducting a full House vote to authorize impeachment investigation and establishing the rules thereof as were done for both Clinton and Nixon.

Nothing requires them to do so.

And they shouldn't. Not until Republicans stop throwing their little tantrum and are ready to sit down and actually investigate the claims.

[Citizen T]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquittal

Try again.

The first sentence "In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned." immediately proves you wrong. The Senate cannot determine guilty/not guilty of criminal charges. They can only determine whether or not the accused is removed from office. If you don't believe that, then there is nothing I can do to help you other than tell you try to educate yourself on the US Judicial system.

[shimerra]

By not conducting a full House vote to authorize impeachment investigation and establishing the rules thereof as were done for both Clinton and Nixon.

The process to impeach Nixon started after the Saturday night massacre in early October of 1973. This is where we are now investigating and no full house vote was taken. An actual resolution, which is what you partisan hack that you are are referring too, was not passed until February 1974 with a house vote and with actual articles of impeachment until july 1974. Months after actual impeachment investigations began.

If you're going to lie can you suck less at it? Or inform yourself to the bare minimum.

[Citizen T]

There is no legally binding requirement to do so.

I don't recall the GOP ever voting in the full house to authorize their nine Benghazi witch hunts, either.

There is a difference between investigating a political appointee and conducting impeachment investigations. I never said there was a legal requirement for it. I said precedent was ignored, you asked what precedent and I answered. No need to move the goalposts here.

[Zaydin]

There is a difference between investigating a political appointee and conducting impeachment investigations. I never said there was a legal requirement for it. I said precedent was ignored, you asked what precedent and I answered. No need to move the goalposts here.

I was not the one who asked what precedent was ignored. Not sure you really want to be making the 'but mah precedent!' argument given how many times the GOP has broken precedent under Trump.

The only people moving goal posts are members of the Cult of Trump, formerly the Republican party, since what Trump has done is indefensible.

[Somewhatconcerned]

I don't get this preoccupation with an inquiry VOTE. We already largely know which Dems support it and when the House drafts articles, they will vote and you'll see once and for all who supported it.

This notion that a vote would allay partisanship is bogus since Republicans would slam it as partisan anyway LOL.

[Stormspellz]

There is a difference between investigating a political appointee and conducting impeachment investigations. I never said there was a legal requirement for it. I said precedent was ignored, you asked what precedent and I answered. No need to move the goalposts here.

So precedent means we need Ken Starr to hold an investigation? because that's what brought forth Clinton's articles to a vote.

simple truth is the precedent, in context, is an investigation(s) before articles are voted on, which is exactly what the inquiry is. There no specific formal investigation, just simply some kind of investigation.

[Citizen T]

The link disproves your supposition that it only applies when a jury clears someone of charges and proceeds to lay out all the situations in which someone is considered acquitted. Clinton’s deal qualifies.

Oh, and they started investigating Watergate without a house vote.

Incorrect on both accounts.

H.Res.803 - Resolution providing appropriate power to the Committee on the Judiciary to conduct an investigation of whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States.

[Levelfive]

There is a difference between investigating a political appointee and conducting impeachment investigations. I never said there was a legal requirement for it. I said precedent was ignored, you asked what precedent and I answered. No need to move the goalposts here.

Wow, look at Trump supporters, all beside themselves about "norms" they heard about for the first time the other day on Fox news not being followed.

Seems consistent.

[cubby]

Nor was he acquitted as was claimed by Endus. I never said he was convicted only that he was guilty. He was never charged but accepted an agreement to avoid that problem of conviction.

But he wasn't guilty. Your statement was false, and Endus pointed it out, more than once.

[Shadowferal]

There is a difference between investigating a political appointee and conducting impeachment investigations. I never said there was a legal requirement for it. I said precedent was ignored, you asked what precedent and I answered. No need to move the goalposts here.

Pelosi responds to House GOP leader's call to suspend impeachment inquiry

"As you know, our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections. I received your letter this morning shortly after the world witnessed President Trump on national television asking yet another foreign power to interfere in the upcoming 2020 elections."

The big picture: It's clear that Pelosi has no intention of suspending the impeachment inquiry or involving Republicans in the investigation, especially considering that she already has the 218 Democratic votes that would be necessary in a House floor vote.

[Grapemask]

You know things are looking grim when Trumpsters have given up defending the act and are instead crying about the technicalities of dealing with the act.

[Shadowferal]

Bullshit. Republicans are involved all the way as they are part of the committees doing the investigations. Why are they making demonstrably false statements?

wut?

[Citizen T]

1973 is before 1974 buddy. And as per the link someone is acquitted when they can no longer be prosecuted for a crime of which they have not been found guilty. He was acquitted as the prosecution dropped any charges thanks to the deal. That deal is a bar to charges being brought again and he never was judged on them, he was acquitted.

I stand corrected on the acquittal. Due to the nature of that very unique deal, he was acquitted in a legal sense because he could not be tried for the same charges. Even though he publicly admitted to failing to be truthful and was punished for his actions, it was technically an acquittal.

As to investigating in 73, you are referencing the Senate and not the House and it was authorized by the full Senate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-c...-resolution/60

[nonameelf]

Bullshit. Republicans are involved all the way as they are part of the committees doing the investigations. Why are they making demonstrably false statements?

Because they want the subpoena power basically. I think they could also block committee chair subpoenas as well.

Basically to run interference for Trump is why they want it.

[Somewhatconcerned]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ader-pledging#

WH had drafted statements for Ukraine to release, pledging probes into Biden.

Hey...I need a favor, but first read this prepared statement like a good little hostage.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...ader-pledging#

WH had drafted statements for Ukraine to release, pledging probes into Biden.

Hey...I need a favor, but first read this prepared statement like a good like hostage.

Uh...joint statements happen with both parties contributing to the copy but like...what? Has this ever happened before?

They must have been pretty confident in themselves, though that's not surprising given what we know.

Thinking back to Cohn stealing drafts of the US pulling out of our trade agreement with South Korea off of Trump's desk to "protect America" (which would have been done better by removing the man) because they knew he'd forget. Wonder if something like this happened with this draft...

[nonameelf]

They’re actively participating in the inquiry... or have you missed the public hearings? Here’s the judiciary laying out the guidelines and voting on them.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464147...-investigation

Guess who was involved? Republicans!

Read McCarthy's letter. What he wants is the power to block Democrat subpoenas by making it so the Chair and Ranking Member both have to agree on subpoenas.

And also to let Trump's goons into all the meetings to peddle their bullshit.

[draynay]

I'm content to have the investigation continue without fools like Nunes gumming it up.