House Passes Resolution Formalizing Impeachment Inquiry

[gdgyva]

With all due respect, there isn't enough room in a football stadium for that much bull****. You think a vote on impeachment articles is going to compel Barr and the DOJ to enforce the House's subpoenas? Please don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

As you've been told quite a few times already, a House supboena is a House subpoena is a House subpoena. There is no more forceful or legitimate subpoena than the ones that have already been issued. The Trump administration is never going to satisfy them no matter how many votes the Democrats take, which is a big part of the reason Trump is going to be impeached. Ironically, as he's shoring up his base with these unconstitutional tactics, he's alienating moderates and independents. Most Americans frown on lawlessness, especially by their president.

good luck with that approach

the people i talk to, want this debated on the floor of the house

maybe you all dont want the witnesses testifying in braod daylight

the american people will demand it.....but it cant happen till the vote happens

so...as they saying goes, the ball is in her court.....

opcorn2:

 

[Gimmesometruth]

huh? who said the GOP/President wanted a vote on the house rules?

that is the way it works, you formalize the public hearings, that is the process, it is what the GOP has been screaming about for a month now.

 

[gdgyva]

sigh

Neither the Constitution, nor US law, nor House rules, required a formal vote from the full House to start an impeachment inquiry.

A federal judge even ruled in court the other day that it wasn't required.

The "risk" was that Democratic Representatives in Trump-leaning districts might get some blowback from voting on a formal inquiry. iven that almost every single House Dem voted for the inquiry, those Reps obviously concluded that the risk was small.

for rules....there was NO RISK

for impeachment....BIG RISK

big difference

 

[JasperL]

The House is relying on the credibility of the whistle blower. It matters to the truth of the issues. Corroborated 2nd hand isn't corroborated by someone that actually listened to the call.

You can keep asserting it but it's will always be false. No one cares what was in that initial complaint at this point. The only value in outing the WB is to engage in shooting the messenger, ad hominem attacks, call it what you want.

 

[bubbabgone]

Try again.

• The whistleblower never said he was on the call; he even explicitly wrote "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described"

• White House attorneys deliberately and inappropriately locked down the call summary in a secure server designed for highly classified materials

• Other call notes were locked down to the same systems

• Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy

• Numerous White House / Executive Branch staffers were deeply worried about the call, and thought Trump was abusing his position for personal gain

• The Ukraine call did not discuss any corruption cases except the false claims about the Bidens

• Ukraine was encouraged to "play ball"

• Trump was pushing for "investigations" while changing US policies on Ukraine

• The whistleblower was concerned that Trump wanted to get Barr involved

Do us a favor, and try to keep up, kthx.

"Pretty much everything that the first whistleblower was concerned about has been corroborated." is not true.

 

[Obscurity]

Pelosi just did have a vote, an unnecessary one at this stage, but one the GOP seemed to want. huh? who said the GOP/President wanted a vote on the house rules? that doesnt put the 30 odd house members at risk....the impeachment vote will....

The republicans/GOP is not going to abandon Trump until there is ample reason....we arent even close to that

You are barely at 50% of the country wanting Trump impeached.....that number needs to get closer to 70% before this gets to actual senate confirmation territory

so...we will see what happens through the holidays....as the witnesses dry up, and the subpoena's go unanswered...and then see where Nancy goes....

Oh, so you want a vote for political purposes, even though it's not necessary - thanks for confirming your partisan wish.

Let me ask you this, and I'd like an honest answer.

Are you even open to your mind being changed about this Ukraine scandal, at all?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

good luck with that approach

the people i talk to, want this debated on the floor of the house

maybe you all dont want the witnesses testifying in braod daylight

the american people will demand it.....but it cant happen till the vote happens

so...as they saying goes, the ball is in her court.....

opcorn2:

That is not how an impeachment happens, the only "floor" action will be the passage of impeachment.

 

[gdgyva]

that is the way it works, you formalize the public hearings, that is the process, it is what the GOP has been screaming about for a month now.

link please

the GOP has been screaming that they want a FORMAL IMPEACHMENT VOTE

not some rules vote that doesnt mean a hill of beans

 

[Obscurity]

"Pretty much everything that the first whistleblower was concerned about has been corroborated." is not true.

Yes, it is true, and if you'd stop listening to fox news, you'd agree with the majority of the country.

 

[Nickyjo]

Pelosi just did have a vote, an unnecessary one at this stage, but one the GOP seemed to want. huh? who said the GOP/President wanted a vote on the house rules? that doesnt put the 30 odd house members at risk....the impeachment vote will....

The republicans/GOP is not going to abandon Trump until there is ample reason....we arent even close to that

You are barely at 50% of the country wanting Trump impeached.....that number needs to get closer to 70% before this gets to actual senate confirmation territory

so...we will see what happens through the holidays....as the witnesses dry up, and the subpoena's go unanswered...and then see where Nancy goes....

Still don't understand. The reporting I have seen said the GOP wanted the vote that they held today, one that is not required to start impeachment proceedings in the House, but which has occurred in the past. What am I missing?

 

[JasperL]

The vote not to impeach Trump was bipartisan two democrats voted against. Why isn't this a big deal?

If it's a big deal to you, you do you! It's permitted!

 

[gdgyva]

Oh, so you want a vote for political purposes, even though it's not necessary - thanks for confirming your partisan wish.

Let me ask you this, and I'd like an honest answer.

Are you even open to your mind being changed about this Ukraine scandal, at all?

i am open as much as you are....

you are 100% sure he is guilty....right?

yet all you have is MSM dribbles of testimony from people who might have overheard stuff

this is looking a LOT like the Mueller investigation

a lot of conjcture, a lot of theory

i have no idea on whether or not he committed a crime, or more importantly, IF the american people will deem it important enough to impeach him for it

once the black out is lifted, and all the witnesses can be questioned in open testimony....maybe we learn more

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes, it is true, and if you'd stop listening to fox news, you'd agree with the majority of the country.

Nope.
The call doesn't corroborate the claim.
Any supposition that follows from the claim, regardless of who or their motivation, has to be assumed false also.
Now if were more curious about the people involved and their relationships that would be a more productive use of your time.

 

[Obscurity]

Nope.
The call doesn't corroborate the claim.
Any supposition that follows from the claim, regardless of who or their motivation, has to be assumed false also.
Now if were more curious about the people involved and their relationships that would be a more productive use of your time.

The call sure does, and so does the testimony from all these witnesses.

You can keep ignoring facts if you want. It's tiresome. I don't envy the burden of lies you carry.

 

[Obscurity]

i am open as much as you are....

you are 100% sure he is guilty....right?

yet all you have is MSM dribbles of testimony from people who might have overheard stuff

this is looking a LOT like the Mueller investigation

a lot of conjcture, a lot of theory

i have no idea on whether or not he committed a crime, or more importantly, IF the american people will deem it important enough to impeach him for it

once the black out is lifted, and all the witnesses can be questioned in open testimony....maybe we learn more

I am 100% convinced he withheld the aid on req that Ukraine investigate Burisma and by default Hunter Biden.

Because the evidence says as much.

Now, answer my question - or I can "assume".

 

[JasperL]

Thank you. Now turn it around and examine the Mueller report and current findings with a critical eye and not reading what you want to hear. You can perhaps see my skepticism? Until we have a real cross examination of witnesses and have opposition witnesses and no question is off limits we aren't having a real inquiry, we are having a political dog and pony show.

Seriously, you guys are trusting Schiff? He has lied so much, I don't see how you can say the process is credible with a straight face.

The GOP have participated in the questioning of every witness. What more do you need to make that cross examination "real?"

What "opposition" witnesses have been excluded?

 

[Nalu]

good luck with that approach

the people i talk to, want this debated on the floor of the house

maybe you all dont want the witnesses testifying in braod daylight

the american people will demand it.....but it cant happen till the vote happens

so...as they saying goes, the ball is in her court.....

opcorn2:

This is so bizarre. A couple things:

I don't know why you keep wishing me luck on the Democrats' inquiry and telling me that "you [me] all" want or don't want things. You need to grasp who your audience is so you can make a point that resonates rather than just mindlessly repeating some sort of "us versus you all" mentality that has nothing to do with me.

Impeachment will be debated on the House floor. Obviously. For someone who claims to like process, you apparently don't know the first thing about this one. The upcoming phase of the process is going to be in broad daylight. Have you looked at the news today? Do you know what thread you're in?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

link please

the GOP has been screaming that they want a FORMAL IMPEACHMENT VOTE

not some rules vote that doesnt mean a hill of beans

No, I can't believe you don't know what the members who represent you have been wanting. The House GOP has been demanding a formalization of the impeachment INQUIRY.

An impeachment vote will be the last step by the House.

wake up.

 

[Nalu]

Pelosi just did have a vote, an unnecessary one at this stage, but one the GOP seemed to want. huh? who said the GOP/President wanted a vote on the house rules? that doesnt put the 30 odd house members at risk....the impeachment vote will....

The republicans/GOP is not going to abandon Trump until there is ample reason....we arent even close to that

You are barely at 50% of the country wanting Trump impeached.....that number needs to get closer to 70% before this gets to actual senate confirmation territory

so...we will see what happens through the holidays....as the witnesses dry up, and the subpoena's go unanswered...and then see where Nancy goes....

Do you really not know anything about this or are you just trolling the thread? The vote today was the one that Republicans have been demanding for weeks.

 

[Nalu]

Still don't understand. The reporting I have seen said the GOP wanted the vote that they held today, one that is not required to start impeachment proceedings in the House, but which has occurred in the past. What am I missing?

You aren't missing anything. That poster is doing something odd. I don't really get it.

 

[Athanasius68]

•

The whistleblower never said he was on the call; he even explicitly wrote "I was not a direct witness to most of the events described"

This is true.

• White House attorneys deliberately and inappropriately locked down the call summary in a secure server designed for highly classified materials

Perhaps it was inappropriate. Or perhaps not.

• Other call notes were locked down to the same systems

Perhaps it was inappropriate. Or perhaps not.

• Giuliani was running a shadow foreign policy

Not sure what this even means. Trump wouldnt be the first president to use a private citizen for some sort of government objective.

• Numerous White House / Executive Branch staffers were deeply worried about the call, and thought Trump was abusing his position for personal gain

And Trump has said they are wrong. Not really sure he said vs she said as a standard for impeachment.

• The Ukraine call did not discuss any corruption cases except the false claims about the Bidens

Trump segued into the Bidens after talking, again, about that unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that he or his campaign had worked with Russia to fix the 2016 election. Ukraine is somehow mixed up in it.

• Ukraine was encouraged to "play ball"

And..? We have Biden on tape encouraging Ukraine to "play ball."

• Trump was pushing for "investigations" while changing US policies on Ukraine

Trump can change USA policy toward Ukraine, or any country, if he wishes, for whatever reason he wishes. Specifically in this situation, he was referring to his concern that the Obama admin had pressured Ukraine re-open its investigation into Manafort. Whether that admin had the ability, and willingness, for that kind of pressure would be relevant to determine and the Biden comments would seem valuable to investigate.

• The whistleblower was concerned that Trump wanted to get Barr involved

Barr had asked Trump if he could reach out to the Australian government for assistance in the investigation into the origins of the Russia probe. Trump did so, but I would be curious to know whether this had occurred prior to the phone call with Zelensky. It might explain what Trump what thinking at the time.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The GOP have participated in the questioning of every witness. What more do you need to make that cross examination "real?"

What "opposition" witnesses have been excluded?

They can't call ANY. Schiff has blocked lines of inquiry by the minority party. Look, we are both partisans in this, lets not pretend otherwise. Can you not see a problem with restricting the minority party because it has not been done in past impeachment hearings?

 

[Fletch]

They even went as far as to effectively cut off Justin Amash - the one Republican with guts and integrity. Yeah - spare me the lectures about hw he left the party on his own. The cries of PARTISAN are directly upon the GOP.

:lamo. Right. You libs are nothing but bipartisanship, love and togetherness. :lamo Dude, youre too much

 

[OpportunityCost]

Imagine, Obama having a personal lawyer running a shadow foreign policy directive, working to undermine and oust our own ambassadors, working to sway policy with foreign leaders by hanging apportioned funds over their heads.

Man, I can't. Another world, another time, in the age of wonder.....

That is exactly what the Obama administration did. They threatened to withhold funds unless their demands were met in regards to the other country's sovereign government. Have you not been paying attention?

 

[JasperL]

Pelosi just did have a vote, an unnecessary one at this stage, but one the GOP seemed to want. huh? who said the GOP/President wanted a vote on the house rules? that doesnt put the 30 odd house members at risk....the impeachment vote will....

The republicans/GOP is not going to abandon Trump until there is ample reason....we arent even close to that

You are barely at 50% of the country wanting Trump impeached.....that number needs to get closer to 70% before this gets to actual senate confirmation territory

so...we will see what happens through the holidays....as the witnesses dry up, and the subpoena's go unanswered...and then see where Nancy goes....

You have not been paying attention if you don't know that the GOP has repeatedly cited the lack of a formal vote to start the impeachment inquiry as a major problem. I'd find the quotes, but you can just read Sen. Graham's formal resolution if you're interested:

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/PAT19928.pdf

The resolution voted on today ticks off a bunch of those complaints, including this official vote to start the inquiry by the full house, and the ability of the President and/or counsel to participate in the official impeachment hearings in the Judiciary committee. You can read about that here:

Impeachment resolution: Read the full text of the House resolution authorizing Trump impeachment hearings and download PDF - CBS News