Like you posted yourself Chris, you have no idea. The investiagtion process has begun! PS...quote all of my post...not your picked cherry.
There are five ongoing. What more do you want? Intelligence - Ukraine, China and Russia Judiciary - Mueller report Oversight - Cohen revelations and bogus security clearances Ways and Means - emoluments and obstruction of justice for refusal to comply with subpoena for tax returns Financial Services - Deutsche Bank financing irregularities and possible Russian money laundering
Benedict Donald Grifter in Chief Orange Foolius Mango Mussolini Cadet Bone Spurs Don the Con Putin's Poodle Brokeahontas Mrs. Putin President Asterisk Donnie Two-Scoops Humpty Trumpty Tiny-Fingered Vulgarian You get the idea...
The accusations were specifically that he was trying to dig up dirt on his ELECTORAL opponent for the purposes of getting an advantage in the 2020 election.
Cite the law, court ruling or House rule that states she is required to more than that. Otherwise just admit you're pulling this out of your ass. I'm done snipe hunting with you. The obtuseness being shown - deliberate or otherwise - is becoming downright pedantic.
So the way that it should work is that they start the investigation process before actually launching an official investigation? Surely you can't be serious!
There may not be any requirement that the House vote to recommend the speaker refer an impeachment charge. There certainly is plenty of precedent for impeachments not to have initiating votes and it is consistent with the Speaker's power in all other areas of legislative business that she gets her authority to send consideration of House business for committee consideration directly from her title as Speaker. The House has done it both ways in their history of impeaching judges, presidents and other federal officers. . If you have sufficient votes on the committee, to issue a subpoena, you can get your subpoena. The rules do not differentiate by party membership. All of this is determined by House rules. If you think about this impeachment business as just another form of legislative responsibility , you realize that the basic process is not different than writing any other bill. The impeachment is referred, like a bill in the hopper to a committee of jurisdiction. The committee sets up hearings, takes testimony from witnesses, and accepts documents into the congressional record. If they decide there is a problem worthy of their time, they start brainstorming ideas, and taking testimony on their ideas. Then they write them up and take a series of votes, the result is a committee report and a bill or a series of bills. NONE of this is ever predicated on the notion that the full house should vote on whether the Speaker should refer a concept for a bill, to a committee for a brainstorming session of ideas to be written into a bill to bring back to the floor. Its silly when nothing official happens until after the result gets a final House vote. There are plenty of remedies in the House rules for the republicans , once the product is fully written. The minority can move that the articles be tabled, it can move that the articles can be sent back to the committee for more work or amendments, it can move that the articles be sent to an entirely different committee, or they can just vote down the articles on the floor. Hell they can even move to replace the Speaker who referred the articles with another who won't be so foolish and then kill the articles. The republicans have remedies. They just don't have the votes. That is just too damn bad. Elections have consequences and the midterms are a series of elections. .
As the letter says, "the right of the minority to issue subpoenas - subject to the same rules as the majority - has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater. "
And whose letter is that, Chris? Here is a hint.....the bloke being investigated does not get to set the Rules. If he could, he'd make a rule outlawing it all.
Chris.....I have told you before. I will not play your stupid zillion question game. Read your own excerpt of Trump's letter and you will see these 'Rules.'
September 24, 2019 Your question is answered at 4:21 Apparently there are six. I forgot about Eliot Engle and Foreign Affairs. My bad... And remember:
Work it out for yourself Chris. Start with what was informal being made formal. That is the last of your never ending silly questions I will answer today.
The rule is based on simple democracy and it is entirely 'equal' . If you have the votes on the committee, you can get your subpoena. If you don't have the votes on the committee , you won't get the subpoena. Their job is to get a majority to vote in favor of their request.
