Impeachment

There were only two. Who knows? You can go ahead and analyze the respective decisions made in the House for Johnson and Clinton in the history books ( Nixon was not impeached) . Why was it not different in the more numerous occasions when judges and federal officers were impeached without some silly vote about whether the speaker should to send a matter to a committee for hearings testimony and a brainstorming session when nothing else ever is?

going to sleep and then work.

 

That's got nothing to do with my reply.

 

I'm done with you're circle-jerk for tonight. You have performed an admirable impersonation of a Sit 'n' Spin...

 

We're not talking about impeachment, we are talking about an impeachment inquiry which happened with Nixon.

 

Why do you think one is needed? The only vote required - and the only one that matters - is the up or down vote on articles of impeachment. The rest is foreplay and completely up to whoever has the majority in the House. That's reality. Your opinion on the matter is utterly irrelevant.

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.

 

And the answer is... I did NOT say that the non-Ukraine investigations should've been announced as impeachment inquiries at their outset! Yes, you're done, you're out of arguments!

 

I don't think that one is needed - I don't KNOW if one is needed. Presumably they have occurred in the past for a reason. Otherwise why did they happen?

 

Circular logic. Cite the law, court ruling or congressional rule that agrees with you.

There isn't one saying it's not required, and asking your opponent to prove a negative is also a logical fallacy. Laws, court decisions and parliamentary rules aren't written to say what isn't required, only what is. So - link, or admit defeat.

 

I'm not even making a claim. Again, I don't KNOW if one is needed. Presumably they have occurred in the past for a reason. Otherwise why did they happen?

 

argumentum ad antiquitatem

That was then, this is now. If there's not a law, court ruling or congressional rule that says that it's required, it's NOT FRAKKING REQUIRED, no matter how it might have been handled in the past. Your opinion on the matter is entirely moot.

I can only explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.

 

Again, when did I say that it WAS required?

 

You seem obsessively fixated on it. It's called not being able to see the forest for the trees. You should work on that.

It's not required. Accept it and move on.

 

So I'm supposed to take your word for it?

 

Can you prove me (and everyone else telling you the exact same thing) wrong? Do you have ANYTHING other than the "feel-facts" you've been spewing?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

 

No, but that doesn't meant that I'm going to take random people's word for it!

 

Then stop whining on a political forum and do some damn research for yourself...

 

Well according to you, if I did research I wouldn't be able to find such a law.

 

Only one way to find out. Here, I'll even get you started:

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+th...+hold+a+vote+to+launch+an+impeachment+inquiry

 

No laws listed in those results.

 

He is telling you to go and look at Google yourself Chris.

 

His suggested search term returned no relevant results.

 

Bullshit. The results simply weren't what you and Benedict Donald would like them to be. Deal with it, or find results that are what you would like them to be and provide links.

**You do understand you can use YOUR OWN search terms, right?**

 

Google Can the House Judiciary Committee issue subpoenas

 

I don't think he realizes he can...

 

There's no point in me Googleing that because I already know that they can.