(10-24-2019, 07:50 AM)Gabe Wrote:

(10-23-2019, 11:19 PM)jj82284 Wrote: LIAR!  The appropriate committee has always been the judiciary committee after a vote by the full house to open a formal inquiry.  This has NEVER happened in the history of this country and is a disgrace to fundamental due process, the rule of law, and the basic tenants of free democratic ideals.

Holy hell, calm down JJ. I pulled my info from two sources aside from the wiki article I referenced earlier: 

One. 

At face value, this is a tough read, but a good one to familiarize one's self with how impeachment works. Specifically, as it relates to our discussion, we can see that this is out of the norm for sitting US presidents, but not necessarily out of the norm for any other impeachment proceedings. I'd suggest reading the section: Authorization of Committee Investigation: 

Quote:The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without 
debate.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a 
resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take  affidavits and depositions

Two.

Ed Kilgore addresses what seems to be the crux of the debate over the appropriateness of these impeachment procedures. It appears that the House majority determines its own interpretation. So yes, you're correct that impeachment proceedings have historically, with regard to sitting US presidents, initiated out of the Judiciary Committee (or at least left for them to determine the next step(s)) . 

However, based on Ed's below assessment, labeling it as a disgrace is subjective based on the fact that the House majority essentially determines how to proceed. 




Honestly, I look at impeachment as a serious thing that ultimately ends up as a lose-lose for the country. Based on what I've read, I don't agree with your assessment that it's a disgrace (or that I'm a LIAR), but I do agree that there should be formal procedures that aren't left up to the House to determine based on the dominant political party sitting at any given time. I think ultimately, the point is moot because the house, dominated by the DEMs would have voted approval for the formal resolution to begin an investigation if it were brought through previously used channels for sitting presidents. It just would have taken longer. 

As a result, this opens the door for the validity of any impeachment to be challenged going forward...with the House simply referring to its committees' power to begin investigations without a formal resolution. 

I think what happened was the DEMs had two lines of thought prior to Pelosi's formal request for an inquiry:

1. Trump will win the 2020 election, so let's compile our list of what we determine as impeachable offenses and make sure we don't count our chickens before they hatch and push, ultimately, for impeachment when the time is right.

2. After the whistleblower/Ukraine situation began to unravel, the DEMs felt the pressure of potentially removing Trump and securing a victory in 2020; so they turned toward their subjective interpretation of what constitutes formal procedures, speeding up the timeline. 

I would have rather they compile their information and proposed a resolution thru Judiciary, at least keeping some semblance of continuity...then formulating official procedures that leave little room for counter interpretation. Knowing what I know about politicians, I wouldn't be surprised if GOPs acted similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. That's my subjective, pessimistic opinion though.