Pelosi Again Refuses To Hold Impeachment Vote

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.), has again refused to hold a House floor vote to formally start an impeachment investigation. I have previously said that the allegation of self-dealing in the Ukrainian call could be an impeachable offense if a quid pro quo is established. However, Pelosi has undermined the position of the House by refusing to allow a vote that preceded the investigations in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. As I stated in a recent column, this is a mistake if House Democrats are serious about pursuing an impeachment. Recently, in the case concerning Trump tax records, one of the three judges dissented on the basis that there has been no vote to establish the start of an impeachment investigation. Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun. Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.

 Pelosi announced Tuesday that she will not hold the vote despite calls from many to follow past practices.

As I have previously discussed, the Constitution does not require anything other than a majority vote of the House to impeach a president. It is silent on the procedures used to reach that vote, and courts have largely deferred to Congress to create its own internal rules and processes in fulfilling constitutional functions. Historically, a vote of the chamber as a whole was required to commit a matter to the House Judiciary Committee or a select committee for an impeachment investigation of a sitting president.

The reason for that traditional practice is obvious. Before the House takes the momentous step toward impeachment of an American president, all of its members should be on record with that consequential action. Whether it was former President Nixon or former President Clinton, House members felt a responsibility to vote on whether to start the process. Most importantly, it gives clarity to a federal court in balancing congressional demands against executive privilege.

The “impeachment by press conference” action of Pelosi is an entirely new animal. After her press conference, I told The Washington Post that this was not any recognizable process and that the approach taken by Democrats on presidential impeachment was “casual to the point of being conversational.” It is now clear that the casual approach is by design. The question is ‘why’.

195 thoughts on “Pelosi Again Refuses To Hold Impeachment Vote”

  1. Trump republicans only believe in the rule of law and the constitution on their terms only. Pelosi will hold the vote to be sure when Trump and his “best people” stop violating the law. And on any given day, they have not stopped yet. It’s hard to hold a vote on the articles of impeachment when everyday brings something new. And the Trumpsters want a fast vote before the shit really hits the fan. The only people that don’t see what’s going on, is the ones that don’t want to see what’s going on.

      1. And this is not a criminal trial. Trump will have the opportunity to face the charges and the accusers in the trial phase of impeachment.


          that’s how Dems do business

          totally unfair proceeding from the start. the false start I mean. penalty on the offense

    1. This isn’t about voting on articles of impeachment, Fishwings.
      It’s the issue of having or not having a House vote to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

    2. Obama Democrats (and their Media mouthpieces) only believe in the rule of law and the constitution on their terms only.

  2. In yet another instance to throw on the pile of times that Democrats accused Trump of their own wrongdoing:

    Ethics charges filed against Schiff for that prank phone call in which he thought he was trying to get dirt on Trump from Ukraine, but it was really Russian DJs pranking him. This was during the time when Schiff et al claimed that they had evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to get dirt on Hillary.

  3. She wants the House to proceed with the impeachment without a vote.

    She has prevented House Republicans from knowing the identity of the accuser, while releasing his information to Democrats.

    She has prevented House Republicans from having transcripts of testimony, which is available to Democrats.

    Democrats have leaked information that is damaging to the President to the public, while withholding leaks that would be exculpatory.

    One of the leaked comments was purely opinion on the exact same transcript we all read.

    This is a purely partisan soft coup, something like the 13th attempt to impeach a lawfully elected President. The election did not go their way. Activists are willing to abuse their positions of authority and power in order to try to either unseat him, or hurt his reelection chances.

    That’s what I think this is – a gambit by Pelosi to harm Trump’s reelection efforts. She has got to know that there is no evidence to actually impeach him, and that she would never get the votes. That is why she never called the vote to start the discovery process. That’s why she’s denied Trump to call his own witnesses or make this public. It’s just opposition research gathering, at taxpayer expense, with the end goal of influencing the next election. By not calling the vote, Trump is not able to publicly call his own witnesses, which would destroy Biden, and severely damage Democrats in the next election.

    Total abuse of power. Once again, Democrats are guilty of what they have accused Trump of.

    1. “Democrats have leaked information that is damaging to the President to the public, while withholding leaks that would be exculpatory.”

      Would like to know how you know this.

    2. Karen: Again, you keep proving that you are a Fox disciple. Pelosi is leading an impeachment inquiry only. There is no requirement in the Constitution for a formal vote to conduct this investigation, because the Constitution does provide for oversight responsibility. Federal law protects the identity of the whistleblower. Where did you get the idea that House Democrats know the identity of the whistleblower? House Republicans on the committees are present during the depositions, so they know what’s being said. It has been reported that at first they did a lot of Curt Gowdy-esque posturing, but are doing less of this as the evidence mounts of Trump’s wrongdoing, but no one, Democrat or Republican, has publicly disclosed the substance of any testimony, and they won’t because they respect the process. The transcripts are not being released as of this time under the theory of “separation of witnesses”, which is done in virtually every trial to prevent witnesses from knowing the testimony of witnesses who have already testified–that is to keep them from being influenced by the testimony of previous witnesses. Ask any lawyer who does litigation, but Fox uses this to try to convince you disciples that there is something shady about the process. The transcripts will be released after everyone has testified. What information damaging to Trump stemming from the depositions has been released? I haven’t heard it. What “exculpatory information” exists? Did Hannity fail to mention that there are Republicans also present at these depositions, and that they also are asking questions? There is no “transcript” of the July 25 call that has been released yet–there is only a memo of the call, and it proves solicitation of assistance, which is an impeachable offense in and of itself. Trump is still hiding the actual transcript in the secure vault. We’ve covered the cheating and Trump’s lack of legitimacy before. He will never be viewed as legitimate because he cheated with Russia’s help. He has paid them back many times for this–publicly siding with Putin in Helsinki, and trying to get Russia back into the G-7. What country do you think benefits the most from Trump pulling troops from Syria? If you guessed Russia, you’d be correct. The entire abandonment of the Kurds after they helped us curb ISIS is a national disgrace and will hurt America’s relations with allies far into the future. We will probably never again get other countries to help us fight terrorism. Trump pulled troops without consulting any military leaders, our allies, or anyone who knows more about this situation that he does, which is most people, and that is abuse of power. ISIS will surge again, attack us and others, and people will die while Trump will be playing golf and pretending to be legitimate.

      As to reelection chances, even Fox’s polling shows that Trump has been rejected by the majority of American voters. There’s plenty of evidence to impeach him, and more than enough Democrats have publicly stated their support for impeachment. Didn’t Hannity cover this? In truth, the argument about no formal impeachment vote, which the law does not require as a prelude to investigating Trump, is just a Kellyanne pivot to excuse Trump’s obstruction of Congress. Trump doesn’t have the right to interfere with the Constitutionally-mandated oversight responsibilities of Congress, and his lack of cooperation with subpoenas and interfering with witnesses who have been subpoenaed are also impeachable offenses. He doesn’t get some right to create instant counter talking points by “calling his own witnesses”. This is not a criminal trial or criminal process.

      Again, why is Hunter Biden suddenly front and center? His father has been out of office for 3 years, so why now?

      1. Natacha says: “Trump pulled troops without consulting any military leaders, our allies, or anyone who knows more about this situation that he does…”

        Says who?

        1. Pretty obvious isn’t it? Reportedly this happened during one phone call and a staff member said “He got rolled”

        2. Our allies, all of our military leaders—none of them were consulted before he did this, which BTW, benefits Putin. How many people have already died because of this? How many ISIS got loose? Do you think they won’t re-group and start engaging in terrorist attacks again? What about the cache of tactical nuclear weapons and troops we have there, and which we can only get out by helicopter? Does this sound like a good idea that was well-planned?

          1. lie lie lie.

            I keep on pointing out how utterly obviously wrong this is and you keep saying it

            TURKEY is a NATO ally.

            TURKEY communicated its intention of invasion to Washington. There’s your “consult” right there.

            That combined with the demand by Syria to withdraw, forced the situation.

            You’re a dismally ineffective liar. You just stick to your guns even though you’ve been proven false. This reveals your arrogant foolishness again and again each time you do it.

            1. Take a pill kurtz. Someone who reasonably disagrees with you is not therefore a liar.

              The point is Trump pretty obviously did not consult with any experts and he doesn’t know his a.. from a hole in the ground. If nothing else he needed time to review consequences with experts and as president of the most powerful nation in the world talking to a supposed ally does not have to get bum rushed into a decision. We don;t know it was a fait accompli, but with a go alone ignorant president who apparently gets rolled on deals, we won’t know.

              Long story short, if this went as planned, why are we now threatening Turkey and sending Pence and Pompeo over there?

              1. Disagreement is a lie if she says there were no consultations with allies. I will prove this.

                Turkey is a nato ally. fact.

                turkey informed the US that they were invading. fact.

                hence, having had that communication from our nato ally, the CIC had thus “consulted”

                To assert that we did not consult with any ally is thus, quite simply, a lie.

                Moreover, there is no other “ally” which matters on the border between Turkey and Syria. Than our one ally there, per Treaty, and that’s Turkey. Israel is an ally of sorts, but it’s not actually in NATO, it is just a “Mediterranean dialogue” state partner, and it’s not got a superior position over Turkey in matters concerning the Turkish border, anyways. Plain and simple situation, actually, if you’re honest.

                This lie of hers, she’s repeated many times the past week.

                this is simple logic. keep on evading it if you like. you only discredit yourself.

              2. not obvious at all what you rhetorically claim. and it’s not clear any socalled “expert” can change the fact that Turkey is a nato ally and the Kurdish YPG nonstate actor is not.

                Trump has to send Pence and Pompeo because although his choice was a necessity, the overall impact of Ergogan’s offensive, removes the US from the Syria equation.

                It’s obvious that Turkey has some sort of implicit interest with Syria and Russia and Iran in this. Just because Turkey is a NATO ALLY does not mean that it is going to always make choices the way the Pentagon wants! Nor does the Pentagon always make the right choices either. usually they simply just LIKE sending troops where-ever, in general, regardless of the potential diplomatic and strategic fallout. When I was growing up, I learned that lesson mostly from Democrat teachers and professors. Oddly enough. who seem to have been muted.

                Trump, thus, had a simple choice. Stay the troops in harm’s way and risk them being killed by a NATO ally and fracturing the tenuous alliance, or pull them out and surrender and involvement which was dubious in the first place.

                A dubious proposition, or just a mistake, like Tulsi said. And has been saying. even as you people call her a “Syrian Asset” which is a preposterous slander.

                Some Democrats are honest on basic facts. Some admit complexity. Some however just like to suck up to the MIC like Hillary. Look to the Left and find the very same points i have been making here for years about some of these issues, in case you want to keep on pretend this is some special Trumpian thing, which it isnt.

                You’re captured in this delusional fantasy that Russian influence always comes at the expense of American interests. That’s a zero sum game which does not capture the complex factors in play in such venues as the middle east. It’s a sort of oversimplification that Democrats used to denounce among Republicans who were captured in the Cold war mindset. Too bad you still are stuck in that mud.

                1. You don;t what Trump had a choice of and he had no ability to analyze the “complexity” of what he did on a phone call.

                  Is there anything this clown does that you wont scramble to defend?

                  1. oh i could make a list of stuff I don’t like that trump has done or failed to do, but what’s the point. mostly it’s stuff that you would call me names about anyhow. you can like me or not, it doesn’t matter. I’m just a nobody standing anonymously in a big crowd with trumps other nobodies. we’re all beneath you, I get that you all think that. rubes, etc etc etc. wrong even when we’re not.

                    for the Syrian pullout it’s actually pretty simple choice. you’re really kidding yourself badly if you can’t grasp this equation.

            2. Yes, Turkey is a NATO ally, but so what? Is that a free pass to do whatever it wants? It invaded Syria and is engaging in ethnic cleansing as to the Kurds. No, Turkey didn’t communicate its intention to invade to Washington, whatever you mean by this word. Congress wasn’t consulted. Neither were the Joint Chiefs. Neither was NATO. Trump claims he told them there would be sanctions if they did invade, which they did virtually immediately. AND Turkey is using Russian weapons, in violation of NATO treaties. The “situation” wasn’t “forced” by anyone. Trump is deferential to anyone who could do him favors in business, like Putin and MBS. He has to Trump-branded hotels in Turkey. Erdogan told him to withdraw troops, so he did it with no foresight whatsoever, and not only are Kurds being killed, we have troops and tactical nuclear weapons that can only get out via helicopter. Indefensible.

              You say I’ve been “proven false”. Where’s your proof? Citing a Fox News, Breitbart or other right-wing pundit does not constitute proof of facts.

                  1. Here’s some “real news” for you, Natacha…

                    The transcript of former US envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker’s recent testimony tells a very different version of ‘facts’ than what Adam Schiff and the Dems keeps telling us…and their media allies keep repeating.

                    Schiff refuses to release transcript so we can all judge for ourselves, why do you suppose that is?

                    Read this to understand why (hint: because Schiff is a liar) —->


                    1. The Washington Examiner is not real news, so I won’t bother to take the click bait. And, BTW: there need be no “pressure”. Mere solicitation is enough, and the non-transcript memo proves this. Deposition transcripts will be released in due time, after all witnesses have testified and redacting of classified information has been done. So, where did they get this “news” from? Committee members are sworn not to disclose actual testimony or transcripts, so do they claim to have one?

              1. Natacha — what business does the U.S. have in protecting Syria’s or Turkey’s borders? ISIS wants to establish a caliphate in Syria. All Kurds are not ‘good’ people being abandoned by the U.S. All in the region (Russia, Iran, etc) want to see ISIS defeated. So let them do it.

                1. Isn’t it fun posting anonymously. The same people who criticize it…, are doing it. Fun and games for the regs without much else to do.

                2. The Kurds helped us curb ISIS, and we agreed to protect them. No one is saying that someday the US could pull out, but this is only responsibly done via careful planning, with consultation of military experts, our allies, and the Kurds. Trump did this on a whim to protect his 2 hotels in Turkey because Erdogan asked him to. We have 1,000 or so troops and tactical nuclear weapons that can only be extracted by helicopter. Kurds have been slaughtered. ISIS fighters are loose. Turkey has overrun the border. Trump betrayed the trust of the Kurds and our allies. He has blood on his tiny hands. Military experts have expressed shame over the way this was handled, and even 129 Republicans, McConnell and Graham have expressed their lack of support for Trump’s decision.

          2. “What about the cache of tactical nuclear weapons and troops we have there”

            YES, what about them. You seem to think we should have gone to war with Turkey, while these American eggs are sitting in their basket. Explain it yourself you have all the information you need to add 2 plus 2 and get four. That’s among the many reasons Trump had to withdraw.

            You aren’t getting the picture maybe or you are obtuse. Turkey did not ASK FOR PERMISSION to invade Syria. It PLANNED IT AND LET US KNOW THEY WERE COMING. We are not in a position to say no to Turkey because it IS OUR NATO ALLY and the Kurds are not, they are not even a state, and as you have pointed out, they have the US by the GONADS

            So grow up and quit blaming the strategic situation that Trump inherited on Trump, who’s acted wisely contrary to ever talking head who pretends otherwise for their own narrow political purposes

              1. I don’t know what you mean by that metaphor.

                War with Turkey was precisely the likely outcome if they invaded and began shelling US troops emplaced directly in the middle of their objectives. Thus, withdrawal was necessary deconfliction with our NATO ally. Or an ally they would no longer be.

                an ally acting on ITS border, not ours. Any ally with a very big army, and a critical geostrategic location, and our nukes hemmed in on their territory. Really there was no choice. this is supreme dishonesty and the pinnacle of unfairness to Trump as CIC

                you guys are just evading these basic facts. this is possibly the biggest fakery I have seen you guys maintain in the entire couple years I’ve been posting here.

                but i understand you believe this notion, because the usual media voices are feeding it to you, and you trust your leadership. but you have the obligation for thinking for yourself nonetheless.

                You can always just admit it and drop the pretense.

            1. What about the nuclear weapons and troops that are now surrounded and can’t get out via the ground? This is more proof of the knee-jerk lack of any coherent planning of Trump’s latest blunder. It’s interesting to hear the new Kellyanne Pivot on this: Trump was “forced” or “had” to withdraw because Turkey is our ally and they announced their intention to invade in advance. He didn’t say that when confronted with this stupid decision right afterward–remember the comments about the Kurds not helping us in WWII or with the Normandy invasion? As I have said before, one thing you do learn as a lawyer is that when it takes time to come up with an explanation other than the obvious, it is a lie. This is a big, fat lie. We betrayed the Kurds so that Trump could protect his hotel interests in Turkey.

              The only thing that was stopping Turkey from invading Syria was US troops. We protected the Kurds because they helped us curb ISIS. Erdogan calls Trump and without any consultation with allies or anyone else, he stands down the troops, and now 1,000 of them are surrounded, along with tactical nuclear weapons. The only way out is via helicopter. We haven’t been in this position since the fall of Saigon. BTW: this is according to former Ambassador Wendy Sherman.

              I really wonder sometimes how far up your rectum you have to have your head shoved to be blind to the truth. This situation is so blatantly obvious.

          3. Who allowed the rise of ISIS? During which administration did the U.S. fund and arm extremists in Syria to overthrow the government? Who sat back and watched as over a half million Syrians died?

            Answer: not Trump. Obama and Hillary created this mess and Trump is trying to get us out of it.

            You know the Dems/obama, et al are spinning like hell when known liar Susan Rice and all the Obama knuckleheads are all over the “shows” and doing ‘the circuit’ as usual.

            1. The “rise of ISIS” is not the fault of Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama, BUT most importantly, it is irrelevant to this discussion. Because of Trump, they are loose, they will re-group and come after us. There will be multiple terrorist attacks, and people will die. The fact that preventing these ISIS prisoners from escaping wasn’t even considered by Trump is more proof of the stupidity of what he did.

              1. “The rise of ISIS in not the fault of Hillary or Obama…”

                Of course not, it’s Bush’s fault, right? Who withdrew from Iraq? That’s right. Barack Obama. Who is most responsible for the debacle of US policy in Syria over the last eight years? That’s right, Barack Obama.

        3. Natacha, seek help with this frantic, anxious obsession you have with Fox, Hannity, Kellyanne Conway, and Russia.

          If federal law protects the identity of the whistleblower, then why was his identity not withheld from Democrats? Why did his lawyer admit he met with more than one Democrat presidential candidate as well as Adam Schiff, who lied about it?

          Of course he is allowed to call his own witnesses, otherwise he would be prevented from defending himself.

          Your position is one of a true believer.

          1. Karen: you really don’t have a clue. Where is the factual proof that any Democrats know his/her identity? Which Democrats? Where is the proof that the whistleblower met with Schiff or other candidates or that Schiff lied about it? I watch a lot of news, and this wasn’t reported, so this sounds like a Hannity rant. I want to see proof in the form of facts, not Fox News “alerts”. AND….importantly, what difference does this make? The non-transcript proves the truth of what the whistleblower said anyway. This is just Kellyanne pivoting and harping on irrelevant points to create the false impression that Democrats are unfairly railroading poor Trumpy Bear.

            The impeachment inquiry is NOT A TRIAL. It is AN INVESTIGATION. There is NO right of anyone to call their own witnesses during an investigation. If there is a vote to impeach, then the case would be tried in the Senate. In that forum, he could call witnesses. Although this is not a criminal investigation, analogies apply: detectives question each suspect or witness separately, and this is not done publicly. A witness or suspect doesn’t have any right to be present when other witnesses or suspects are questioned, to avoid coordinating their stories or influencing their stories. There is no right to call your own witnesses when you are a suspect or witness in an investigation. That comes during an actual trial. This isn’t a trial. If Fox has been telling you that such a right exists or they are implying that the process is somehow unfair they are misleading you and you aren’t knowledgeable enough to know better.

            1. Site within the US Constitution, that document you left wing nutcases burn for sport, where the Speaker of the House has power to investigate the Executive without a floor vote of all US House Members?

              You cant because the Speaker does not have that power

              No vote, no power to investigate, no subpoenas

              tyranny is what your ilk always defends. We shoot tyrants in this country. Deal with it

              1. Trafalgar. That’s false. The only legally recognized restriction on Congressional subpoena powers is the requirement that it be related to Congresses responsibilities and executive oversight is one of those.

                There is no requirement in the Constitution or legal precedent that a vote of the House precede an investigation.

      2. Natacha asks: “Again, why is Hunter Biden suddenly front and center? His father has been out of office for 3 years, so why now?”

        Because Joe Biden is running for president. Everything is fair game and all of it deserves to be exposed. Who says Joe Biden did nothing wrong? Who says Hunter Biden did nothing wrong?

          1. Hunter Biden admitted on national television that he would not have gotten that multimillion dollar job, for which he was totally unqualified, if his last name wasn’t Biden.

            Joe Biden is on video bragging that he threatened to withdraw US funds within 6 hours unless the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter’s company was fired.

            Quid. Pro. Quo.

            It was spelled out, not implied. He said they would lose that money unless the prosecutor was fired.

              1. Actually the IGIC believed it was credible and worth investigating that Hunter used his father’s name to enrich himself at taxpayers expense

                Furthermore, Hunter has never done anything good for anybody so yes, he has done wrong to all of us. That you would defend the moral cripple is not surprising. How much crystal meth did you sell in N Fla today to locals?

                “Former Vice President Joe Biden’s surviving son, Hunter, hasn’t just dumped his wife for his late brother’s widow, he has squandered his family’s money on hookers, strip clubs and drugs, according to divorce papers obtained by The Post.

                The papers, filed last week by Hunter Biden’s soon-to-be ex, Kathleen, offer a sordid peek behind the squeaky-clean image of the popular ex-veep’s family.

                “His spending rarely relates to legitimate family expenses, but focuses on his own travel (at times multiple hotel rooms on the same night), gifts for other women, alcohol, strip clubs, or other personal indulgences,” Kathleen Biden says of Hunter in the papers filed in Washington, DC, Superior Court on Feb. 23.

                In filing the explosive allegations, Kathleen — who lives with the youngest of the couple’s three daughters in the capital — is seeking to limit Hunter, 47, to a $5,000-a-month allowance.

                She is demanding that she and their daughters, in turn, receive a $20,000 monthly allowance.

                “Throughout the parties’ separation Mr. Biden has created financial concerns for the family by spending extravagantly on his own interests (including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations), while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills,” Kathleen says of Hunter in the filing.”


                1. You wrote:

                  “Actually the IGIC believed it was credible and worth investigating that Hunter used his father’s name to enrich himself at taxpayers expense.”

                  Say what? Hunter wasn’t paid with taxpayers money. He was paid by Ukrainians who probably wanted the window dressing of the VPs last name on their door and stationery.

                  By the way, got a link for that? What IC IG looking at Hunter Biden?

        1. Hunter Biden isn’t running for president, and whatever happened when his father was in office 3 years ago has nothing to do with Trump’s crimes that are the topic of the day. Trump is going after Hunter to try to intimidate anyone who is ahead of him in the polls, and as a diversionary tactic to generate publicity he thinks will hurt Joe Biden. Where’s the proof that either of them did anything wrong? His lame excuse that he wanted to root out corruption is just that–lame. Why is the only corruption he is interested in involves the Bidens? His excuse for withholding military aid is also lame–how would that force other countries to donate more, plus Trump lied about how much other countries were giving Ukraine.

          1. Natacha said: “His lame excuse that he wanted to root out corruption…”

            Joe Biden said the same thing. His threat to withhold us funding was on camera. Joe Biden says he was just trying to ‘root out corruption’ in Ukraine? While his son, the dishonorably discharged, crackhead, prostitue-using, drug abuser, accepted the “position” offered by a corrupt oligarch in a corrupt business in a corrupt country where dad was point person on policy for the Obama admin? And it was legal? So therefore no wrong doing whatsover by Joe or his son? Riiiight.

            Did you hear ol’ Joe get defensive in the debate last night? He said he was PROUD of his son’s judgment. Get that? He was proud of his son’s bad judgment.

            1. Biden was representing in public the official position of the US and the entire West which had been announced by others in the administration. Trump hasn’t anything about corruption on anything else and has a collection of bad apples who have and are working for him.

              1. Trump hasn’t anything about corruption on anything else…

                🙂 You’re whistling past the Horrowitz and Durham graveyard. Tick, tick, tick…

              2. “Biden was representing in public the official position of the US and the entire West which had been announced by others in the administration.”

                Of course he was. Neither Joe, nor his son, did ANYTHING wrong. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.

        1. Hey did you see where Barack Obama endorsed his fruity friend Justin in Canada? The same Justin who likes ‘blacking up’ all over his body? The same Justin who is being investigated for obstruction of justice? The same Justin who paid for the silence of the high school girl (or girls) he was having ‘inapproprate relations’ with as a high school teacher? The same Justin who is hanging by a thread because he is such an embarrassment to the country of Canada?

          So is “election interference” by the U.S. by way of Barack Obama cool now? It’s a.o.k. for Barry to come in to throw a life line to his drowing friend Justin in Canada?

          What a burn to his friend and VP Joe Biden, who Barack has said NOTHING about, no endorsemnet, no nothin’, eh?

          Tell us again, Anon1, who’s being played like a fiddle…?

      3. oh, some know who the squealer is, for sure.

        the rest of this is all blah blah blah. Yes congress can make up its own rules as it goes along if it wants to confirm the existing oppression that it’s the very definition of ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS to the voters

        those two words mean a lot…. to a lawyer… and to voters

  4. Even Pelosi’s not dumb enough to vote for something that is a farce and will tar and feather Democrats who have paid foreign nationals for fake information, then disseminated fake informatin to the Press and used with the Obama administration for illegal activities with the FISA court and unmasking individuals. Democrats have a known liar Adam Schiff holding closed door sessions with witnesses only Dems can call, and Dems are too afraid to RELEASE THE HEARING documents. Then the Democrats leak and lie about what they heard.

    Dr. Turley it’s time for you to start showing some ethical analysis of this farce. President Trump RELEASED everything 48 hours afterwards. The Democrats are shams and have no understanding of justice. They are only political players intent on gaining power – unethically if required.

    1. Trump released a memo purporting to be an accurate depiction of the phone conversation. Obviously Trump is doing this by himself with out expert legal advice – see the stupid letter written to Congress last week which as could be guessed was his thoughts transcribed into a pretend letter from a lawyer. He’s so convinced of his invincibility that he’s admitting to the corruption – “Hey you help me too China!” – thinking it exonerates him. He is still trying to stop anyone working for the executive branch from testifying.

      He is doing the law on his own and it shows.

      He is doing diplomacy on his own. – see Turkey and Ukraine clusterf…s

      He;s dangerous to himself, others., and America.

      1. Anon1 – the WB admitted that the transcript of the phone call was verbatim. They all are. It is a requirement.

  5. Perhaps all of this can be better understood once we get over the shock – the shock! – that Congress has little power under the Constitution to force defiant citizens to comply with its own rules. Like obeying its subpoenas. But, when it comes to impeaching the president, there’s an “underlying” fact that rules as much as what the House enacts. And Pelosi certainly knows it. It is the same underlying “fact” that supports the policy of not indicting a sitting president. Simply put, it means that the country would be without genuine leadership until the process is resolved, one way or the other.

    Sure, there’s no requirement under the Constitution for a House vote. But, as we’ve seen before, the entire impeachment process in effect paralyzes the president – and the entire country – until Congress resolves it. That is why impeachment will never work. It’s time for the country to follow other democracies and find a less damaging way to replace our ineffective leaders.

  6. I think because Republicans are not on board yet and she doesn’t want to have a one party look. Also she knows the big reason the Administration is not complying us just a ruse

    1. The “why” is easy: either she doesn’t have the votes or she’s scare poopless about losing the House because of the backlash in swing districts. Well that and that they are feckless socialists who detest democracy almost as much as they detest Trump.

      1. turns out Mayor Pete attacked from the right last night and people are saying he won the debate

        wow, think about that. tells you something about where the electorate lies. way to the right of the progs thats for sure

        1. The electorate hates the current US Congress for a reason

          The Democrats have imposed their will, their agenda, their gridlock and refused to work with the will of Americans: across the aisle with other party members and with the President

          The current US House Democrats are the enemy of America bigly and Americans are rightly disgusted with Congress…18% approval.

          The most recent polling data from September 2019 puts the approval rating of the United States Congress at only 18 percent. This marks the second time since September 2018 that the Congressional approval rating has hit 18 percent — its second-lowest figure in the past year.

  7. This os really not a House Impeachment Inquiry. This is a Half a House Impeachment Inquiry. I have been wondering when Senator Graham starts supeonong Democratics like maybe Hunter or Schiff or even the Whistleblower. .Politics is a sport and thats would be the two of us can play the game. Maybe i am not giving the Republicans the credit for being the grownups in this room. .i dont know but wouldn’t that be a game to watch.

    1. The evidence is clear and mostly public though they are busily collecting more everyday. If you read a newspaper you’d know this.

      1. Anon1 – the hearings are secret and what the newspapers are reporting are possible releases from the Democrats. Remember how that worked out on Russiagate?

        1. Yes, virtually everything we knew in 2018 was verified by the Mueller report. Is that what you mean?

          But apart from that the memo on the transcript and the president’s own words demonstrate his corruption of the office for his own political ends.

          1. Anon1 – no President in history has been more cooperative with a Special Counsel than Trump. If Mueller couldn’t nail it down with his staff of Democrats, nobody could.

            1. BS. Read the Mueller report. He never sat for an interview, nor did other key players, and he tampered with witnesses.

              Presently he is refusing to answer Congressional subpoenas for staff though they many are ignoring him.

              Read a newspaper Paul. Your lack of information is embarrassing.

              1. Anon1 – Trump is taking a legal stand which is that the House is not actually running an impeachment hearing. This is something that can be adjudicated.

              2. Amen, Anon1. Also Giuliani wrote answers to written interrogatories that were off-topic and incomplete. He refused to amend the responses. He did not cooperate with Mueller. As to the collusion aspect, Mueller didn’t have the actual Russian hackers or Trump sit for interviews or depositions, but they had enough to prove that the campaign fed polling information to Russian to be used against Hillary Clinton where it counted most.

                1. fed polling information to Russian to be used against Hillary Clinton where it counted most.

                  I see bizarre nonsense passes muster with you.

          2. Yes, virtually everything we knew in 2018 was verified by the Mueller report. Is that what you mean?

            Again, I have no clue why you play these games (except that David Brock told you to do it this way).

    2. Paul:

      Well, the Star Chamber did actually consider evidence in the broadest sense (if not strict due process). The problem was the secret court followed equitable rather than legal principles which were largely based on “feelings” or sentiments of right and wrong. The law side doesn’t take into account sentiments of right and wrong just legal. That’s why the poor widow with seven kids is evicted for non-payment of the mortgage just like the rich person is evicted for the same.

    3. oh Paul. nobody knows what a star chamber was anymore unless they went to law school and actually did the readings and listened.

      also, quit quoting relevant history, it’s above their heads

      1. Mr Kurtz – you mean to say that defending yourself in a Star Chamber hearing in NOT a question on the Bar exam? How sad. 🙁

  8. Palsi Pelosi discovered you can sell nonsense to LIVs. This is a public relations stunt, and they’ll drag it out as long as possible.

  9. Why no vote?

    Because this is not designed to be fair, or by the rules.

    This is a coup attempt, and such acts are better done in darkness.

    The Dems know that they are playing with fire and want to maintain plausible deniability.

    1. The Starr Report was complete before the impeachment process was begun on Clinton. The House can do as it wishes and no doubt Trumpsters would be trying to make an issue out of a rush to judgement if the vote had already happened.

      JT could not be more wrong on this and the QPQ which a blind man can see. He is right when he says:

      “…the Constitution does not require anything other than a majority vote of the House to impeach a president. It is silent on the procedures used to reach that vote, and courts have largely deferred to Congress to create its own internal rules and processes in fulfilling constitutional functions.”

      His chronic fence straddling is as tiring to watch as it must be to maintain.

      1. The Starr report was an independent counsel, not the House, doing the investigation. You are thrilled to death with this process and approve of it because it supports your hatred of the president. You could care less about the legality of it, or the fairness. There’s a concept known as due process that’s being ignored by the dems right now right now.
        All of this is good as far as you’re concerned. It’s people like you were tearing the country apart, and attempting to destroy the constitution. I would tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but you have no concept of why you should be ashamed.

        1. As pointed out by Turley, the House makes it’s own rules for impeachment as per the Constitution. His objection is that it potentially weakens the House’s standing at judicial hearings. Oh well. That is not a violation of the president’s rights or anyone elses. If you can think of something about the process that is violating someone’s rights, be sure to tell us what it is.

          In the meantime, if you gave a hoot about the constitution you’d be flipping out at the presidents attempts tp end run Congresses power of the purse, his use of the office to pursue foreign help against a potential political opponent, his refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas, and as an oldie but goodie that was big hit form 2012-2016, use of executive actions to usurp congressional power.

          1. It is departure from precedent and feeding the perception that any House Speaker……or for that matter, a Committee Chairman…..can start an impeachment inquiry at any time without the formal authorization of a full House vote.
            The Trump Administration’s position is that an impeachment inquiry launched in this manner is not legimate.
            They may be unlikely to prevail in the courts, but a parallel objective for political purposes is to liken these proceedings to those of a kangaroo court.


                Whether or not this argument is accepted by the courts, the administration will continue to press the narrative that this is a casual, sloppy, and irresponsible way to handle any stage of impeachment.
                I think if it’s accepted that any Speaker or any House Committee Chairman can start an impeachment inquiry at any time, without a full House vote, that we’re apt to see impeachment inquiries as a more common political weapon whenever the opposition party holds the House.

                1. and that’s a fact jack

                  let’s see what the voters think of 4 years of constant sabotage. and abuse of office.

                  trump voters will and MUST come out in lockstep come the election day. drag your people out by their hair if need be. A massive turnout is imperative to drive the point home.

                  Folks, begin preparing your lists of your people to confirm registration as voters today and plans for turning every single one out on the fateful day.

                  If they can’t be counted on to vote, then they can’t be counted in when the SHTF and one way or another, eventually it will. consider this a preparatory exercise.

                  you gotta be counted on, to be counted in.

                2. That’s exactly right Mark. The election of Donald Trump has always been viewed by the Democrats as the crime that cannot go unpunished. The punishment is impeachment. The problem for the Democrats is they have the verdict, they have the punishment, but they have been unable to find anything to support the allegation. If they had, Pelosi would have a full House vote immediately, if not sooner.

                  So even though the Democrats view the election as the impeachable crime and because the American people (and the electoral college) and Republicans are complicit in this egregious crime and deserve punishment, then the Democrats see they have no alternative but to shutout those co-conspirators from the process. The fundamental problem for Democrats is the same constitution that got them into this situation is the same one they have to use to get them out of it.

                  1. Olly, you have a hard time sticking to the specifics of any issue. First we get the “wait until the investigation is over”, then this “they can’t get over the election”, and the old favorite about the superior intellects of those who agree with you – a not obvious conclusion by the way.

                    How about stick to the issue? Too difficult?

      2. Anon 1

        I have to admire your frenetic energy in defending the indefensible.

        Now, if you could just add some objectivity, you would be a great commentator.

Leave a Reply