Posted on 10/03/2019 6:28:38 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) rejected a request by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) on Thursday that the full House vote on whether to authorize an impeachment inquiry, in keeping with precedent.
On Thursday morning, McCarthy wrote to Pelosi to ask whether she intended to comply with the precedent set in three previous presidential impeachment inquiries (Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton) of having the full House vote to authorize an investigation.
McCarthy also asked whether Pelosi would comply with precedent by letting the minority have equal power to subpoena witnesses, allowing the president’s counsel to cross-examine them, and having the House Judiciary Committee lead the investigation (as required under existing House rules).
Pelosi responded that there was “no requirement under the Constitution, under House Rules, or House precedent that the whole House vote before preceding with an impeachment inquiry.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Bet there’s “no requirement under the Constitution” for the Government to supply planes for Congressional travel, either
Start saying hello to flying commercial, Congresspeople
Because she doesnt have the votes, its really that simple. There will be NO impeachment vote, they just hope if they keep up bitching this time next yr it will hurt Trump in the election
Come watch the slow suicide...
“There is no requirement under the Constitution, House Rules or House PRECEDENT that the whole House vote before proceeding with an impeachment inquiry.”
Well there seems to be a major disagreement here...
IDK.
Some requests can, indeed, be made under settled law anyway and must be respected.
(A very early case involving foreign matters was decided in Washington’s favor, with Madison’s support.)
Trump will have to be careful what he refuses to respond to.
AAlso, all the court activity will be in the US District Courts of Columbia which have been packed with Reid/Obama appointees. So Trump will lose cases until the SC hears them.
Basically they want to appear to be damaging him comstitutionally without actually having to do it, because they know thry have mo grounds and recognize most people are not in favor of them doing it. They dont have the optics.
Its to keep their hypercore nutjob base fired up.
The demonic, vile Botoxian has spoken!!!! There will be no vote!!!
With no vote, there should be no compliance to any demands, requests, etc.
FWIW, I don’t have the words to describe how I totally despise this slave-owning demon. Hopefully, the Reaper will soon snatch it’s nasty soul and carry it back to hell from whence it came.
There’s ‘no requirement under the Constitution” for thousands of gov agencies and millions of overpaid gov workers.
or their bloated gov pension funds.
Then there is no impeachment.
Nancy Pelosi is full of shit.
There’s no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate has to take up the House’s impeachment at all. The tradition of bipartisanship in support of these efforts is intended to lend legitimacy to the proceedings. If this thing breaks strictly along partisan lines then it will go nowhere, and rightly so.
“There’s no requirement in the Constitution that the Senate has to take up the House’s impeachment at all. “
Really?
Then what the hell was McConnell babbling on about?
Looks like the WH is planning to send a non-cooperation letter to Pelosi demanding just such a vote. See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3783490/posts?q=1&;page=1
WOW!!!!!! Levin was on fire on hannity!! HE WARNED THE SENATE!! Wow, wow, WOW!!!
No surpise. This is the Demcrat Party hack that placed 1/5 of the US economy under the heel of government by claiming that the legislation was “deemed passed”
1. You fear an impeachment vote may fail.
2. You will put many Democrat representatives on the chopping block if you hold a vote.
3. Such a vote would truly tick off Americans and would be extremely unpopular.
No guts Pelosi.
“...letting the minority have equal power to subpoena witnesses, allowing the president’s counsel to cross-examine them, and having the House Judiciary Committee lead the investigation (as required under existing House rules).”
What’s the matter Nance. Worried about the truth coming out?
Thanks for the heads up.
He referred specifically to a Senate rule in place which would require 67 votes to change - he was hardly ambiguous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.