No vote!!

[EarlG]

These are desperation tactics by the White House. They are caught and they know it.

There is no legal requirement to hold a vote to proceed with an impeachment inquiry. But the White House has a legal requirement to respond to subpoenas. They can’t just make up a reason not to.

Theyre just trying to stonewall as best they can. They will drag it out for as long as they can but make no mistake, this is a Hail Mary. The under-investigation White House doesn’t get to tell the investigating House how to conduct its business.

A better question: if they didn’t do anything wrong, WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE?

[Wounded Bear]

1. A vote would just fall out along party lines...

and the Repubs would amp up their "partisanship" attacks.

Holding the vote now would be a no-win idea.

[WhiteTara]

7. And I don't see Nancy falling for such a ploy

she is smarter than all of them put together.

[BumRushDaShow]

11. EXACTLY

They will then get to say -"See????? This is a "Democrat-only witch-hunt!!11111!!!!11!!!!!!"

[MyMission]

56. Agree, and if Congress votes to impeach now

The Senate will hold a speedy trial WITHOUT any testimony or WH documents being turned over. It's a setup.

I think that's why the con and rethugs are pushing for Congress to take the vote first. Once they do, the ball goes to the Senate and they'll just vote against it.

We need the documents and testimony to win more public support and win over enough repugs to vote him out.

[intrepidity]

71. There are two different votes at issue, I believe

One, that the WH is pressing for, is a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry (which is underway now, in spite of Nancy not having taken a formal vote).

The other is a vote on whether to impeach, after the inquiry.

[lagomorph777]

81. And yet I see some here trying to push a vote.

Very suspicious. Low post counts too.

[maxsolomon]

2. Justice delayed is Justice denied.

The Federal Courts are taking their sweet goddamn time on every Congressional Investigation front - as is Trump's intent.

[StarfishSaver]

9. The courts are actually moving pretty quickly

[maxsolomon]

13. Really? What have they delivered on?

I feel like I've aged into my late 50s waiting for them!

[StarfishSaver]

14. The legal process is very slow. The courts are moving much more quickly than normal.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

54. even on cases not involving Congress ...

This one seemed to move through at a quick march:

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/TrumpvVanceJretalDocketNo119cv08694SDNYSept192019CourtDocket/4?1570464158

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Have you seen a good status list of everything outstanding?

I keep waiting for NYT to pull it together. If you Google some of it last news article like in May.

[Magoo48]

52. Yup,

We can throw down gauntlets every day, but if there are no fists behind them, we are left with a pathetic pile of gauntlets.

[TidalWave46]

3. I don't see how we would benefit in any way from taking a vote.

It will be recognized by the courts that we are under an impeachment inquiry without said vote. I find it to be strange that so many are wanting to appease them as if something good is going to happen afterward.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

18. Do not underestimate the value of an unequivocal AYE

In a dramatic declaration to the world.

Our party is bashed all the time for being too wishy-washy (by it's own members who love their party.) (i.e. inquiry approval lite) Forget all the politics for once and watch how we get admiration for doing what is right.

[TidalWave46]

20. How many unequivocal Nay"s will there be?

That is the simple talking point they want. It’s the only thing that will be gained or lost from any of it.

The world heard it when Pelosi said it was an impeachment inquiry.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

42. If we are waiting for more worse stuff to come out

and hopefully expect an irrefutable case against him then you have to simultaneously believe they will be caught with an inexplicable NAY vote.

[Kingofalldems]

22. Neither Trump nor his supporters can tell us how to proceed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

26. That they are asking for a vote has zero to do with

it. Can't believe we are acting based on what he says or doesn't say or what he might say. IMHO we need to act the right way.

They used a freaking tan suit as a talking point.

[Mike 03]

4. Yeah, I don't like the idea of allowing this administration to order us around

If we have the vote, they'll find another hurdle for us to leap. The next major development should involve someone in handcuffs being lead to a chair before one of our committees.

[stage left]

32. Yes.

If they won't testify, lock them up until they will.

[Efilroft Sul]

64. Lock them up in an undisclosed location.

Let them know what the ICE experience is like.

[ramen]

63. Amen.

The procedural aspects of this whole process seem pretty situational to me, and I see no reason to capitulate to their version of the situation qt our (and democracy's) expense.

[dchill]

5. Regardless, Pelosi, Schiff et al are not going to...

...be dictated by the subjects of their process in how to run an impeachment. They, unlike those "subjects," know what they're doing.

[asiliveandbreathe]

6. Word of the day..what they do everyday - REPUGNANT....n/t

[barbtries]

8. a question every reporter should be asking trump and all of his surrogates

at every opportunity. this is not the behavior of innocent people. they have so much to hide.

[Duppers]

24. Exactly!

TY.

[Moostache]

10. Here is the bottom line for Trumpy the Clown...

1) He is caught. Red-handed.

2) He admitted to being caught.

3) He thought he could bully his way through this one too: "No Collusion, No Obstruction" becoming "No Quid Pro Quo, Perfect Call"; but, fortunately, enough people seem to still care about the rule of law to scoff at his BS this time around (though certainly not the dead enders in the GOP caucus)...the latest polling showing independents moving towards impeach and remove has got to have him shitting his pants hourly.

4) If you were innocent, you would have released the original tapes of the call (not the sanitized confession that you thought was 'perfect' enough to BS everyone with)...

5) If you were innocent, you would allow EVERYONE and ANYONE to testify because you would KNOW they have nothing to say aside from the truth...it is obvious that the tactics used to stonewall first Mueller, and then committees looking into Mueller's findings on obstruction, are being rolled out here too. Claims of privilege where none exist, nonsensical claims of 'rigged processes' and 'kangaroo courts', bizarre claims of impeachment for positions not subject to the process and so on...these are ALL the machinations of a deeply guilty man.

The GOP is going to allow him to serve out his term, but they will be willing to kneecap him in 2020 to save their own seats if it came down to it. The "base" is hopelessly stupid and irretrievably wrapped up in Trumpy Bear's "owning the libs" persona to EVER admit they have been conned, but the Never-Trumpers are horrified at the circus and the trainwreck that is this administration. Independents are largely milquetoasts to me, but even they are seeing Trumpy Bear for the loser and liar he is now...

In the end, Trump leaves office in the next 15 months, but the sooner the better to avoid even more lasting damage...once he is gone, there is a whole laundry list of things we need to codify into law instead of allowing traditions and norms to enforce them:

- candidates for President, Vice-President and Cabinet positions or SCOTUS appointments MUST release publically their last 5 years of tax returns at a minimum. Failure to do so is immediate cause for disqualification from office or appointment.

- Presidents with significant external and international business interests MUST fully divest from them or place them into blind trusts for the duration of their term in office PLUS five (5) years AFTER leaving office...the office of POTUS is NOT for printing personal gains, period.

- Citizens United is in drastic need of a constitutional amendment to have it struck down. Money is NOT free speech, it is a megaphone to drown OUT free speech and it MUST be contained for the sake of maintaining this fragile republic to make it to 250 years old...

- press conferences are to be held a minimum of once a week (barring vacations or weird calendar fluctuations) and INSIDE the press briefing room; additionally, Presidential announcements will be banned from Twitter and any other social media outlet that enforces any kind of character limit to encourage idiotic short-hand. The POTUS is to return to communicating CLEARLY and in an ORDERLY manner to the public and to the world.

- unless a meeting between POTUS and any other Head of State is an actual negotiation to END OR PREVENT WAR, a full and complete transcript of the conversation shall be entered into the public record no later than 48 hours after said conversation occurs...if the President can't allow the public to hear it, he has no business saying it...

- Executive Privilege shall NOT extend to anyone beyond specific discussions of classified material or war planning...no other conversations, documents or summaries shall be construed to be beyond the reach of oversight by the Congress and the People.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

30. Excellent points...but...serve out his term?. You mean

they'd rather a Dem take over in 2020 than have to stand up against him before then?? Hey, never thought of that! But from a Rep House or Senate perspective that makes sense! They can tell their constituents " hey, love him too, but it's America and he lost" .??? Wow

[usaf-vet]

80. Great points. Please run for Congress. Bring your list along.

[Cha]

12. Yes! What Are you HIDING, Impotent

trump Doormats?!

[getagrip_already]

15. The courts won't care about a formal vote.....

They will eventually rule the wh must comply.

But that isn't the point. Delay, obfuscate, under deliver, forge, delay, deny, ignore.

Their goal is to head into the senate with no forensic evidence, and no direct testimony. Then the senate will simply table the articles in committee and not bring them to the floor.

Then they will merely say "why should I care?".

Znd trump will only get bolder, and crazier. But moscow mitch will have another scotus appointment (or 2) and lots more judges, plus a lot of gold in his offshore accounts. Same for all the other senators. A few will get to speak out, but not a lot.

It's all too easy to predict. And all too infuriating.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. Yes, but others are saying the courts will care and expedite

So I'm gonna believe them...lol. jk.

[getagrip_already]

43. the courts can move at a glacial pace.....

That is actually a feature in most cases, not a bug.

Expediting isn't something anyone other than the presiding judges can do procedurally, or the administration can demand (and then only to request an emergency scotus review).

The federal courts follow their own timeline. If they feel its urgent, they will quicken the pace. But each stage makes its own decisions.

If the presiding judge says slow down, everything slows down. It's the way the system works.

Nobody can speed a federal judge up.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

45. I believe you but why are so many saying that the f

You are in full blown out impeachment it is a better position legally?

[getagrip_already]

48. Lots of people....

Or bots, say a lot of things.

You have to think for yourself. Not saying whats right or wrong, just pointing out how things work.

Investigate, think, decide.

If you have a different position, no problem. But look at how things work.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Ok I will.

[Doitnow]

16. If you have to hide to do something, you have to know it's wrong---unless

it's for a surprise birthday!

[Garrett78]

17. But legal requirements mean nothing. They repeatedly ignore subpoenas without consequences.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. True. So anything we can do to speed up the legal

process or find alternative witnesses? That was the beauty of the Mueller report...could have impeached with report itself as evidence.

[stopdiggin]

69. could have impeached, and suffered a CRUSHING loss (nt)

[mindfulNJ]

25. CNN panel just suggested

that the Democrats denying a vote on the inquiry looks bad for them vis a vis “fairness” and goes against precedence...saying it could potentially look bad for them.

[malaise]

31. CNN?

Please

[mindfulNJ]

39. Yep

..on Erin Burnett. David Gergen, Joan Walsh, some woman who wrote a book on the Constitution all in agreement on that one point.

[Mr.Bill]

33. And my question for CNN would be

do you think that if we took the vote that Trump would suddenly comply with all the subpoenas?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. Of course he wouldn't. But we can potentially gain

by looking resolved and unequivocal. Don't underestimate that. The Dem world beyond DU is craving that.

[Mr.Bill]

38. I think we would look weak

and would look like we're letting them call the shots. If we give in to one demand the demands will be endless.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Yes but do we look strong now? Impeachment inquiry agreement "lite"

trump et al slow walking and delaying everything in court? Like he has done his whole career? Trust me, if he wanted us to vote...he damn well wouldn't be tempting us to vote! Master manipulator.

[Mr.Bill]

53. Us voting would not change his behavior one bit. n/t

[Laura PourMeADrink]

57. No it likely wouldn't. He's a giant unknown who

could change hour to hour. More the reason to just follow our own clarion call. Whatever the right thing to do is - do it.

[Kid Berwyn]

27. Innocent people don't obstruct justice.

The known record shows Trump is a traitor.

Can’t wait for the trials to learn what else he and his administration have done.

[dalton99a]

28. Don't let the asshole make up bullshit "rules" and impose them on the House.

Pelosi is already following House rules

[Lib 4 Life]

29. they should vote on an impeachment inquiry. for the record.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

58. +1.

[Goodheart]

34. That's all well and good, but being on the correct side means squat without punishment

Here's what I would do:

Issue subpoenas and give them an OATH that if they don't comply their asses are going to be thrown in prison for obstruction when we take over the Presidency.

Right now they're not scared. Make them scared.

[beachbumbob]

35. Until repercussions, why would trump and whitehouse cooperate. Explain.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

77. You are right. No criminal is going to just give in

to allowing potentially incriminating testimony unless he is absolutely forced to. We haven't seen a whole lot of forcing going in since he got in.

Is getting GOP subpoena power
important enough to free his cronies to testify fully? May be...since the overall strategy might be to stick together, we'll call people to really muck this whole thing up. People will be so confused!

[OldManTarHeel]

36. We Don't Need No Stinkin' Vote . .

Taking a vote isn't going to change anything that TRE45ON boy isn't already prepared to do.

[TomSlick]

40. OK, I'll be the Devil's Advocate.

I fail to see any down-side to a vote on a resolution authorizing an impeachment inquiry. It will surely pass. If it does not, then articles of impeachment will not pass either. If someone runs for Congress, they are obliged to take tough votes now and then. It seems to me that Congress Members - Democrat and Republican alike - need to be made to take a position on whether they support Trump's obstruction.

I am a believer in the belt-and-suspender practice of law. Some court might think it important that there is a resolution by the House to authorize an impeachment inquiry - the absence of any such requirement in the Constitution notwithstanding. Why not cross all possible "t"s and dot all possible "i"s?

All that being said, Speaker Pelosi is a damned sight more intelligent and knowledgeable about the processes of the House than I. I am sure that the grand plan will all become clear at some point.

[getagrip_already]

44. getagrip's grots.....

If trump wants it, deny it.

If they say it will make us look bad, screw em. It's a winner.

If they provide a document, it's a forgery.

If they are scared, keep digging.

Don't panic. Keep fighting.

Repeat.

[TomSlick]

46. I mostly agree but if Trump is daring us to give him rope to hang himself, I say go for it.

I size-up Trump as a poor poker player - call his bluff.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

59. Ew...you were so damn logical until the last

paragraph. But thanks for at least analyzing til then

[stopdiggin]

70. the down side is that a failed vote

would immeasurably weaken the Dem position, and quite probably the investigations and inquiry as well. It leaves you standing before a judge arguing that we need these records (or this testimony) even though we are NOT going to impeach. Which definitely DOESN'T carry the same weight.

[TomSlick]

92. If there is a failed vote - which I very much doubt - it's all a futile exercise anyway.

We have a substantial majority in the House. All that is needed in the House is a simple majority. Speaker Pelosi is the best vote-counter in the history of the House. I hope that a failed vote is not her concern.

The best argument I have heard the argument is that there should not be any vote until time is allowed to continue to move public opinion. Still, it seems to me that the benefits of a vote far outweigh any downside.

Fortunately, the issue lies with Speaker Pelosi and not me.

[stopdiggin]

93. agree that a defeat is unlikely

but the Dem majority in the House is not large (235, with 218 needed for a bare majority) -- and a party line vote doesn't look real great either. Public opinion is coming (IMO). And the biggest danger is an overplayed hand (again, IMO).

[warmfeet]

50. They are guilty as hell

and everyone knows it. Repugs don't care because he is one of their slimy own. How long can this sick charade continue? Start locking these fuckers up.

[C_U_L8R]

51. They're so morally and mentally defective

What stupid bullshit.

[Midnightwalk]

55. Simple answer

The person being investigated doesn’t get to dictate the terms of the investigation. If the house votes to impeach he can defend himself in the senate.

[Mr.Bill]

60. I doubt he'll even show up for that.

He'll just say the whole thing is illegal.

[Midnightwalk]

65. Might be right

I’m just saying don’t treat the demand for a vote as legitimate. We own the house and we’ll impeach him any damn way we want.

What happens in the senate isn’t going to change anything we do now.

That’s how to answer any question about his deranged demand.

[Mr.Bill]

68. I agree. n/t

[oasis]

61. Nancy ain't going for the okey doke.

[spanone]

62. K&R...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼

[Talitha]

66. In Nancy We Trust.

She's a political Surgeon.

Let her do her job.

Nancy knows...

[Tactical Peek]

67. The House of Representatives... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript


Just sayin'.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Operative words "the House of Representatives"

[treestar]

72. Was there a vote to hold the endless

Benghazi hearings?

[Hortensis]

73. Answer: They have everything to hide.

Trump after Mueller appointment: "This is the end of my presidency. I'm fucked."

Nasty job, but we've gotta do it.

[LTG]

74. The administration's legal arguments just may be enough to at least get them into court

The legal argument being made is that absent a rule allowing the Speaker to simply declare that an official impeachment inquiry has begun on her own authority, the courts must rely on established House custom. The custom for the most recent commencement of Presidential impeachment inquiries has been the passage of such a resolution by vote of the House. The court will defer to the rules and procedures established by Congress governing impeachments. But the administration will argue that such things are created through the vote of congress.

If the hearings being held are oversight in nature the an assertion of executive privilege is legally defensible and its applicability to a particular witness and line of questioning must be determined by the court, upon suit being brought by the committee. If the court finds that is indeed an impeachment inquiry this exemption narrows substantially, but does not completely disappear.

After the court rules against the administration is when legal sanctions start applying. Any attempt at compelling testimony through the exercise of inherent contempt would be met by motion to the federal courts long before the trial of the contemnor could be held by the House.

Each step puts things off a little longer. A single victory in court for the administration could alter some public opinion on obstruction. And we know there are more friendly judges n the courts now than before.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

79. Why do you think -45/GOP are asking for a vote?

It's not like a slam dunk that it would help their side. And if stalling is what they are after, why put anything in motion to get the ball rolling?

And more confusing would be why -45 would say if you vote, I will release people and docs? Why not wait for courts to rule he had to?

Leaves two motives. Hoping for subpoena power. Or hoping if -45 asks for something Pelosi won't do it? Can't imagine they would be happy with no subpoena power and the prospect of having to vote no ...nothing to see here.

[LTG]

90. Motives from a non-rational mind?

I think that the WH believes that if Pelosi doesn’t hold the vote the Democrats will look like they are split on the question of impeachment. This might make their position weaker before the court.

Trump truly believes the hatred is so deep that Pelosi will refuse any action that Trump requests, no matter how simple the apparent solution because that’s how he would behave.

They are also counting on the Speaker refusing to look like she was wrong in her knowledge of the requirements or that she knew that all along and is being dishonest.

If she holds the vote Trump counts on it making her look weak and that Trump is right, a victory in his mind. Further a significant split would be revealed. That regardless how the new members from conservative districts vote it will hurt their re-election efforts. Maybe even that there aren’t enough votes.

Either way he believes he wins.

It’s hard to determine the motives of a man who who acts impulsively and often without any rationality or thought. You can count on them being unclear and often in conflict with each other.

[Cartaphelius]

76. Ms. Pelosi...please,

don't give the Republicans the means to destroy all that
has been accomplished by you and your fellow House Representatives.

Only YOU can can prevent the Republican dumpster fire from destroying
our forefathers legacy.


Vote NO on formalizing articles of impeachment, until the evidence
has been sufficient to ensure 60+ % of voters are ready to proceed.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. No one proposing that are they? Only talking now

about a formal vote to authorize the inquiry. All we have now are public statements and Pelosi saying it is official.

-45 is pushing for a vote but no one knows what his crazy motives might be. Some guess it's because they are hoping that this resolution would include subpoena power for the GOP. (Although doesn't have to). I think it's possible that he knows if he asks Pelosi to hold a vote she won't. Hard to imagine all Rep reps wanting to commit with a NO.

If a resolution does include GOP subpoena power, then who knows if -45 would agree to turn over docs or release people to speak. (i.e. the trade). Hard to imagine he would.

Basically we are stalling on this I guess. BTW, Claire McCaskell just said in MSNBC that she doesn't know why Nancy saying no on a vote.

[BlueJac]

82. K&R

[calimary]

83. Don't forget what Michael Avenatti said.

And he’s no saint but he contributed the Quote of the This Era.

“Those who have nothing to hide - hide nothing.”

[Texin]

84. The problem with this argument is that the House relies on the justice system to enforce

the law. As long as there is one Federal judge on the bench who can hold their feet to the fire, okay. They can block and demand performance under the law -- unless the order is blocked by appeal. This WH has used the legal system to block and stall, and they will continue to do so until they've exhausted their ability to do so, and will let it culminate at the Supreme Court. They will do that, and I believe given tRump's track record, I wouldn't bet against him. He's so far in his 72 years crawling on his underbelly, been the single luckiest person to have ever crawled the earth. I wouldn't be surprised if he's the only person ever born who actually will never die.

[blakstoneranger]

85. NO EARIG, A BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE...

What does the committee do if trump and his henchmen refuse to comply with any and all requests? What does the committee do? What enforcement actions do they have, Jail? The trump administration obviously thinks this is some sort of game that they have to win! Trump vs the democrats. The winner will be swept into reelection victory!! THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO IF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS FLUNKIES REFUSE TO COOPERATE!! Otherwise there is no end game here. Conservatives will not convict him in the senate and trump knows this. Trump will have to piss off a lot of GOP to get convicted and syria ain't it. They'll forgive him for that. WHAT WILL THE COMMITTEE DO IF TRUMP AND HIS DOOFUSES FLAT OUT REFUSE TO COMPLY??

[Laura PourMeADrink]

91. Yes! Btw just read there are 14 soft rep senators. So

It's not completely 100% impossible now.

[58Sunliner]

86. Amen. Last thing we need to do is let them call the shots and set the narrative.

[Alea]

87. Take the damn vote. Not taking the vote doesn't look good imo.

[IndyOp]

88. NO VOTE! GOP is exactly like a shark testing its prey - poke, poke - no response? KILL IT. (nt)

[Niagara]

89. Kicking for visibility!

[herding cats]

94. I agree. It's still too early to vote.

We're still gathering evidence and the GOP knows this. They want us to look unprepared and as if it's simply vengeful on partisan lines per their narrative. Which would insulate Republicans in both houses who vote against impeachment. I'm not down with making this a partisan game instead of a legal proceeding. This is real, not some bogus Benghazi bullshit to rally our base to us.

No vote at this point is the correct measure. Hit him with at the least documented obstruction of justice charges first, then take the vote. Documented evidence needs to be entered and heard first. They know this and so do our people.