5 ms·

So why hasn't the house actually started impeachment procedings? The procedure they're using is irregular, and doesn't match the rules they passed for themselv

So why hasn't the house actually started impeachment procedings? The procedure they're using is irregular, and doesn't match the rules they passed for themselves. Least they could do when accusing the President of a host of irregularities is follow their own procedures regularly.

shadowgovt 7y ago
In what way is the procedure irregular?
- ticviking 7y ago
  I don't have the house rules handy but as I recall impeachment hearings are dependent on a vote to begin the process. Unless I missed a news story there hasn't been a vote of the house to begin impeachment.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    I'd confirm such a rule actually exists before criticizing the House for not following it. Most of the "irregularity" stories I've read contrast with the Clinton procedure, but Clinton was a one-off (as was Nixon's never-quite-impeached, as was Johnson).
  - ticviking 7y ago
    Replying here due to nesting limits. I am quite sure about the rule, but I am not in a position to cite it at a moments notice on a random online discussion board.
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      """“In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.” — Pat A. Cipollone, White House counsel, in a letter on Tuesday to House Democratic leaders """ New York Times reports [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-impeachment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-im...] that statement is misleading; the Congressional Research Service [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf] has noted "In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation." It's not improper to pursue the facts that would underpin impeachment before bringing articles to bear. How would one draft the articles in an information vacuum?
      - ticviking 7y ago
        I'll need to read those in more detail, but at this point I'm convinced by your summary of the arguments and points made.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > I don't have the house rules handy Then maybe you ought to grab a copy and find the violation, if it's existence is the entire premise of your argumwnt. > but as I recall impeachment hearings are dependent on a vote to begin the process. “Impeachment hearings” usually refers to hearings on one or more drafted articles of impeachment conducted by a Committee (usually, the Judiciary Committee, though historically there have been some exceptions, and the only reason the Judiciary Committee gets this role is that most impeachments are of federal judges since they are both the vast majority of impeachable officials and the only officials that cannot be involuntarily removed by any other means short of death.) The House rules, however, have no special requirement for a vote to begin impeachment or other hearings (“impeachment” does not appear in the House Rules at all, nor is there any general requirement to vote before holding hearings; there is a requirement for hearings before certain matters go to a vote of the full house, but that's only for bills and joint resolution, and adopting articles of impeachment is neither, so neither is a vote required for impeachment hearings by house rules nor are impeachment hearings required for impeachment by house rules.) What is presently occuring is inquiries by various Committees on subjects within their jurisdiction which will refer any findings relating to impeachable conduct to the Judiciary Committee. > Unless I missed a news story there hasn't been a vote of the house to begin impeachment. The only vote the House seems to be required to take on impeachment would be on whether to adopt articles of impeachment, which is the end, not the start, of the process in the House. As a matter of practicality, there would almost certainly be votes in various committees and possibly the whole House on other steps before that. But that's not a matter of requirements in the rules.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> So why hasn't the house actually started impeachment procedings? They have. > The procedure they're using is irregular Impeachment of a President is irregular, but committees of the House conducting inquiries within their established field of competence and forwarding findings that bear on impeachment to the Judiciary Committee is not. It is unprecedent to have remotely supported claims bearing on serious Presidential crimes and abuses of power within the jurisdiction of many different House Committees simultaneously, but you go into impeachment inquiries with the President you have, not the President you wish you had (otherwise, there'd never be any impeachment inquiries.) > and doesn't match the rules they passed for themselves. While the Trump camp is claiming that, there are no actual rules they can point to to support that claim, because it's completely false. > Least they could do when accusing the President of a host of irregularities is follow their own procedures regularly. They aren't accusing the President of mere “irregularities”, though that's the kind of minimizing spin that defenders of the President who can't manage a direct defense with a straight face seem to be resorting to.

shadowgovt 7y ago

In what way is the procedure irregular?

ticviking 7y ago
I don't have the house rules handy but as I recall impeachment hearings are dependent on a vote to begin the process. Unless I missed a news story there hasn't been a vote of the house to begin impeachment.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  I'd confirm such a rule actually exists before criticizing the House for not following it. Most of the "irregularity" stories I've read contrast with the Clinton procedure, but Clinton was a one-off (as was Nixon's never-quite-impeached, as was Johnson).
- ticviking 7y ago
  Replying here due to nesting limits. I am quite sure about the rule, but I am not in a position to cite it at a moments notice on a random online discussion board.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    """“In the history of our nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step.” — Pat A. Cipollone, White House counsel, in a letter on Tuesday to House Democratic leaders """ New York Times reports [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-impeachment.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/politics/fact-check-im...] that statement is misleading; the Congressional Research Service [https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf] has noted "In the past, House committees, under their general investigatory authority, have sometimes sought information and researched charges against officers prior to the adoption of a resolution to authorize an impeachment investigation." It's not improper to pursue the facts that would underpin impeachment before bringing articles to bear. How would one draft the articles in an information vacuum?
    - ticviking 7y ago
      I'll need to read those in more detail, but at this point I'm convinced by your summary of the arguments and points made.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I don't have the house rules handy Then maybe you ought to grab a copy and find the violation, if it's existence is the entire premise of your argumwnt. > but as I recall impeachment hearings are dependent on a vote to begin the process. “Impeachment hearings” usually refers to hearings on one or more drafted articles of impeachment conducted by a Committee (usually, the Judiciary Committee, though historically there have been some exceptions, and the only reason the Judiciary Committee gets this role is that most impeachments are of federal judges since they are both the vast majority of impeachable officials and the only officials that cannot be involuntarily removed by any other means short of death.) The House rules, however, have no special requirement for a vote to begin impeachment or other hearings (“impeachment” does not appear in the House Rules at all, nor is there any general requirement to vote before holding hearings; there is a requirement for hearings before certain matters go to a vote of the full house, but that's only for bills and joint resolution, and adopting articles of impeachment is neither, so neither is a vote required for impeachment hearings by house rules nor are impeachment hearings required for impeachment by house rules.) What is presently occuring is inquiries by various Committees on subjects within their jurisdiction which will refer any findings relating to impeachable conduct to the Judiciary Committee. > Unless I missed a news story there hasn't been a vote of the house to begin impeachment. The only vote the House seems to be required to take on impeachment would be on whether to adopt articles of impeachment, which is the end, not the start, of the process in the House. As a matter of practicality, there would almost certainly be votes in various committees and possibly the whole House on other steps before that. But that's not a matter of requirements in the rules.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> So why hasn't the house actually started impeachment procedings? They have. > The procedure they're using is irregular Impeachment of a President is irregular, but committees of the House conducting inquiries within their established field of competence and forwarding findings that bear on impeachment to the Judiciary Committee is not. It is unprecedent to have remotely supported claims bearing on serious Presidential crimes and abuses of power within the jurisdiction of many different House Committees simultaneously, but you go into impeachment inquiries with the President you have, not the President you wish you had (otherwise, there'd never be any impeachment inquiries.) > and doesn't match the rules they passed for themselves. While the Trump camp is claiming that, there are no actual rules they can point to to support that claim, because it's completely false. > Least they could do when accusing the President of a host of irregularities is follow their own procedures regularly. They aren't accusing the President of mere “irregularities”, though that's the kind of minimizing spin that defenders of the President who can't manage a direct defense with a straight face seem to be resorting to.