House Votes to Formalize Impeachment Inquiry

Carlos Jasso/Reuters

The U.S. House of Representatives Thursday upped the ante in its ongoing efforts to impeach President Donald Trump, voting 232-196, largely along party lines, in favor of a resolution formally laying out the ground rules for a more public phase of the investigation.

Every Republican in the House voted against the measure, along with two Democratic defectors — New Jersey’s Jeff Van Drew and Minnesota’s Collin Peterson.

The resolution allows for testimony in the inquiry, carried on largely behind closed doors over the last few weeks, to be carried out in open hearings.

Going forward, Republicans may issue subpoenas for witnesses and the president’s lawyers will be allowed to participate in the proceedings, though Democrats will have veto power over their actions if the White House continues to press witnesses not to testify and withhold documents.

The House Intelligence Committee will decide whether to release transcripts of testimony that has been taken to date.

Republican leaders rounded on the rules as “Soviet-style” and accused Democrats of moving forward with the impeachment efforts because they are afraid to face the president at the ballot box.

“Why do you not trust the people?” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

Democrats noted that the rules are the same ones adopted by the House in 2015 when Republicans were in charge.

In a letter to fellow House Democrats on Monday published by Axios, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wrote the resolution will “eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.”

“What is at stake in all this is nothing less than our democracy,” she said on the House floor Thursday.

It is likely to be weeks or more before the House decides whether to vote on actually impeaching Trump. If the House does vote for impeachment, the Senate will hold a trial to decide whether to remove the president from office.

What do you think?

Comments

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
General Confusion
Member

“we are a republic, not a democracy” Jeffrey Moore

Groan! Not THIS silly argument again.

This is literally like saying, “you eat beef and pork” vs “you eat cows and pigs”. They are the same thing! One derives from Latin, the other from Greek.

General Confusion
Member

Re: Democratic Party “The Party has turned socialistic” Bob Cottam

You know not of what you speak. Just because Dear Leader likes throwing that term around now doesn’t mean that he is telling the truth.

Currently, the party mostly consists of a corrupt, money-grubbing conservative leadership and the majority of Congress men and women are also pretty conservative. There is NOTHING socialistic about them. Perish THAT thought! They do EVERYTHING in their power to halt any progressive ideas and they will for a very long time, unless voters wise up and eject this excess baggage overboard.

Tom Bodine
Member

This is the kiss of death for the Democrat party believe me.

War Eagle
Guest
War Eagle

Good! It legalizes the subpoenas. Pelosi has been dishing out, but also allows Republicans to generate their own. Republicans need to publicly report every one of their subpoenas and evidential requests that the Democrats veto and every action they try to keep secret. Exposing all to the public will allow us to decide one year from now!

Craig
Member

If democracy were at stake, the Democrats would allow it to play out in the next year, but what is really at stake is our constitutional republic.

Charles
Member

Democrats should drive up to the Capitol building in a clown car. That would be more realistic.

Charles
Member

“Democrats will have veto power over their actions if the White House continues to press witnesses not to testify and withhold documents. The House Intelligence Committee will decide whether to release transcripts of testimony that has been taken to date.” In other words Kangaroo Court. This is exactly what the British did in trials in the 1700s leading up to the Revolution. Maybe it’s time for another. Democrats will be running the inquiry just like they want to dish out our rights – they will allow testimony only if Democrats approve of the content. The conclusion has already been decided… Read more »

Jeffrey Moore
Member

One would think that the Speaker of the House would know that we are a republic, not a democracy. But that’s what the Democratic Party has always stood for – democracy, which always fails into socialism (enforced, of course, by tyranny), and from there, into poverty and revolution.

Loading…

0

Comments

0 comments

Top Political Operatives Claim Twitter Ads Were ‘Shi**y, Suck’ for Campaigns Anyway

Islamic State Confirms Baghdadi Is Dead, Appoints Successor