ColonelAngus
Diamond Member
- Feb 25, 2015
- 58,592
- 63,482
- 3,615
This is so fucking amazing. The Dimms are so fucking dirty,
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day 'Whistleblower' Complaint Filed -- Pulled Authority Away from Full House!
Read for yourself the old verbiage and the new verbiage.
It went from only first hand knowledge to allowing for hearsay!
.
.
.
.
Here is the old language:
The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair.15 Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.
In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the full House did debate the resolution.
The new version created by House Democrats and published on August 12th gives the authority and control to the House Judiciary Committee.
(Changes in bold)
The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.
In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take affidavits and depositions.
If the House does approve an authorizing resolution, then in addition to the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee can report an original resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation if impeachment resolutions have been referred to the committee. In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee reported such a resolution, and the full House debated it.
BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Pelosi Democrats Changed House Rules on Impeachment on Day 'Whistleblower' Complaint Filed -- Pulled Authority Away from Full House!
Read for yourself the old verbiage and the new verbiage.
It went from only first hand knowledge to allowing for hearsay!
.
.
.
.
Here is the old language:
The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair.15 Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.
In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the full House did debate the resolution.
The new version created by House Democrats and published on August 12th gives the authority and control to the House Judiciary Committee.
(Changes in bold)
The two most recent resolutions adopted by the House to authorize an impeachment investigation were taken up by unanimous consent at the request of the Rules Committee chair. Rather than convene a committee meeting to order the resolutions reported with a quorum present, the chair asked unanimous consent that the House discharge the Rules Committee and agree to the resolution. Both of these resolutions concerned federal judges, and they were agreed to without debate.
In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation. In two of the three recent cases, the House agreed to separate resolutions to allow committee counsel to take affidavits and depositions.
If the House does approve an authorizing resolution, then in addition to the Rules Committee, the Judiciary Committee can report an original resolution authorizing an impeachment investigation if impeachment resolutions have been referred to the committee. In the case of the most recent authorization of a presidential impeachment inquiry, the Judiciary Committee reported such a resolution, and the full House debated it.
