(TLB) editors note: House Democrats have released the text of an impeachment resolution vote set to take place on Thursday. See PDF of resolution at the bottom of this article.
Pelosi Calls House Vote to Affirm Speaker Impeachment Inquiry The House Never Authorized…
Very nice trick here by the Lawfare advisory and rules committee that is handling the construct of the “Official House Inquiry” on impeachment. It is such a good trick it has everyone crossed-up and confused. Likely, that is by design.
On Thursday of this week Speaker Pelosi is bringing to the floor a resolution to affirm her previous declaration of an “Official House Inquiry”. Mrs. Pelosi is very purposefully and carefully telling reporters this is not a “House resolution on impeachment”. Read the wording carefully:
Speaker Pelosi is holding a vote, a resolution, to affirm her previous declaration of a House “inquiry”. The resolution is currently being written by Lawfare. Pelosi is not delivering a House “Resolution on Impeachment” for a vote, because if she did hold a vote on an impeachment resolution, the minority and the Executive branch would gain rights therein.
This is a House vote to show support for Pelosi’s previous unilateral decree. Right now the rules committee is adding language to the resolution that will provide additional one-sided support for a completely partisan process: “and for other purposes”.
Note in this video, Pelosi is careful to say “this is not an impeachment resolution”:
Speaker Pelosi, asked by @AlexNBCNews to comment on the impeachment resolution:
“It’s not an impeachment resolution.” pic.twitter.com/9A6qBan9mf
— Rebecca Kaplan (@RebeccaRKaplan) October 28, 2019
It is not an “impeachment resolution”, it is a resolution to support the already existing “impeachment inquiry”. Pelosi and the Lawfare crew are playing games.
Additionally, notice that like Pelosi, Chairman Schiff is careful not to use the words “impeachment investigation”, but rather says “impeachment inquiry”:
This week, we’re voting to establish the format for open hearings that will be conducted as part of the impeachment inquiry.
The American people will hear firsthand about the President’s misconduct.
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 28, 2019
The rules for an “impeachment investigation” would provide rights for the minority and also rights for the Executive branch.
So instead of having a House vote to authorize an impeachment investigation, with subsequent rights for the minority; they are having a House vote to affirm the “impeachment inquiry” with an entirely different set of House rules that do not include rights for the minority.
Nice trick huh?
On Thursday there will be a House vote to authorize:
…”ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.” (link)
And that House vote will include rules to further facilitate the one-sided, official impeachment inquiry, process therein.
Here’s where it gets interesting.
“And for Other Purposes” – The Thursday vote will likely have a rule process to conjoin the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) with the House “official impeachment inquiry”.
Lawfare is hoping that through this Thursday vote scheme they will be able to twist the legal process into providing their House inquiry judicial enforcement authority, or punishment possible for the executive not complying with a House committee subpoena.
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are hoping to achieve this by bringing in the House Judiciary Committee and the judicial enforcement authority they were just granted by Judge Howell. They are also in a big rush to do this; hence the Thursday vote. The rush is because the DOJ has filed a motion for stay, as they appeal the Judge Howell ruling.
Remember, the Lawfare intent is to pierce the constitutional firewall that creates a distinct separation of powers; and the Legislative branch is trying to force documents from the Executive branch, overriding executive privilege. This is a constitutional issue. This level of impeachment intent is why judicial enforcement authority (the full house authorization to grant weight to legal subpoena power) becomes much more important.
Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are attempting to create “judicial enforcement authority” without having an actual and constitutional vote to authorize an official “impeachment investigation”. That’s what this Thursday House resolution is all about.
The Thursday House resolution is intended to authorize and validate the pre-existing Pelosi “impeachment inquiry”, and then expand the authority within the rules to create the impression of a full House impeachment investigation; without actually having a House “impeachment investigation vote”…. because that would open-up rights to the minority and rights to the executive.
Of course, as previously stated, none of this would be possible if it were not for the complicit support of the entire national media. Pelosi’s impeachment scheme requires a compliant media to support her construct. So far, they have.
UPDATE: In the DC court the DOJ has filed a motion to stay the Judge Howell ruling as they appeal the decision. The stay motion appears pretty solid on three of the four corner arguments.
The weakest aspect to the motion is the legal framework around “judicial enforcement authority.” In part because the impeachment precedent is thin; and in part because the Judiciary Committee angle is about gaining evidence underneath the Mueller report – not the House Ukraine investigation.
If Judge Howell doesn’t grant the stay pending appeal, the DOJ would have to look for an emergency injunction. In the interim, Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are looking to exploit the Howell decision that accepted, some would say ‘created‘, the existence of a formal House impeachment proceeding despite the non-existence of an authorizing vote.
In essence, Lawfare is trying to exploit a decision -quickly- that put the cart (impeachment) before the horse (vote); and leverage that judicial ruling as a back-door to grant full judicial enforcement authority over the House impeachment inquiry.
The optics therein is what the sham vote is intended to present. As if the full House voted to allow the committee’s go gain judicial enforcement authority and change the committee request letters into actual and enforceable subpoenas.
I hope that helps make sense of it all. Right now it feels like CTH is up against the entire DC Lawfare process, in explaining what is going on; and what are the motives and intents behind all of these moves….
House Democrats’ impeachment efforts are marked by two things: lack of fairness, lack of transparency. pic.twitter.com/0Xsz8wCFva
— Senator Roy Blunt (@RoyBlunt) October 22, 2019
Our united job is to STAND UP and explain this complex non-constitutional process to our friends, family and neighbors.
(TLB) ed: House Democrats have released the text of an impeachment resolution vote set to take place on Thursday. Click Here to read the PDF of the resolution.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.