My copy of the Constitution states quite clearly ...

[dogtag]

that articles of impeachment are drawn up by "The House of Representatives"
Note the Plural. It does not say the Speaker can act alone. So where does
she get the idea that all that is needed is her nod. My copy makes no mention
that a two thirds majority is needed, but again, note the plural - 'Representatives'
Maybe my copy is a Chinese knock-off. Maybe that's the problem.

[Roadkingtrax]

British version? Based on the last few months, I'd think the administration's constitutional lawyer position has remained unfilled. You could always apply?

[Art]

She can't. Its a "dog and pony show."

At some point the House of Representatives would have to vote. She (Pelosi) is trying to avoid that because she wants to protect her members who were elected in Trump districts, but we all know that. My money is there may never be a vote of impeachment because the Democrats don't want to face the possible consequences. We're talking about the equivalent of a grand jury deciding whether or not to indict for what amount to political offenses. If there is an "indictment" after a vote of the full House there is a trial in the Senate presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court with a vote of 67 out of 100 Senators needed to vote to convict. Something that's never happened and surely won't happen this time. We know that too.

It has already been decided over 200 years that the houses of congress make their own rules. If the House wants to conduct a "Star Chamber" proceeding (as a Brit you know about that) with selective leaking and call it an impeachment inquiry they can but until they actually call a vote its still just a "dog and pony show."

[dogtag]

Yes, Charles 1st - and he lost his head.

[togor]

"House" is singular, and per the rules, the speaker can do a lot. These are GOP rules too, so there's no real procedural gripe here. It stands to reason that they have to vote the actual indictment. But during the investigation, it is not needed. In this respect it's like a grand jury investigation. Just because someone is a target of a grand jury it doesn't mean that their lawyer gets to cross examine witnesses. At the trial, a different story.

Another gripe is that the witnesses are questioned behind close doors. First, yeah, it's an investigation, not a trial. Second, Republicans are behind those doors too. So far there is no shortage of people willing to talk about, as John Bolton so colorfully put it, the "drug deal". Whatever format works to get people coming forward, under oath, let's keep it going.

[dogtag]

Yes, the word House is singular. So is the word Dog as is Cat,
'House of Representatives' is also singular and that is the subject
not a House.

[togor]

DT the plural is on the object of the adjectival prepositional phrase, not the singular subject. Art is correct. The English have a 1,000 year head start with the language over most Americans, and when it comes to insults the English are awesome, but they're not the only ones who know the language well.

[dogtag]

You seem to have missed the point whilst being so very clever.
To my thread: The word Representatives is plural.
House of Representatives is Singular.
A Pride of Lions is singular
A Gaggle of Geese is singular.
A murder of crows is singular.

[togor]

You seem to have missed the point whilst being so very clever.
To my thread: The word Representatives is plural.
House of Representatives is Singular.
A Pride of Lions is singular
A Gaggle of Geese is singular.
A murder of crows is singular.

Seems like we're on the same page. Given any thoughts to naturalizing after all this time? They'll deport someone for a busted taillight these days if they don't like the looks of 'em

[Roadkingtrax]

Seems like we're on the same page. Given any thoughts to naturalizing after all this time? They'll deport someone for a busted taillight these days if they don't like the looks of 'em

Especially if they look Paki. Wouldn't that be something?