Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry

posted by martyb on Friday November 01 2019, @02:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the Red-Queen-Race dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324

"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The measure details how the inquiry will move into a more public phase. It was not a vote on whether the president should be removed from office.

This was the first test of support in the Democratic-controlled House for the impeachment process.

The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.

Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against."

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 319 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday November 03 2019, @01:54PM (1 child)

    by Pino P (4721) on Sunday November 03 2019, @01:54PM (#915316) Journal

    And it's the House's job to follow up on these allegations of bribery, obstruction, and other high crimes, and lay the evidence before the Senate.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 04 2019, @04:02AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 04 2019, @04:02AM (#915586) Journal

    And it's the House's job to follow up on these allegations of bribery, obstruction, and other high crimes, and lay the evidence before the Senate.

    Only if there's evidence for the allegations. Trials are punishments in themselves and shouldn't be allowed on frivolously contexts. Just because a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich" doesn't mean that the threshold is appropriate. I think it's notable here that there's never been probable cause for the Mueller fishing expedition and none of the charges mentioned have anything to do with the purported purpose of the investigation.