Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics

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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:12PM (#916448)

    If you'd like to take that angle then you'd better be prepared to pay every public figure enough to support their children for life, because any job ever given to any politicians child might then be "corruption."

    And even if "corrupt", not illegal. There was no crime present. And even if there was one the Republicans and the Ukraine government still have been unable to prove anything. Unsurprising because this is a dead and debunked issue.

    Trump wasn't trying to get the dead horse beat so that justice would be served. Trump was trying to get a pot stirred up against his chief political rival and using the tools of statecraft entrusted to him for the sake of the nation's security to play his partisan political games. Or, if you like, he was seeking information to help him change the course of the 2020 election and not because he decided to wear his Superman Underoos that day. That's not just corrupt. That's illegal.

    See the difference?