Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A modest request: Please do your research [View all]SunSeeker
(51,557 posts)157. "Can you read? Maybe you're too tired to grasp her quote?" Why yes, Nugget. I can read.
I can read even better than you can insult.
You essentially admit Hillary never actually stated "Pelosi should wait." Instead, you argue that is what she "meant." No she didn't.
The substantive hearings she is referring to as needing to be held are formal impeachment investigation hearings. She is obviously not referring to regular oversight hearings, since those are already being held.
Read Hillary's Op Ed. It explains the hearings she would like the House Committee to hold:
Watergate offers a better precedent. Then, as now, there was an investigation that found evidence of corruption and a coverup. It was complemented by public hearings conducted by a Senate select committee, which insisted that executive privilege could not be used to shield criminal conduct and compelled White House aides to testify. The televised hearings added to the factual record and, crucially, helped the public understand the facts in a way that no dense legal report could. Similar hearings with Mueller, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and other key witnesses could do the same today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
The "Watergate precedent" Hillary is referring to is a process started with a formal House Resolution. An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal.
We need an impeachment inquiry, i.e. a formal resolution setting up impeachment investigation hearings, like the one we had in Watergate. That is what Hillary is saying, that is what I am saying.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
185 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Actually, Nadler beseeched Pelosi last night to start an impeachment inquiry.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#173
Oversight hearings and impeachment investigation hearings are not the same thing.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#185
Not necessarily-this is from the judge's ruling in the accounting firm record case
Gothmog
May 2019
#179
The NBC news article in that tweet you cite shows it's time to start a formal impeachment inquiry.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#183
it's chickenhawks. it's fucking amazing how many 'democrats' and 'liberals' criticize
certainot
May 2019
#12
I have been wondering the following but am not a lawyer so I'll take advantage of
in2herbs
May 2019
#14
Lawrence Tribe, arguably the best Constitutional lawyer in the country, agrees with you.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#18
Tribe is correct that impeachment hearings are considered judicial proceedings
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#23
Your posts do not indicate you know more than me. Please drop the arrogance and insults.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#144
You asked her for her legal bone fides and when she gives them to you, you accuse
EffieBlack
May 2019
#146
Effie, I gave StarfishSaver the legal arguments/counsel presented by Hillary and Tribe.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#149
Did you read Hillary's Op Ed? She called for formal impeachment investigation hearings.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#77
Yes. Saying Pelosi has the right to be cautious is NOT the same as saying Pelosi should wait.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#154
"Can you read? Maybe you're too tired to grasp her quote?" Why yes, Nugget. I can read.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#157
No. The "Watergate precedent" Hillary is referring to DID NOT start with a House resolution
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#158
She stated this in an interview with Rachel. Why is anyone contesting what you have repeated?
emmaverybo
May 2019
#143
You're citing a March 2017 article. Nadler now is urging Pelosi for an impeachment inquiry.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#166
Below is a clear explanation of the process used during Watergate that's been posted before for you.
Nuggets
May 2019
#172
Hillary does not even mention Pelosi in her Op Ed, let alone say she "agrees with Pelosi."
SunSeeker
May 2019
#182
I am not "squabbling" with anyone. I am stating the law and what our leaders actually said.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#89
The house doesn't gain any powers under impeachment that they wouldn't have under
uponit7771
May 2019
#20
You can cut and paste this is often as you want, but if you actually read it,
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#102
The case law Tribe cites states clearly impeachment hearings are an exception.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#104
I do understand it. You clearly have nothing to support your legal argument.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#124
No need to cite a case. We were discussing a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#125
Effie, this is important for our country. We must be able to discuss it on DU as progressives.
SunSeeker
May 2019
#145
It's a misconception that the House gains any "super powers" by opening an impeachment inquiry.
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#21
No one can "guarantee" anything - that's not how this works - just as you can't guarantee
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#41
You've got it right. He wants to be impeached so he can play the victim in 2020..
marylandblue
May 2019
#53
I've been working on the mutual respect exchange and doing my best to not be snarky.
Kurt V.
May 2019
#40
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have been making political arguments against impeachment
BeyondGeography
May 2019
#59
All I've ever seen is that it isn't time YET. Please provide one link where any of them
pnwmom
May 2019
#70
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it. I have heard other law professors explain it
pdsimdars
May 2019
#73
The OP didn't argue for/against impeachment (although she's made clear elsewhere where she stands)
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#92
Perhaps the OP needs to go straighten out the members of Congress who want impeachment.
cwydro
May 2019
#162
Some of us non-lawyers actually understand "process" because we've worked with it...
Hekate
May 2019
#105
You don't have to be a lawyer to know the process. Some of the most astute legal observers I know
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#163
The point of your OP (learn before you write) is lost amidst a lot of people attacking you
StarfishSaver
May 2019
#95
Watching people get frog-marched out of the WH while handcuffed is kind of a dream...
cynatnite
May 2019
#101