"under inquiry" has a definition. "Under inquiry" requires a formal legal process, otherwise congress could lock people up for refusing to answer any questions, and they clearly don't have that authority.
Give me legal documents that backs that up as opposed to just saying it's so. But before you do, you should read some of the other stuff I'll be posting as none of that would back up what you're saying.
"lock up" people for refusing to answer questions. They could be locked up for obstructing justice if they wanted to do that.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htmAs long as the subpoena meets the requirements set out in stuff I had listed before, and the investigation (note the difference), is within their authority, they can do so. While people are calling it an inquiry, it's simply operating as an investigation at this point. I suspect that if they decide to go to court over some issues, at that point they'd have a vote for an "inquiry" in order to "strengthen" their position.
I should note that in this document you actually posted and then cherry picked from, they talk about some of the same things. Perhaps you should read it again.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-houseYou might also want to give this a good read
https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdfShould also note that with Nixon, a resolution was passed in Oct 1973 for the judicial committee to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment. They needed to do that in order to give them the authority to do so and have subpoena powers. Today however, committees have been given far more powers and authority, a lot of which the Republicans brought about. The impeachment inquiry was not voted on until Feb 1974. We're in the first part and they may decide to do the second part as well. Clinton was a different thing all together because the impeachment was derived from the investigation done by Starr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_NixonIn this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference.
Five different committees initiated inquiries into bengasi without any vote. They did it all on their own because it's simply not required.
As for all your other stuff.. That's just your opinion. For example, you're parroting the same right wing talking points regarding past impeachments. Again. Did you even read that article you posted? The right you parrot only ever points to the presidential impeachments and conveniently ignores all the others. Allowing the presidents lawyers to sit in and question. Allowing the republicans to issue subpoenas. That was a "courtesy" and not any sort of requirement. It was purely done for optics. You're arguing politics and not legal. Back up your stuff with actual legal documents.
Something else to note. It really doesn't matter if the other side can issue subpoenas. The majority can over rule them if they want and they can also limit what questions Trumps lawyers could ask as well in order to keep it focus and on track. It is simply not a trial. The trial takes place in the senate and it should be noted that the senate can do what they want as well.
Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot?
You can blame the republicans for a lot of this since they're the ones that opened up the door to committees having broad powers. I seem to remember everyone saying the same thing about them doing that. But that's what it is now and everyone has to live with it. That entire paragraph was nothing more than you pleading for me (and others reading it), to agree with your opinion cause it's "wrong" as far as you're concerned. You're making a political argument and not one based on anything legal.
By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.
Bottom line, you're just making arguments based on opinion because you want it to be a circus so it will drag on for months and then you all can make the argument that there's no use he gets impeached cause the election is so close. And all this other stuff you and the republicans are spewing is so that if he does get impeached etc then you all can claim he was railroaded and it was illegal and on and on. At least be honest about what you're really trying to do.
Funny thing I heard the other day. The thought was that Trump doesn't want a second term and will actually do things like he's doing so he gets impeached. Then he can spend the rest of his time claiming he got "everything" done he said he would and then play the victim and gain a hell of a lot of support to any new ventures he starts like his own media company.
Most of the other stuff in your response was just opinion and wishful thinking. i.e.
Re: "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable.
Show me the legal arguments that makes the case as opposed to your opinion cause it doesn't fit what you want to happen.
doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process
Well yes, yes they do. It says so in the constitution. If you have legal arguments to back up your opinion, then post them because everything I read says they do. Maybe you might want to give some of this a read as well.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769As you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot?
Actually no, you had a whole bunch of opinion articles and the one "real" thing you had was bullshit because it was specifically for hearings and says right on the page I posted that it's a sample meant to show some of the info that should be in the subpoena. As I stated and you can go look at it again, the "letter" you claim is not a subpoena, says right in it that it's a subpoena, outlines what inquiry that it relates to and states the potential punishment. It contains the information required just isn't on some "form".
Give me an actual legal document instead of writing paragraphs of your opinion and how you "wish" it would be, or posting opinion articles. Show me the "form" that's supposed to be used for committee investigation subpoenas. Surely there should be something on the gov site(s) if one actually exists.
