Can you go step by step, like the other posters did and refute their responses please? Also, did you see Hamlet’s post? Also, you only reference post 21, but I mentioned many other posts – can you address those as well?
That would be busy work. I assign you the task of understanding why my most recent question is where the thread is now: What is the chamber and when was the vote?
Presumably the “chamber” being referred to is either the House of Representatives or the Senate. And the vote was, presumably, when the committee was established and given its authority. In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, this would have been in the 1970s. Any other questions?
As I’ve already pointed out, 3 different house committees were involved in the investigation: House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees. As to when they authorized it, your cite indicates it was September 30th (I don’t know myself), which, once again, was after those committees announced their investigation into the holding up of the aid to Ukraine.
That woud be a very broad “broad subject area”. Where is their enumeration of those broad subject areas written? Until your post I thought the “broad subject area” would have to be “Trump/Ukraine”. But I think you are saying back in the 1970’s the house voted to issue subpoenas in such a broad manner that it could be used here. Again, point me to the text.
I’m not actually confused on this issue, so I’m not interested in doing your research for you. However, since Hamlet and Dewey Finn were helpful enough to answer your questions, are you all set now? Are you re-evaluating your reliance on Breitbart for news and facts, given how wrong they’ve steered you here?
Is this a thing with you? To just keep asking idiotic questions until people get tired of responding to you? And, when those idiotic questions are actually answered (We’ve covered the power of Congress to issue subpoenas, already), you simply ask the same damn question a different way?
Asking for a friend.
As far as I can tell, the question is moot.
Various committees issued multiple subpoenas to executive branch personnel starting back in October. Most of the recipients voluntarily complied. Some did not. I’m not aware of Congress proceeding to act on those rejecting the subpoenas, however. They did not compel any testimony or arrest those in contempt. I cite the legal principle of “no harm, no foul.”
The House as a whole since did authorize the actual impeachment proceedings. Any forthcoming subpoenas are valid under any interpretation.
I understanding that this talking point is found everywhere in right-wing channels. It’s just talk, intended to delegitimize the impeachment in the eyes of the public. There will not be, nor can there be, any legal action taken on a non-issue. The sole purpose is to raise anger and fool the gullible.
But what about the magic word? Did they use the magic word before engaging in the nefarious spying?
(Coming soon: gold fringe- required?)
Fun story:
"In 1997, the Republican majority on the committee changed its rules to allow the chairman, Dan Burton (R-Indiana), to issue subpoenas without the consent of the committee’s ranking Democrat.[11] From 1997 to 2002, Burton used this authority to issue 1,052 unilateral subpoenas, many of them related to alleged misconduct by President Bill Clinton, at a cost of more than $35 million.[12]
By contrast, from 2003 to 2005, under the chairmanship of Tom Davis (R-Virginia), the committee issued only three subpoenas to the Bush administration.[12]
After Republicans retook the House in the 2010 elections, the new chairman, Darrell Issa (R-California), escalated the use of subpoenas again, issuing more than 100 in four years during the Obama administration.[13] That was more than the combined total issued by the previous three chairmen—Davis, Henry Waxman (D-California), and Edolphus Towns (D-New York)—from 2003 to 2010."
Wait, are you trying to assign busy work to me? If you’re not interested in doing it, why should I? Because it seems obvious to me that the House Intelligence Committee has broad powers, because its subject area is broad. Why don’t you look for the legislation that set up the committee to find answers to your questions?
Fun indeed, but not quite complete. It tells how recent (R) House majorities led to many subpoenas against (D) administrations but very very few against an (R) president. That’s not unexpected. But are House majorities all so partisan when on the hunt? Where can I find numbers for the other sessions since, say, 1986?
Google? Make a FOIA request?
Do you have a point or just curious? Searching for a tu quoque perhaps?
I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question. I thought the same thing when I read your quote from the link. Is it just something that both sides do, or are the Republicans just jerks? Although, it looks like there would be a small window to examine Democratic subpeonas, 2006 to 2010, going off the top of my head.
I lazily hoped that someone else would expend the effort for me. 
No point, merely curious for context. Has hostile, partisan subpoenaing increased with the hyper-partisan-ization of US politics? I arbitrarily pegged that around mid-Reagan.
Bear in mind that this puts you square in the midst of Iran Contra, when the Republican administration was breaking the law, so a spike in congressional subpoenas would have been expected.