Trump’s EU ambassador ordered to not give deposition

a reply to: Extorris

Congress's floor vote circa Nixon was political messaging, not necessity.

And that is by far the largest steaming load of bovine feces here today.
Simply your stinky opinion.

The House of Representatives has complete dominion over how they conduct Impeachment proceedings.

They still have to follow the rules.
You watch too much msnbc.

There is no legal or constitutional argument to be made that the House must vote to begin proceedings.

Oh then why did the other 2 proceedings include such?
Pretend there is no precedent at your folly.

Leave it to the courts to decide if the subpoenas issued have any teeth.
A court loss on that issue would be dire for nancy and friends.

a reply to: Oraculi

If you type up something that says "subpeona" on it and send it to me asking for my personal info, you're not going to get a response... as a matter of fact, if you send the same thing to my wife, I'll tell her not to respond to it either. Why? Because it's not a valid subpoena. I don't have to tell you anything. Now, if you take that to a court and get a judge to order it, and I still refuse to comply, then the court can hold me in contempt. They cannot send the police to arrest me for Obstruction of Justice.

That's just laughable.

Congress has the power to subpoena, but their power is limited to actual criminal investigations. This impeachment nonsense is not an actual criminal investigation. There has been no vote taken to authorize an impeachment inquiry and no Articles of Impeachment drawn up to state what it is they are looking for. This is Adam Schiff trying to find dirt on Donald Trump with Nancy Pelosi's approval, no more, no less. That is abuse of his power and is in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, to wit:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This applies whether the Grand Jury is typical, or whether it is the US Congress indicting (impeachment) for high crimes and misdemeanors.

In this case, there has been no indictment (impeachment) so Donald Trump is innocent at this point of all accusations being levied against him. There has been no warrant issued, so he doesn't have to provide one single damn thing to the House, and since the accusations (not charges) are against his actions as head of the Executive Branch, the restriction against self-incrimination applies to those in the Executive Branch operating directly under him. There are not even any formal charges on him under which to issue such a warrant.

A subpoena is a demand by a court to present evidence held against a person who is being tried for a crime. There is no trial, there are no actual charges, and there are no legal actions being taken to accumulate charges. This subpoena is no more than a request and there is no legal reason Trump is compelled to allow it, be it through himself or his advisors.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President.

the Victim posing by the right wing is not your color.

Watching you guys flail on here keeps me grinning all day long!

Then I recommend you stay here. The world at large is not as gullible outside the bubble.

No worries with the world at large my friend, I've been around awhile and will manage. Besides, the left showed the world what it looks like when bubbles burst in Nov 2016 and they ain't never gonna live that down -

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Congress has the power to subpoena, but their power is limited to actual criminal investigations.

Congress has the authority to hold a person in contempt if the person's conduct or action obstructs the proceedings of Congress or, more usually, an inquiry by a committee of Congress.

Contempt of Congress is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who "willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry" shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.

www.law.cornell.edu...

What you are searching for in your excusing of this criminal "behavior" is the fact that the DOJ under Bill Barr is responsible for enforcement.

The question of whether or not Congress can enforce a Subpoena is not in legal doubt. Whether the AG acts on that criminal referral is. If the AG refuses, then it goes to the courts, which have consistently sided with congress, but a process that takes longer than congress likes.

This is where Pardons come in to play. Trump stalls while the court cases are fought and win or lose, he issues pardons in 2020.

Bill Barr did the same during the Iran-Contra scandal and Iraqgate (funding Sadaam before we executed him). He authored the WH opinions for obstruction then the petitions for Pardons to prevent testimony.

In a time when short attention span dominates, recent history tells is shouting what comes next.

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: underpass61

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: underpass61

The Speaker is aware of Trump's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands.

It's clear Trump is aware of the Speaker's plan of attack, and is refusing to submit to his demands. If that's obstruction then you guys should be happy - you've almost got him!

A proper defense for someone that has done nothing wrong would be transparency, not utter obstruction.

I would agree with you if this was the first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth time the left has attempted to unseat the fairly elected President.

the Victim posing by the right wing is not your color.

Watching you guys flail on here keeps me grinning all day long!

Then I recommend you stay here. The world at large is not as gullible outside the bubble.

No worries with the world at large my friend, I've been around awhile and will manage.

Good. Cuz riddle me this? why would any Democrat want Mike Pence, arguably a more severe, competent and credible conservative than Trump by any measure as POTUS?

It seems to me the right Wing is working very hard to paint this as an EVIL DEM conspiracy! While GOP commentators ranging from FOX News to virtually any GOP not up for re-election in a Trump District are agreeing this is very, very bad?

If looking outside the bubble here perhaps examine recent polling as the facts sink in.

Polls flash warning signs for Trump on impeachment
thehill.com...

Majority of Americans support beginning an impeachment inquiry, new poll shows
www.cnn.com...

Impeachment inquiry gains majority support in new poll: Fox News
www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Extorris

The question of whether or not Congress can enforce a Subpoena is not in legal doubt.

Let's make sure first of all that we're on the same page here. "Congress" is not involved in this at this point; the House of Representatives is. Now, I understand "Congress" is shorter to type and is often used interchangeably with "House of Representatives," so I assume that is what you meant. If so, I'm OK with that; I will use the same shortcut.

Now, to your statement: Congress is not subpoenaing anyone. The House Intelligence Committee, with Adam Schiff leading it, is issuing subpoenas. The House Intelligence Committee consists of 22 members; Congress contains 435 members. Approximately 5% of the House is issuing subpoenas, based on the decree made by a single House member (Nancy Pelosi).

The House does not conduct business based on what 5% of its members decide... the House conducts business based on what a majority or supermajority of its members decide.

That is why a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry matters. If the entire House decides to place that power of investigation and subpoenas into the hands of a select committee, then that committee acts with the support of the full House. That has not happened. Adam Schiff does not by himself wield the power of Congress, and neither does Nancy Pelosi. Therefore, there is no legal reason to respond to the subpoenas, because they were not issued by the House... they were issued by a House committee representing 5% of the House without authorization of the House itself.

I am searching for nothing... I simply call things as they are. You, on the other hand, seem to be desperately grasping at straws.

Have a House vote to authorize the House Intelligence Committee to investigate impeachable offenses against President Trump and he will be required to comply with any legal subpoenas. As it is, no, the subpoenas do not carry the legal weight you ascribe to them.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

That's a nice clear answer...

Any info on when they are actually going to have that vote? I know Trump already send a letter requesting one but can the committee wait as long as they want and are they waiting untill they know for sure they got a majority?

Peace

the Democrats will not hold a vote for impeachment.


that would give the GOP the advantage, Oh and it looks like Durhams investigation is going to be a bit longer, new information is in from the ukraine Via FOXNEWS Bret Baier.

but yeah, No vote

Hell Michigan will be frozen before that happens

'You have to go through Hell to get to Climax Michigan"😍

a reply to: operation mindcrime

Thank you.

As far as I know, there is no planned vote to commence an impeachment inquiry; Nancy Pelosi is opposing one, apparently satisfied that she alone can grant House approval. There is no time limit; the House Intelligence Committee will simply get authority to issue subpoenas that carry the weight of a Congressional subpoena. In the meantime, the committee can still investigate, but they cannot enforce a subpoena. They really have no more investigative authority than anyone else in the country... they can request all they want but not demand.

I think Pelosi's reasoning for holding up an official vote is that doing so will likely include restrictions for the House Intelligence Committee on what legal avenues they can take. It would also make Trump the suspect in a criminal investigation, with all of the rights that accompany such. That's things like the right to have access to evidence and the right to know who his accusers are. In essence, he would have full access to the whistleblower reports including the names of those who reported him, just like the House Intelligence Committee.

As it is, Schiff is trying to gather evidence against Trump in a manner that would get any prosecutor in the country thrown out of office and disbarred. He is operating outside the law while claiming legal authority to do so. That's about as crooked as it gets... imagine a city DA spending all his time and energy trying to find charges against someone he has a personal grudge against, and using every means possible, legal and illegal, to do it. That's what Schiff is doing on a national level.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Committees were given their power by a vote of the House/Senate when they were made. The House/Senate does not need a full vote to authorize any investigation by a committee. Note I did not say that House/Senate cant vote to start an investigation they just dont have to do so.

Nixon's impeachment inquiry started in the Judaical Committee, not the full house. It eventually led to the full house vote when Nixon's stonewalling eventually even caused his party members to turn on him.

The legislative branch already has the power of oversight and investigation of the executive, besides law making, its one of its main missions.

a reply to: TheRedneck

What is it like to have the President that you love the most in your lifetime legitimately being scrutinized for wildly illicit conduct while in office?

If it was me, I might ask what has "legitimate" conduct in the WH ever done for me and mine? At least now the frustration is shared by those deaf and blind that have gotten us here?

The question best asked, in my humble opinion, is not what policy or WH conduct has divided us, but where people of good conscience draw the line, that line being above the partisanship and nonsense of both parties.

THIS, THIS is not a dividing issue despite what the television tells you. THIS is where everyone of conscience draws the line. It is where the disagreeable founders of this nation agreed.

Take the Dems and GOP out of the equation. Imagine Obama or HRC if you must, but ANY POTUS will do. Under Pence no one wins and the dems actually lose more without a political pinata.

I whole-heartedly think impeachment will cost the dems in the 2020 election, the partisanship has been too thoroughly propagandized for their not to be a backlash and I still think Pence should be POTUS, not because i like Pence, but because I love this country.

This is not a win for the Dems or the GOP, it is a loss for both, just duty at this point.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris


The House does not conduct business based on what 5% of its members decide... the House conducts business based on what a majority or supermajority of its members decide.

Every day in every way that is relevant the House and Senate "Conducts Business" on what a committee decides.

It is the entire definition of a Committee.

Oversight, Appropriations, investigations etc.

It has been that way since the founding and remains so.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime

Any info on when they are actually going to have that vote? I know Trump already send a letter requesting one but can the committee wait as long as they want and are they waiting untill they know for sure they got a majority?

No vote. The accused aka Executive Branch does not dictate to the House how to proceed in Impeachment Proceedings of the executive branch.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for explaining it..

But did I understand it correctly that with a majority of democrates in the house they are almost certain this impeachment will move forward to the senate?

And when this happens Trump can then fight back...

Is there a reason why there is no time limit on calling this vote?

Peace

a reply to: operation mindcrime

They must vote to indict/Impeach and then it moves to Senate.

a reply to: Extorris

But without a vote they can not move forward with this impeachment right?

(Sorry for the ignorant questions...really trying to understand)

Peace

a reply to: Extorris

But all the investigations around this impeachment can be done without a majority of the house agreeing/disagreeing with it?

Peace

originally posted by: Extorris

Good. Cuz riddle me this? why would any Democrat want Mike Pence, arguably a more severe, competent and credible conservative than Trump by any measure as POTUS?

Because he's "Lawful" alignment and not "chaotic". That means he can be negotiated with and will stick with the Chain of Command (which will reassure the generals.)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Extorris

Good. Cuz riddle me this? why would any Democrat want Mike Pence, arguably a more severe, competent and credible conservative than Trump by any measure as POTUS?

Because he's "Lawful" alignment and not "chaotic". That means he can be negotiated with and will stick with the Chain of Command (which will reassure the generals.)

Chaos can be a virtue and it might be the only virtue Trump offers. Disruption is necessary for great change.

That said, self-serving corruption is not a fair trade for change. It is what every wannabe dictator has ever offered the people he soon abuses.
It is everything our founders abhorred when they dismissed their king.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Extorris

But all the investigations around this impeachment can be done without a majority of the house agreeing/disagreeing with it?

YES. Proceedings or Inquiries or Investigations require no vote.

If the House wants to indite / impeach, they need a majority vote.

Then sent to the Senate for trial complete with evidence and prosecuting and defense. Chief Justice John Roberts oversees the proceedings.

The Senate requires 2/3rds majority to convict.