Trump’s EU ambassador ordered to not give deposition

originally posted by: Arnie123

Let us reiterate, THERE IS NO IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY.

Literally sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling to avoid the truth.

a reply to: Pyle

Nixon's impeachment inquiry started in the Judaical Committee, not the full house.

Wrong.

The Judiciary Committee brought preliminary evidence (uncovered without enforcing subpoenas) before the House. H.R. 803 was brought to a vote of the full House on February 6, 1974 and passed.

Introduced in House (02/04/1974)

Authorizes the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.

States that the Committee may require, by subpoena, interrogatory, or otherwise, the furnishing of such information as it deems necessary to such an investigation. Provides that such authority may be exercised by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

Stipulates that any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation.

The subpoena for the additional conversations was upheld by the US Supreme Court on July 24th of that year, 5 months later.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Extorris

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?

I'll let you know when that happens.

What is it like to have all of your heroes falling in disgrace and not being able to do a damn thing about it?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Extorris

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

No.

A committee handles day-to-day business in their specified area which does not require the power of Congress to enforce and reports back to the House. Full power of the House may be conferred upon a committee by a vote of the full House, but no committee exercises the power of Congress fully without that authorization.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

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...

Many of those Democrats are from districts which voted heavily for Trump. If they go on record allowing the House Intelligence Committee full subpoena power to investigate Trump for impeachment, there is concern they may lose their re-election next year. As long as no House vote is taken, there is nothing stopping them from dodging the issue with their voters.

I feel certain a vote to investigate Trump fully would pass. I'm not so sure a vote to impeach would pass, and it would be very hard-pressed on a Senate to remove a freshly-elected President should Trump win re-election next year... which I am pretty sure he will. That would definitely be an open denial of the power of the people to vote. I see it as such anyway, because the people can remove Trump themselves next year if they are so inclined, without any "evidence" or "cause."

The purpose of this investigation is not to impeach... it is to keep Trump's impeachment fresh in the mind of voters, hoping it will make the difference when they go to fill out that ballot next year. Most people don't spend the time we do on researching what is going on behind the scenes... they simply think about what Anderson Cooper of Rachal Maddow said last night. The Democrats are betting on that, because it's all they have left.

TheRedneck

a reply to: operation mindcrime

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

To a point.

The House Intelligence Committee (or any House Committee) can investigate any matter that comes to their attention the same as any police force can investigate any crime that comes to their attention. In order to force compliance with subpoenas, however, requires an authorization from the full House, just as the police cannot simply burst into one's home to search without a warrant. The police can watch a house, the police can question neighbors, the police can rummage through trash if they want to... but they cannot unilaterally search one's home.

I commend you for your questions. As proof, I offer up H.R. 803 under the Nixon administration, wherein a full House resolution was passed to confer subpoena rights to the committee investigating. If the committee had power to enforce subpoenas unilaterally, there would have been no need for a vote on the resolution (which is linked above).

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Thanks for the link..

So basically without a majority vote on the investigation all the commission can do is try and find facts based on voluntary hearings?

That Joseph Maguire guy last week didn't seem like he was giving a testimony because he really wanted to, could he, for instance, have refused to testify?

Peace

a reply to: TheRedneck

In order to force compliance with subpoenas, however, requires an authorization from the full House

Not any more.

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: operation mindcrime

That Joseph Maguire guy last week didn't seem like he was giving a testimony because he really wanted to, could he, for instance, have refused to testify?

I think he could have refused. However, at the time Trump was trying to cooperate for transparency. If memory serves, Trump asked him to testify.

The recent refusal to cooperate came about because the House Committee was not consulting the Republicans about their activities... essentially running rough-shod across the minority party, acting as though they had absolute power without any checks and balances. As I understand it (the reporting is muddying the waters quite a bit), the White House is still trying to negotiate with the House Intelligence Committee to come to an agreement about officials testifying. The committee apparently is just trying to play games, though. The House can change their internal rules all they want (as Sookiechacha points out... I have to check that out) but that does not change Federal or Constitutional law. That requires the Senate and the President's signature (more if Constitutional law).

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your link indirectly references House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and 2(m)(3) as per the sourced Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas published by the Congressional Research Service on January 29, 2018. The actual rules are here (CAUTION! HUGE .pdf file!) as published by House.gov.

If you will scroll down to page 19 and look at Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C), third column towards the top, you will find the following:

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

That means the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena, but a full vote by the House is still required to enforce it... which is exactly what President Trump is demanding happen.

Politico is becoming a well-known source of misleading information. The piece you linked to is an opinion piece. It at least sources an official report linked above, which identifies the exact rule so people can read it for themselves. That is not technically "fake news" but it is certainly "misleading news." It omits the clause that requires the full vote of the House for enforcement, assuming that the reader (you) will make the false assumption that issuing a subpoena is the same as enforcing a subpoena. You might want to be careful of whose opinions you trust.

TheRedneck

No one should play any part in the Democrat political show.
Let them cry all they want. Take it to the courts if they want.
They have bastardised the role of the House since they took control of it in 2018, using it for opposition research and endless enquiries searching for a crime. The so called whistleblower is a Democrat operative and they are trying to hide him/her from the American people.

Trump is going to tie them up in the courts until the next election and the Dems will spend all their time in front of the American people on their investigations. Good. It's going to be hilarious watching them publicly interfere with an election running an impeachment enquiry literally weeks and up to an actual election.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Pyle

Nixon's impeachment inquiry started in the Judaical Committee, not the full house.

Wrong.

The Judiciary Committee brought preliminary evidence (uncovered without enforcing subpoenas) before the House. H.R. 803 was brought to a vote of the full House on February 6, 1974 and passed.

Introduced in House (02/04/1974)

Authorizes the House Committee on the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.

States that the Committee may require, by subpoena, interrogatory, or otherwise, the furnishing of such information as it deems necessary to such an investigation. Provides that such authority may be exercised by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly or by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.

Stipulates that any funds made available to the Committee on the Judiciary may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the investigation.

The subpoena for the additional conversations was upheld by the US Supreme Court on July 24th of that year, 5 months later.

TheRedneck

Rodino Vows Fair Impeachment Inquiry

So this didnt happen?

They went to the full house later but started months earlier in the committee.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

What is it like to have all of your heroes falling in disgrace and not being able to do a damn thing about it?

The Founding Fathers have not fallen, their spirit is in great health.

They have no patience for the self-serving, corrupt and treasonous behavior of the President and his defenders.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If you will scroll down to page 19 and look at Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C), third column towards the top, you will find the following:

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

That means the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena, but a full vote by the House is still required to enforce it... which is exactly what President Trump is demanding happen.

Thanks for digging that up!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your link indirectly references House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and 2(m)(3) as per the sourced Survey of House and Senate Committee Rules on Subpoenas published by the Congressional Research Service on January 29, 2018. The actual rules are here (CAUTION! HUGE .pdf file!) as published by House.gov.

If you will scroll down to page 19 and look at Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3)(ii)(C), third column towards the top, you will find the following:

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

That means the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena, but a full vote by the House is still required to enforce it... which is exactly what President Trump is demanding happen.

"That means the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena, but a full vote by the House is still required to enforce it... which is exactly what President Trump is demanding happen."

It does not say that at all.

Strange that you appear to be adding your own language to clearly written text and saying "see?".

Edit to correct my mis-quotation

I think there is enough evidence to impeach Trump, but I don't think it rises to removing him from office. I don't want to see him removed from office either. I also don't want to see him getting away with what was obvious even to his own people.

a reply to: Grimpachi

seems the Ukraine was investigating Burisma and hunter biden in Feb

so the whole "quid pro quo" thing falls apart.

the "frantic phone call" was nothing but a setup to catch leakers in the whitehouse


and it worked, how funny

impeachwaaaa????????

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Grimpachi

seems the Ukraine was investigating Burisma and hunter biden in Feb

so the whole "quid pro quo" thing falls apart.

A) Where is the evidence they were investigating Hunter Biden in Feb?

B) The Quid Pro Quo was for campaign purposes, thus the text exchange about Military Aid or a meeting with POTUS being contingent on Ukraine Officials making public statements (edited by Giuliani)

AMAZING SIDENOTE: I did not know this when I made the OP but the text exchanges were actually over Whatsapp!!!!

Amazing that illegally skirting the official records act and using unsecured communications is now just a given under this administration.

No worries, I expect Trump Supporters to be A-OK with this too. Hypocrisy being their new religion.

a reply to: Extorris

A) Where is the evidence they were investigating Hunter Biden in Feb?

www.foxnews.com...

"The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation," he claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky,"

oops
seems there is no there there
again

a reply to: Pyle

They went to the full house later but started months earlier in the committee.

I never said they couldn't investigate... I said they couldn't enforce a subpoena without House approval.

Keep up?

TheRedneck