Let's Make Things Clear

a reply to: Gryphon66
good luck with that
what good is an investigation with no enforcement?

also
if this is purely political have you taken muster of the senate?
perhaps math is hard?

a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL ... your uncited quote above reminded me of Wikipedia. I see now you got it from the SCOTUSblog.

This is the actual link to the page you technically plagiarized above SCOTUSblog.

As usual, you cherry-picked your source .... this follows your quote:

The Supreme Court would address this issue again nearly 50 years later, in a case called McGrain v. Daugherty. During an investigation into charges of misconduct at the Department of Justice, a Senate committee issued a subpoena for the brother of the attorney general, but he did not appear or produce the records that the committee had requested. A lower court ruled that efforts to keep him in custody exceeded the Senate’s powers, but the Supreme Court reversed. Although nothing expressly gives Congress the power to investigate as part of its legislative function, the court explained, the power to obtain the information that it needs to legislate “has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate.”

Emphasis mine.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Claiming that anyone who reads the Constitution with comprehension must agree with your interpretation is fallacious.

Only if you are incapable of reading with comprehension.

If the Framers had meant to say "there must be a formal action of the House to impeach" they would have said it. They didn't.

Yes, they did.

When they said 'The House of Representatives', they meant the whole House, not a subset.

I linked information on the actual debates regarding the impeachment power earlier.

Must have missed that, care to try again?

There is no requirement Constitutionally, within the House Rules or in any other place that stipulates an official action to open inquiry.

Congress can do lots of things, but that doesn't mean anyone has to cooperate with them.

Their power to compel is limited, contrary to popular myth, especially where it involves co-equal branches (the Executive or Judicial)...

If Congress wants to hold yammering sessions and call them an 'impeachment inquiry', they have First Amendment Rights like we all do, but that doesn't mean it is a formal Impeachment Inquiry, with all of the requisite powers that come into play.

Again - Congress is not an investigative agency, their power of oversight is limited to LEGISLATIVE oversight - meaning, it has to be related to some legislative issue/question.

The Impeachment Process is unique, but in order to engage in that process, the whole House must be involved.

Anything else is a Kangaroo court, nothing more.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
good luck with that
what good is an investigation with no enforcement?

also
if this is purely political have you taken muster of the senate?
perhaps math is hard?

You keep posting the same nonsense about "legal precedent" ... please don't continue to embarrass yourself: the concept DOES NOT APPLY to Congressional proceedings it applies to COURTS, i.e. the judicial sphere. Source: any number of legal dictionaries, online commentaries, etc. frankly, no need to link as you likely continue your repetitions.

BUT, saints preserve us, you've actually made a valid point finally. Yes, there is zero chance that Trump will be found guilty in the Senate, as the leadership has made obvious.

Again, impeachment is not removal from office. And yes, I agree with other posters that the process drastically needs to be revisited. I am hopeful for a Constitutional Convention in the near future; lacking that, this country will not remain a Union for many more years in my opinion.

originally posted by: Gryphon66


a reply to: shooterbrody

LOL ... your uncited quote above reminded me of Wikipedia. I see now you got it from the SCOTUSblog.

This is the actual link to the page you technically plagiarized above SCOTUSblog.

As usual, you cherry-picked your source .... this follows your quote:

The Supreme Court would address this issue again nearly 50 years later, in a case called McGrain v. Daugherty. During an investigation into charges of misconduct at the Department of Justice, a Senate committee issued a subpoena for the brother of the attorney general, but he did not appear or produce the records that the committee had requested. A lower court ruled that efforts to keep him in custody exceeded the Senate’s powers, but the Supreme Court reversed. Although nothing expressly gives Congress the power to investigate as part of its legislative function, the court explained, the power to obtain the information that it needs to legislate “has long been treated as an attribute of the power to legislate.”

Emphasis mine.

I have no idea what you are on about.
That is a different case than any we discussed.
I don't plagiarize anything.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: shooterbrody
Specifically, the Court rejected a claim that the Senate had departed from the meaning of the word “try” in the impeachment clause by relying on a special committee to take evidence, including testimony. But the Court’s “political question” analysis has broader application, and appears to place the whole impeachment process off limits to judicial review.

Justia

Emphasis mine.

So... what? This was in the trial portion.

How about bringing up something relevant - you know, regarding the Impeachment process?

a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL. Appealling to your own authority is a ludicrous fallacy.

I'm not sure whether you're being specious or whether you really don't understand. Impeachment occurs when the House votes on and passes Articles of Impeachment to send to the Senate. There is no requirement for any prior action to investigate any matter which lies within the purvue of the Congress, which this certainly does.

You can't Google on your own? Goodness. Here you go: Google search: debates during the constitutional convention regarding impeachment

You are mistaken entirely in your claim that "no one has to cooperate with Congress" in terms of investigations and subpoenas. The power to compel has been thoroughly established by SCOTUS. I just provided a link to a source but I'll do so again so you won't miss it: SCOTUSblog - Cases and controversies: Congress, the subpoena power and a “legislative purpose”

The Impeachment will not be voted on until the 19, the very next day after the FISA Court Abuse Report comes out.

the left will impeach thinking they have stalemated President Trump.

then the arrest will begin

On both sides, and it will be a politcal war of atrition until the 2020 vote.


that is all.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I found this on the house's Role on impeachment :

The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.


[url=link[/url]

also in your link to the house rules on page 19 about subpoena power :

a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph
(1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities only when authorized by the
committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the
chair of the committee under such
rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe

So to me it looks like there has to be a vote

a reply to: tanstaafl

I was clarifying a deceptive claim from another user ... I did not say that this had to do with the impeachment process but rather with the Congressional power of investigation and subpoena.

You are the one (among others) making the claim that Congressional investigations prior to impeachment require some formal action. You have yet to prove that point. Your spurious nonsense above that Constitution means what you say it does is just ... silly.

Show us, in any actual documented source, a requirement for a formal House action to commence an impeachment investigation.

a reply to: simpleman9577

Very nice, someone who actually argues from facts! Thank you!

Under House rules, there has to be authorization in committee to issue a subpoena except when the rules of the committee allow for the Chair to act under delegation.

... a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or subcommittee under subparagraph (1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities only when authorized by the committee or subcommittee, a majority being present. The power to authorize and issue subpoenas under subparagraph (1)(B) may be delegated to the chair of the committee under such rules and under such limitations as the committee may prescribe.

Rules of the House of Representatives, pg. 19

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: simpleman9577

Very nice, someone who actually argues from facts! Thank you!

Under House rules, there has to be a vote in committee to issue a subpoena except when the rules of the committee allow for the Chair to act under delegation.

How does the chair get that delegation??

where is that stated? because this

a subpoena may be authorized and issued by a committee or
subcommittee under subparagraph
(1)(B) in the conduct of an investigation or series of investigations or activities only when authorized by the
committee or subcommittee, a majority being present.

Who Delgated that to the Chair?

a reply to: thedigirati

I've been hearing about supposed pending arrests for over two years now. Do you have a link to the "FISA Court Abuse Report" information?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

LOL. Appealling to your own authority is a ludicrous fallacy.

Sorry, projecting your own deficiencies?

Impeachment occurs when the House votes on and passes Articles of Impeachment to send to the Senate.

Yes, that is the actual result of the act of being impeached.

There is no requirement for any prior action to investigate any matter which lies within the purvue of the Congress, which this certainly does.

No, it falls within the purview of The House of Representatives. Congress consists of both the HoR and the Senate.

Sorry, but your argument that one Committee run by a few rogue House Members constitutes 'The House of Representatives' is not just specious, it is ludicrous.

You can't Google on your own?

I can actually google pretty good - but I've been unable to find anything that suggests that a few Members of The House of Representatives can go off on their own and engage in Impeachment proceedings. Probably because there is nothing to support such a ludicrous suggestion.

But by all means, if you can find something that backs up your ludicrous suggestion, lets see it.

You are mistaken entirely in your claim that "no one has to cooperate with Congress" in terms of investigations and subpoenas. The power to compel has been thoroughly established by SCOTUS. I just provided a link to a source but I'll do so again so you won't miss it: SCOTUSblog - Cases and controversies: Congress, the subpoena power and a “legislative purpose”

No argument... when it is for a legislative purpose.

Impeachment is not done for a legislative purpose, so any investigations, including subpoenas, etc, must be done pursuant to the Power of Impeachment - which resides solely with "The House of Representatives" - the WHOLE House, not some Committee, a few rogue members, or even the Speaker.

a reply to: thedigirati

A good question. Here's an answer:

“Accordingly, due to the urgency of the matter and the unlawful decision by your office to withhold from the Committee an Intelligence Community individual’s credible “urgent concern” whistleblower disclosure, the Committee hereby issues the attached subpoena compelling you to transmit immediately to the Committee the disclosure, in complete and unaltered form, as well as to produce other related materials.”

House Select Committee on Intelligence website

It's a quote from Chairman Schiff published on the official House Select Committee on Intelligence website. Do you have any valid reason to suspect his statement to be non-factual? Hint: your possible dislike of Schiff is not a valid reason.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl
You are the one (among others) making the claim that Congressional investigations prior to impeachment require some formal action.

If the investigation is with regard to impeachment, and not for some legitimate legislative purpose, yes, they require a formal vote of the whole House.

You have yet to prove that point. Your spurious nonsense above that Constitution means what you say it does is just ... silly.

You say that only because you cannot fathom being wrong. Too bad, you are wrong, and it is really obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Show us, in any actual documented source, a requirement for a formal House action to commence an impeachment investigation.

Objection: asked and answered (many times).

a reply to: tanstaafl

Repeating yourself is not providing factual evidence. Do you have anything besides your own opinion to offer?

a reply to: Gryphon66

here


Hope this helps

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gryphon66

here


Hope this helps

The Washington Examiner? LOL ... okie dokie. Thanks.

originally posted by: simpleman9577
a reply to: Gryphon66

I found this on the house's Role on impeachment :

The House's Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but

Excellent - even the House Rules state it very clearly.

Thank you simpleman!

I bolded the pertinent part, since some in this thread have reading comprehension problems.

Get that? Either an individual member can submit an impeachment resolution like any other bill, or 'the House' can initiate an inquiry by passing a resolution - you guessed it - by a vote of the whole House.

Any more questions?