It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Donald Trump’s DOJ gave Biden a major assist in the coming impeachment probe

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Link

There is a major legal issue so far with the impeachment inquiry, the very same issue Nancy Pelosi created in 2019 and had to change course to remedy. Pelosi tried to push through an impeachment inquiry of Trump without a vote, and Trump's DoJ issued a ruling that holds to this day, saying a vote is required -- he never took it down and neither did Biden. Which means that Pelosi's inquiry did not have teeth until the whole Congress voted to begin an inquiry, and neither does this one.

Does McCarthy know this? He must know, right? Does the Freedom Caucus?

I think we may be looking at a game McCarthy is playing. He knows he won't be able to push through government funding until he appeases the Freedom Caucus by starting an impeachment inquiry. What I think he may be doing is following:

a) start an impeachment inquiry without a vote,
b) push through government funding,
c) play dumb after funding passes and the inquiry is found invalid without a vote,
d) hold a vote after the funding bill, regardless of how it goes

Am I sure this will happen? Absolutely not. But he will HAVE TO have a vote to start up the inquiry before anyone, including the courts will take it seriously. They won't be able to issue any valid subpoenas until the inquiry is authorized, which means legally voted on.


“[W]e conclude that the House must expressly authorize a committee to conduct an impeachment investigation and to use compulsory process in that investigation before the committee may compel the production of documents or testimony,” wrote Steven Engel, then the head of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, backing the Trump administration’s rejection of subpoenas from the Democratic congressional investigators.

“The House had not authorized such an investigation in connection with the impeachment-related subpoenas issued before October 31, 2019, and the subpoenas therefore had no compulsory effect,” Engel, a Senate-confirmed Trump appointee, concluded in his 54-page opinion.

Download 54 Page DoJ Paper from 2019


That opinion — issued by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — came in response to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to launch an impeachment inquiry into Trump without initially holding a vote for it. Not only is it still on the books, it is binding on the current administration as it responds to Tuesday’s announcement by Speaker Kevin McCarthy to authorize an impeachment inquiry into Biden, again without a vote.

So, what is McCarthy's play? Is he unaware of the DoJ rule stating a vote is required? How can he not be, he has all those lawyers around him all the time, telling him what is legal and what is not.

And if he knows, what is his play?



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany
Oh
The congress has to follow the executive’s directions?
Lol
Mkay



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

Well it's not like anyone was expecting any consequences for
Biden anyway. Maybe if we could get the democrats to turn on
each other. Stab each other in the back. But the Republicans?
Consequences? Really? They're just there to distract us. One big
facade to keep us busy.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:20 PM
link   
www.axios.com...

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) defended himself on Tuesday for changing course on whether an impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote, saying his predecessor Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) changed the precedent.

Why it matters: McCarthy unilaterally launched a probe into President Biden on Tuesday, less than two weeks after Breitbart News quoted him saying it would take a full House vote to kick off.

"She changed that," McCarthy told reporters, referencing Pelosi. "This is how you do it. So, I warned her not to do it that way in the process, and that's what she did so that's what we do."


in all honesty, an impeachment won't work. It will accomplish the exact same thing the Trump impeachments did. But in this one case, it's all that's needed.

See, the issue here is the MSM is owned by the DNC, as is the DOJ, FBI, and the rest of the IC. We all know there will be no equal justice, nor fair and balanced coverage of issues. It would take an idiot of gargantuan size to dispute any of that. But what will happen is the facts that the MSM won't report on will be common knowledge. All those facts that the left is now pretending don't exist. So regardless of the validity of the impeachment inquiry, as long as the information is released in such a way that the idiot public and the idiot left will be forced to read it, this will have been a success.

We only need a small minority of democrats to realize the president is compromised and this will do that.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: Mahogany
But the Republicans?
Consequences? Really? They're just there to distract us. One big
facade to keep us busy.


It seems at least, that that is exactly what McCarthy is doing, just distracting, when he fully knows it won't work this way.

Question is -- is the Freedom Caucus aware of what he is doing? Will they be up in arms and vote to remove him when they figure it out?

Or will they figure it out before the government is funded and force a shutdown?


edit on 13-9-2023 by Mahogany because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

I don't remember where but I saw a bunch of McCarthy interviews and in one of them he was asked if any of what he accuses Biden to have done is actually illegal.
His answer: It should be


... yeah well and I should own a unicorn...
lol



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

It looks like the only teeth (or lack thereof) is that DOJ would not respond to or charge subpoena violations. That wouldn't stop people from honoring subpoenas though. Just something attorneys can use in advising clients about whether to testify or not.

I don't think the Speaker would be penalized by the caucus necessarily.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Mahogany

It looks like the only teeth (or lack thereof) is that DOJ would not respond to or charge subpoena violations. That wouldn't stop people from honoring subpoenas though. Just something attorneys can use in advising clients about whether to testify or not.

I don't think the Speaker would be penalized by the caucus necessarily.


What good is an investigation if it's only called an investigation but can't do anything? Can't subpoena witnesses, evidence or compel compliance out of anyone.

What good would any crime investigation be if the police 'suggested' you come down to the station and talk to them, but didn't really have to.


edit on 13-9-2023 by Mahogany because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany




What good is an investigation if it's only called an investigation but can't do anything? Can't subpoena witnesses, evidence or compel compliance out of anyone.


It's time consuming. All they have to say for the duration of any investigation is
"It's an ongoing investigation, not allowed to divuldge, it's a matter of national
security". Just a gaggle of mannequins in a huge showroom.


edit on 13-9-2023 by Saloon because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Congress is not a law enforcement body. They rely on the DOJ to enforce any of their subpoenas. If the DOJ says, "We don't acknowledge any impeachment related subpoenas as valid until a full House vote is held," it means those subpoenas are worthless.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Not legally binding in court, so its just a click bait headline.

I am sure it is "Bdien" approved though!



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Pelosi did end up holding a vote however, when it became clear that without the DOJ an impeachment inquiry couldn't go anywhere.

If McCarthy has the votes like he claims, why wouldn't he hold a vote?



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

Congress is certainly allowed to file a civil suit against the DOJ to compel them to enforce the subpoenas. However, anytime Congress has done that in the past it's taken years to resolve.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Mahogany

It looks like the only teeth (or lack thereof) is that DOJ would not respond to or charge subpoena violations. That wouldn't stop people from honoring subpoenas though. Just something attorneys can use in advising clients about whether to testify or not.

I don't think the Speaker would be penalized by the caucus necessarily.


What good is an investigation if it's only called an investigation but can't do anything? Can't subpoena witnesses, evidence or compel compliance out of anyone.

What good would any crime investigation be if the police 'suggested' you come down to the station and talk to them, but didn't really have to.



Yea, that's kind of the issue a lot of us have with a corrupt DOJ that should be Apolitical, but instead is run by the DNC. But I suppose being a crooked law professional allows for those small imperfections to be overlooked.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany



What good is an investigation if it's only called an investigation but can't do anything? Can't subpoena witnesses, evidence or compel compliance out of anyone.

A one sided investigation. Only those sympathetic to "finding" something will appear.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Threadbare

I had to read it over again.
There were the before the vote subpoenas, not binding.
then the after the vote subpoenas, binding.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Did you miss the fact that this policy was enacted under the Trump administration to protect him?



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

DOJ has said they won't enforce any subpoenas (via contempt of Congress charges) if a whole House vote has not passed.



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Threadbare

It is not all cut and dried yet, the process has only
started so lets just sit back and enjoy the show.

Its going to be a long time before any of this is
resolved, Biden has so many years in the halls
of power, who really can predict what kind
of skeletons will be found?



posted on Sep, 13 2023 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Mahogany

a reply to: Threadbare


Look we know you guys don’t give a rat’s ass about anyone breaking any laws except when it has to do with Trump’s “crimes” that were manufactured by the Dems.

Just admit it so we can all move forward.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join