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.
“[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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.