trump impeachment watch thread

[vy65]

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

[vy65]

vy65 true or false?

According to Capitol Hill members, via Politico, House Democrat leadership has taken a climate assessment of democrat House members and Speaker Pelosi announced they will not hold a House impeachment authorization vote. As a direct and specific consequence all committee subpoenas do not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.

A judicial penalty can only be created if the House votes to authorize an impeachment inquiry. Absent a vote, the Legislative Branch has not established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempt to work through their quasi-cons utional “impeachment inquiry” process.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.

It has long been well established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8. Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited to their legislative purpose.

There is an elevated level of subpoena, made power possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations. That level of elevated House authority requires a full House authorization vote.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.

In this current example the Legislative Branch is expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative Branch purpose. So that raises the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena:… A demand from congress that penetrates the cons utional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

No. Hasn't been tested in 46 years. Good luck getting that case to the Supreme Court. This is one of the most re ed SOP arguments I've heard.

It was separately established by SCOTUS during the Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

The claim made is that there's no penalty for non-complaince. See above.

There has been NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.

A demand letter only becomes a “subpoena”, technically meaning: ‘a request for the production of do ents with a penalty for non-compliance’, when the committee has judicial enforcement authority. That process establishes an enforcement penalty.

The current demand letters cannot carry a penalty because the demands do not contain judicial enforcement authority…. because the impeachment investigation was not authorized by the chamber.

The reason judicial enforcement authority is cons utionally required is because creating Judicial enforcement authority, creating the penalty for non-compliance, gives the Executive Branch a process to appeal any legislative demand via the Judicial Branch (federal courts).

Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch has no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

Congress has its own subpoena power. Do you or the author really think only the courts can issue subpoena's?

No sources cited. Nothing actually discussed in the context of what the law or the house bills say. Totally wrong on what powers the Congress has and how it's expanded since the 70s. And a completely tortured prognostication about SOP and what SCOTUS will do.

[vy65]

As a consequence, the House has not created a process to penetrate the cons utionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. The House must vote to authorize the committee impeachment investigation, and through that process the committee gains judicial enforcement authority. This creates the penalty for non-compliance with an impeachment subpoena.

One of the three impeachment inquiries without an authorization vote was the impeachment of Walter L. Nixon. Which gave us the Nixon case. Which held that these issues are non-justiciable political questions. This is flat out incorrect.

grcer

[djohn2oo8]

One of the three impeachment inquiries without an authorization vote was the impeachment of Walter L. Nixon. Which gave us the Nixon case. Which held that these issues are non-justiciable political questions. This is flat out incorrect.

grcer

Gotdayummmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[djohn2oo8]

[TSA]

In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.



In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.



In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.



No. Hasn't been tested in 46 years. Good luck getting that case to the Supreme Court. This is one of the most re ed SOP arguments I've heard.



The claim made is that there's no penalty for non-complaince. See above.



In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however, the House did not approve a resolution explicitly authorizing an impeachment inquiry. The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena witnesses and materials, administer oaths, and meet at any time within the United States—powers that were previously granted through resolutions providing blanket investigatory authorities that were agreed to at the start of a Congress or through authorizing resolutions for each impeachment investigation.



Congress has its own subpoena power. Do you or the author really think only the courts can issue subpoena's?

No sources cited. Nothing actually discussed in the context of what the law or the house bills say. Totally wrong on what powers the Congress has and how it's expanded since the 70s. And a completely tortured prognostication about SOP and what SCOTUS will do.

[djohn2oo8]

https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-hou...chment-inquiry


TSA

[vy65]

I think the you're posting is ignorant partisan drivel, but I'll give you mad props for at least wanting a discussion as opposed to the other cowards on here.

[Pavlov]

[TSA]

I think the you're posting is ignorant partisan drivel, but I'll give you mad props for at least wanting a discussion as opposed to the other cowards on here.

I'm here to learn while doing as little possible on my end I appreciate you taking the time.

[djohn2oo8]

I'm here to learn while doing as little possible on my end

You certainly learn as little as possible

[TSA]

You certainly learn as little as possible

I've learned you are a ass welcher.
I've learned you don't have $2000 to your name.
I've learned you ran from the ST fantasy league because of me.

[DMC]

I've learned you are a ass welcher.
I've learned you don't have $2000 to your name.
I've learned you ran from the ST fantasy league because of me.

[boutons_deux]

House Democrats threaten Giuliani with jail for contempt — but some lawmakers say that fight is a waste of time

Democratic lawmakers went on the record to threaten Rudy Giuliani with jail for contempt, while gun-shy representatives hid behind their aides to express discomfort with punitive measures.

President Donald Trump’s personal attorney has thumbed his nose at House Democrats,

saying he would ignore a subpoena he was served for do ents related to his efforts to press Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden,

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/house-democrats-threaten-giuliani-with-jail-for-contempt-but-some-lawmakers-say-that-fight-is-a-waste-of-time/

goddman Dem wimps.

Repugs would throw a subpoena-refusing Dem Julie Annie in jail

Letting Julie Annie escape a subpoena shows others that it can be done, and they will do it.

[boutons_deux]

Feds Nab Fourth Defendant In Case Against Giuliani Pals At JFK Airport In New York


another slimebag that Trash doesn't know

David Correia, the last defendant at large in alleged schemes tied to longtime pals of Rudy Giuliani’s, was arrested at JFK Wednesday morning

Correia is a longtime business partner of Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, two Soviet-born American businessmen.

The three – along with Andrey Kukushkin – were indicted last week on charges related to

an alleged criminal campaign finance scheme to subvert federal reporting requirements and funnel money into GOP congressional campaigns.

Correia is the last of the four defendants to enter federal custody. He is scheduled to be arraigned tomorrow in Manhattan federal court along with his other three co-defendants.

Correia is a director with Parnas at Fraud Guarantee, a Boca Raton-based firm that offers anti-fraud insurance to investors. Reuters reported on Tuesday that

Giuliani had been paid $500,000 by the firm.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/feds-nab-fourth-defendant-in-case-against-giuliani-pals-at-jfk-airport-in-new-york

[ducks]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job

[boutons_deux]

Trash throws Julie Annie under the bus, implying that Trash had nothing to do with it

Looks like Julie Annie is the scapegoat

Trump Bearhugs Rudy, But Suggests Ukraine Scheme Was Giuliani’s Idea

Trump also notably attempted to wash his hands a bit of his tag-team Ukrainian pressure campaign with Giuliani,

by repeatedly painting the endeavor — to push the Ukrainian government to investigate the Biden family — as a very Giuliani-led effort.

“So, Rudy was a great prosecutor. He was the best mayor in the history of New York as far as I can see. I think he’s pretty much acknowledged what he did with crime and everything,” Trump said Wednesday morning.

“When he saw what was going on with our election of 2016,

the election I won, but the election that was absolutely corrupted by things that took place in government.”

Trump repeatedly pointed to the “tremendous corruption” that took place during the 2016 election

— and reiterated how much it “incensed” his lawyer Giuliani.

Rudy Guiliani was seeking out corruption, mostly in the 2016 election.

There was tremendous corruption, I think even you would admit that,”

Rudy Guiliani, because he was very, very incensed at the horrible things that he saw as are many people,”

When asked if Giuliani operated as a foreign agent, Trump demurred.

“I don’t know what he did. You have to ask Rudy those questions. Don’t ask me.

Pure corruption,” Trump said, before switching gears to divulge that

he’s still asking the FBI about where the “server” is.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/t...-giuliani-idea

[djohn2oo8]

lol bye Rudy

[boutons_deux]

lol bye Rudy

Los Tres Amigos!

EU ambassador Sondland described as ‘potential national security risk’ by ex-Trump official


https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/eu-ambassador-sondland-described-as-potential-national-security-risk-by-ex-trump-official-report/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1739

[LkrFan]

Colludy = fcked

[LkrFan]

[LkrFan]

Don the MF'N Con

at this asswipe

[djohn2oo8]

If it’s what you say it is......

[Chris]

[koriwhat]

Simple. They are gathering more and more evidence on purpose. Why?

1) Trump wants this over with. I say let it linger. He's a healthy, fit, stable genius, so his 70 year old heart can take it, right?

2) The more evidence they expose, it gives independents something to chew on as we get ready for the 2020 Senate elections. All those Repugs who see clear evidence of his wrong doing, yet still vote NOT to impeach by 67%, simply put, they = fcked

3) The more evidence they get will get turned over to Mueller. Remember, DOJ won't insight a sitting President, but Mueller said his ass is grass be it now, or 4 years from now (if it comes to that; hope not tho). All that talk on Mueller's "Witch Hunt" will be remembered.

4) Adam Schiff can arrest more Trumpettes in his inner circle. I'm sure my man Michael Cohen (who is willing to sing like Whitney Houston) is gonna feed more dirt to Adam, etc. to further peel back more evidence against that Orange er. Stay tuned for that shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

So yeah, impeaching is cool, but I want the Dems to drain that red swamp. There's a lot of layers to Trump's corruption. I'm sure Paul Manafort will start singing too.

More to follow on that vote. There is much more leads to follow though. I'll keep you posted.

what a crock of that whole post of yours is.

Just a reminder

you listen to BETA? that dude flops around more than a fish out of water and also lives up to his nickname beta because he'd be nothing without his wife's estate. that clown!

When RGB croaks or quits, they’ll vote. Can’t let him nominate another SCJ.

exactly