Corey Lewandowski Trolls Befuddled Democrats on House Judiciary Committee
Lewandowski treated them like a joke because that’s what they are. A joke.
Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and answered questions for hours. It was the latest attempt by Democrats to appear as if they are trying to impeach Trump.
Here is his opening statement:
WATCH: Corey Lewandowski’s full opening statement
“We as a nation would be better served if elected officials like you concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises facing our country as opposed to going down rabbit holes like this hearing.” pic.twitter.com/g2AQjghb2C
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
The hearing descended into chaos almost immediately. Democrats made themselves look foolish as Lewandowski calmly responded in ways that highlighted the absurdity of the entire event.
Alex Pappas reports at FOX News:
Combative Lewandowski frustrates Democrats, as impeachment-probe hearing descends into disarray
After five hours of testimony before lawmakers, the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, told Lewandowski his “behavior in this hearing room has been completely unacceptable,” and said holding him “in contempt” is “certainly under consideration.”
Lewandowski immediately frustrated Nadler, the committee’s chairman, during the Democrat’s first question earlier in the day – when the witness, in an apparent effort to stall for time, repeatedly asked Nadler to point to the specific section in the Robert Mueller report related to his question. Lewandowski was following White House orders not to discuss confidential conversations with the president beyond what was already public in the former special counsel’s report.
Asked by Nadler if he met alone with President Donald Trump in June 2017, Lewandowski said, “Could you read the exact language of the report? I don’t have it available to me.”
“I don’t think I need to do that,” Nadler shot back. “I have limited time.”
Asked the question again, Lewandowski told Nadler he needed him to “refresh” his memory of what was in the report. He demanded that Democrats provide him a copy of the report, sending Democratic staff scrambling to find one.
“He’s filibustering,” a frustrated Nadler said.
Here’s a video clip of that moment:
Rep. Nadler: “Is it correct that as reported in the Mueller Report on June 19, 2017 you met alone in the Oval Office with the president?
Corey Lewandowski: “Is there a book and page number you could reference me to, please? I don’t have a copy of the report in front of me.” pic.twitter.com/4KHYhfxo0C
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
As you watch, you can almost hear Lewandowski thinking to himself: I don’t give a damn what any of you people think, or what you believe you are owed by me.
When questioned by Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA), who recently dropped his bid for president, Lewandowski addressed him as “President Swalwell.”
Shelby Talcott of the Daily Caller:
‘President Swalwell’: Lewandowski Mocks Congressman During Impeachment Hearing
Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski mocked Democratic California Rep. Eric Swalwell’s failed 2020 Democratic candidacy, calling him “President Swalwell” during Tuesday’s impeachment inquiry.
Swalwell and Lewandowski got into it after the congressman repeatedly asked Lewandowski to read what was written on July 19 regarding dictated to him by President Donald Trump.
“President Swalwell, I’m happy of what I’ve written, but you’re welcome to read it if you’d like,” Lewandowski replied at one point. Swalwell dropped out of the 2020 Democratic presidential race July 8. He struggled to gain traction on the campaign trail and saw poll numbers that peaked at 1%.
Watch:
Lewandowski’s exchange with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) was also memorable:
Corey Lewandowski to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee: “Could you repeat the question? I didn’t hear it. Just a rant.”
Full video here: https://t.co/4Y5h3ZMtW9 pic.twitter.com/1qbdGYkMsQ
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
When Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) got to ask a question, Lewandowski gave an excellent response:
Corey Lewandowski to @RepMattGaetz: “I think they hate this president more than they love their country.” pic.twitter.com/NVKWgq0bao
— CSPAN (@cspan) September 17, 2019
Trump enjoyed the show:
Such a beautiful Opening Statement by Corey Lewandowski! Thank you Corey! @CLewandowski_
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 17, 2019
As I said, this is no longer about impeaching Trump, as much as it is about these Democrats trying to appear as if they’re trying to impeach Trump.
They’re all terrified of angering the far-left base and getting primaried by candidates supported by AOC and the Squad.
Lewandowski treated them like a joke because that’s what they are. A joke.
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Living billboards for term limits, the lot of them.
Also living billboards for
Voter ID.
Repeal of Motor Voter.
Literacy testing.
No early voting.
No same-day registration.
No contingency ballots.
From your keyboard to God’s ear. I heartily endorse all of your points.
At the very least no “ballot harvesting”.
You have to add “proof of citizenship for every registered voter. Motor voter and NH’s system of affidavits has made it so non-citizens are now registered. We need to purge the rolls of those vote thieves – whether the number be 1, or 1,000,000.
Nadler, Johnson, Lee and others are a parade on inept fools. It is truly FRIGHTENING to think that these mouth breathers are in positions of genuine power.
Swalwell must be short for “Swallows Well.”
The lot of them, including SwallowsWell, are windows lickers.
“President Swallwell” was a great troll statement. Also the statement to him about it being “a big safe, there’s alot of guns in there”
Yes it was. I enjoyed it when I watched the first time yesterday but it hit me watching it this time how it was another dig, just as much as calling him president, since he had threatened to nuke those who didn’t turn in their guns.
Well played Mr. Lewandowski.
I thought there couldn’t be impeachment hearings unless the House voted for impeachment? Do I have that wrong?
This is a disgrace, and utter disgrace.
How terribly our Congress has fallen. It has become a national joke. An expensive national joke.
Unless you’re in Wonderland, yes, you do have that wrong. In most universes a trial comes before a verdict, not after.
Well, thanks to this proceeding, we learned that the Tooth Fairy is real soooooooo…….
Except if your name is Trump. Then the verdict was rendered on November 9th 2016. They now have to find or manufacture the crime.
Wow.
Nice manners.
I was an honest question.
This place used to be known for some decorum and civil discussion, but it has been overrun by poorly mannered idiots who love to sing the praises of all-things-trump.
To your point, the house (and its various committees) can hold hearings on anything at any time. In the case of impeachment, it is very unlikely there ever would be a vote to impeach unless there had been hearings first.
If the full house votes to impeach, then the matter goes to the senate where the full body sits in judgment of the facts presented by the house. They then vote on removal. This may be the hearing you refer to, but it is a different horse entirely from what is going on right now.
One of the most uncivil to ever comment here is back with his new name to call us uncivil.
He still doesn’t know how often a yearbook is published.
except this is less of a “trial” and more of political grandstanding
the Dems know they have nothing to impeach Trump on other than blatant partisanship and are (atm) trying to construct a case where none still exists
the above was supposed to have been done by the Mueller special counsel except 2 things happened that they did not expect:
1) the Trump campaign had no collaboration with the Russian government before, during, and after the 2016 election cycle
and
2) the probe (after a near 3 year investigation) could not find a legal infraction against Donald Trump from before or after him getting the Oval Office
hence why the Dems are crying “obstruction, obstruction” now because their collusion narrative fell apart
but the problem they have with this particular route is it is rooted in Trump “obstructing” by not obstructing and by him “obstructing” a partisan investigation where the baseline crime never existed
all the people being called up by the House judiciary committee are the same peeps investigated in length by the Mueller special counsel
but this time around – those called now have no real reason to further elaborate on anything due to them already have done so to the feds
Noted Constitutional Scholar Milhouse is wrong. Impeachment IS the trial, not the verdict. Hence, William Jefferson Clinton was impeached…a trial was conducted and he was found not guilty.
I thought impeachment was the equivalent of an indictment by the House, and the trial is in the Senate with House members serving as prosecutors, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. Yes? No?
the House can hold “inquiries” before such a vote takes place
the thing is – they still need a floor vote to open an impeachment hearing
this here with Lewandowski was a faux inquiry due to the Dems never having a floor vote
and Lewandowski called them out on it
instead the Dems are trying to masquerade their judicial committee as an “impeachment inquiry” without it officially being one
it was nothing more than a normal oversight meeting with no real weight and substance to the material the Dems wanted to showcase, since Trump directed executive privilege for his former campaign chair
In the real world, milhouse, the trial, which is in the senate, can only occur once impeachment has been voted out of the house.
Impeachment is a political act. The House writes the articles of impeachment and then the process starts. Since the House can’t vote to impeach, the impeachment hearings are held by the Senate, not the house. They are considered the “trial” portion of the process.
Technically speaking Herm, (from a non-lawyer) I don’t think these are impeachment hearings but hearings to determine if Trump obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation. Of course, this a prelude to impeachment hearings but for now, Nadler and committee don’t need to wait for a vote.
I say give Nadler and his committee all the rope they need to hang themselves. The Dems ALL looked pitifully foolish.
The longer they spend on this, the better for Trump in 2020.
The real issue is that there is no such thing as “Impeachment Hearings” in any legal meaning of the word. It’s a term Jerry Nadler made up to try and mollify his far left base and keep from being primaried; they were made because Impeachment had fizzled after Mueller’s grand performance in front of them.
These are just ordinary everyday Congressional committee meetings, for the purpose of oversight. If we were to accept Jerry Nadler’s terminology, then every oversight hearing ever conducted by any congressional committee ever could be called an “impeachment hearing”.
and this is where the Dems get into trouble, because the Prog base wants every action by the House to be an “Impeachment Hearing”, but the few wiser and more experienced dems realize they’re in big trouble if they run in the 2020 election as an Impeachment Congress, and nothing else.
Not to mention they want the 6e Grand Jury testimony which they can only get if they actually have an active Impeachment investigation. So while the Speaker and Majority Whip both opposed even starting an Impeachment Inquiry and have stated that no such investigation is currently underway, The Waddler had claimed his committee hearings are just such a thing to the Judge hearing his request to override 6e. DoJ replied to The Waddler’s brief by citing the Speaker and Whip’s statements and The Waddler looks even more the fool, so of course the MSM didn’t give it much coverage.
Ah, that makes sense.
Nadler will do all kinds of twists and turns of great technicality, too bad he can’t stick the landing!
Thanks, Ri, for your comment.
If you are obstructing injustice, is it still obstruction?
Asking for 63 million voters.
C-Span, best comedy show on TV.
(preview button still not working)
Corey is a Lowell Catholic grad but I forgive him. He’s doing good. I didn’t realize he has a sense of humor. Nadler is talking about holding him in contempt of Congress but it would be worth it. Congress deserves universal contempt these days.
Ask Eric Holder about the Terrible Penalties that apply if one is held in “Contempt of Congress”. Oh wait – their aren’t any?
Tip – Congress has to ask the Attorney General to enforce any Contempt actions, they have no enforcement power of their own (in spite of what a couple delusional progressive professors think) And if the AG tells them to go piss up a rope, then Congress has to go piss up a rope.
If every contempt citation invites an avalanche of videos (like this one) of what precipitated the citation, it would represent the biggest free campaign give away for Trump imaginable. America needs to see who Congress is and how they behave. It’s even better when they are being mocked every step of the way with hilarious zingers.
From here on, every pro-Trump witness called to testify before these clowns should be advised confront such rude arrogance with pointed humor. If they DON’T get cited for contempt, they failed.
They should not have anyone testify who is smarter than Shelia Jackson Lee, but that would only leave themselves. Moroons!
“Contempt of Congress?”
Thought that was a Constitutional Amendment like the 1st and the 2nd…………
I’m not sure a stand-up comic could get more laughs from me than when I watched some of this last night…..I hope the next man/woman on the list of testifiers treats the dims/libs the same way
I think enough time has elapsed for everyone to start claiming they can’t remember anything and need refreshing from the Mueller Report.
Nadler asking him to confirm something that happened on a specific date and then refusing to allow him time to verify what the report said was a petulant act. I would have asked for a copy of the report at well and make it known I don’t trust a single congressman on the committee to get it right.
After the multiple “process crimes” the democrats like to brag about coming out of the Mueller Investigation, I wouldn’t confirm anything they claimed I said in the report or document without a copy of that in front of me either so that they couldn’t hit me with “lying to Congress” for failing to remember exactly what they have on record of you saying under oath. When Nadler asked him if this is what he said on a particular date, Nadler could have given him the wrong date through error or on purpose forcing him into a process crime while under oath to Congress. It’s why there were referrals for prosecution to the DOJ by republicans for when they made Cohen come in & testify, after pleading guilty of lying to Congress, when he then said things that contradicted himself. A lot of those up there that are any good at their jobs are former prosecutors & judges.
I watched some of this with my friend, Captain Obvious. He said the Dems know there is no political will to impeach the President, so their only hope is to smear him in the eyes of the American people prior to the 2020 election, and to hold off an insurrection from their rabid, Left-wing base.
And that is a total DEM FAIL.
How did the DNC every find such stupid and corrupt DEMS?
JUST THINK about the upstanding individuals that vote these IGNORANT MORONS into office? DAMN “wut” are we turning into. Look at the funds used for education AND not well spent, IMO
A LOT of the funds being spent on education are just slush funds for the democrats who depend on the teacher’s unions for large contributions that come from the dues of teachers who are mandated to be in the union. It’s why the majority of actual “union” jobs in the US are now mainly government employee unions.
Cory played them like cheap fiddles. Proof again we need an IQ test to serve.
I weep for our future. The “fake it ’til you make it” mentality has fully matriculated into the government ranks. I do not see an end to this. We are hitting the lowest common denominator.
Just an observation — Anyone who would think Sheila Jackson Lee’s hairstyle is something that is acceptable to wear in public should automatically be disqualified from any form of governmental, or any other sort of, service.
Listening to Lee (the most godawful cartoon clown in the universe) swear she wasn’t a “useful idiot” and never said an unkind word about any of her colleagues deserved it’s own impeachment hearing! (Correct me if that wasn’t Lee, I was listening on the radio – and it was still funny as heck.)
It was particularly funny since just last year she tweeted that Trump was a “useful idiot” for the Kremlin.
Hey now! Texas maybe not have the biggest maroon, but if we can’t have Maxine we at least have Sheila and Al. I declare our moroons are better than Kalifornia’s. Of course, nobody can beat Bernie at being Dum! Anyone remember the skit with Winters chewing out the soldier? You are dum, D U M! LOL!
without the report to refer to he might make a mistake and be charged with perjury. Only democrats can lie to congress.
To paraphrase: “open your mouth and prove that you’re a fool” is clear.
Contempt of Congress – is a position the majority of the people hold if you beleve the polls.
Nice to see the side of reason and Logos fighting back and calling stupidity by its correct name.
I was struck by how he answered the questions in the same manner as Mueller. Asking for the report, page and paragraph were all Mueller stall tactics during his hearing. Corey used his play book for this hearing.
If he actually does run to unseat Shaheen, I’d be severely tempted to move to New Hampshire just to vote for him.
A Trollocracy — if you can keep it. — Benny F.
There is no such privilege. Lewandowski is as obligated as any other citizen to answer questions under a Congressional subpoena.
I probably would have jerked them around as well. The behavior of the democrats towards a private citizen shouldn’t be tolerated. Our politicians need to be reminded at every opportunity of the contempt in which we hold them.
Sanddog: I probably would have jerked them around as well.
You have the right to be as much a jerk as you want, but you still have the responsibility under the law to answer the questions.
a funny analysis there
did you already forget
Mr. Mueller: “not under my purview.”
Mr. Mueller: “that was not in my purview.”
the above reiterated a couple dozen times in various form
then my personal favorite of his testimony, “I am not going to answer that.”
fishstick: did you already forget Mr. Mueller: “not under my purview.” Mr. Mueller: “that was not in my purview.”
Mueller was called upon to testify on his role as Special Counsel. As such, it is appropriate to answer concerning his purview. Furthermore, a criminal investigator can refuse to answer in open sessions questions concerning an ongoing investigation, matters that may impact a prosecution, or classified information.
Zachriel: Mueller was called upon to testify on his role as Special Counsel. As such, it is appropriate to answer concerning his purview.
I think you mean: Mueller himself wanted to testify on his role as Special Counsel and only wanted to answer questions pertaining to his own understanding of his “purview”
kinda odd he wanted those own restrictions for himself, right?
Zachriel: Furthermore, a criminal investigator can refuse to answer in open sessions questions concerning an ongoing investigation, matters that may impact a prosecution, or classified information.
but many of those questions he refused to answer had very little to do with an “ongoing investigation” and even fewer pertaining to classified info
Mueller just did not want to go on record giving answers to those particular questions, especially those that questioned the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, as any answer to them could be used in a future investigation
fishstick: Mueller himself wanted to testify on his role as Special Counsel and only wanted to answer questions pertaining to his own understanding of his “purview”
Mueller agreed to testify. He was not subpoenaed. Being outside his purview means he didn’t examine the issue.
Zachriel: Mueller agreed to testify. He was not subpoenaed. Being outside his purview means he didn’t examine the issue.
someone correct me if I am wrong but Herr Mueller WAS subpoenaed by the House judiciary committee
he originally did NOT want to testify because… well we all saw why
and I have to correct you on this one – “being outside his purview” meant Mueller did not want to go on record on the origins of his team’s assertions and determinations made within his 448 page report
fishstick: someone correct me if I am wrong but Herr Mueller WAS subpoenaed by the House judiciary committee
You are correct. Mueller was subpoenaed.
fishstick: and I have to correct you on this one – “being outside his purview” meant Mueller did not want to go on record on the origins of his team’s assertions and determinations made within his 448 page report
It means he did not investigate the question, the investigation being limited by his mandate.
Zachriel: It means he did not investigate the question, the investigation being limited by his mandate.
then it would seem the Mueller team did not “investigate” almost anything involving the origins of his own reporting
(if one even believes that)
and his so-called “mandate” which was originally Russian election interference was quickly expanded per Rosenstein into investigating anything with “Donald J Trump” in it, despite much of their inquiries having nothing to do with the Russian government nor the 2016 election
You know, I’d rather be put in contempt than spend 5 seconds with that smarmy jackass, Swalwell or that dim bulb Jackson-Lee speaking to me in a condescending tone, accusing me of malfeasance with zero evidence and behaving as if I owe them a damned thing. Politicians need to understand they’re not American royalty, they’re not smarter or more capable than the average American, they were just able to get morons to part with their money and con idiots into voting for them. That doesn’t make them special…in any good way.
Zachriel: There is no such privilege. Lewandowski is as obligated as any other citizen to answer questions under a Congressional subpoena.
what are you talking about?
the House is not owed any such “willful” testimony
especially testimony that goes against the narrative the Dems want to build
Lewandowski was already investigated and has given statements to the Mueller special counsel who had had full legal autonomy
so he is under no obligation to give alternative testimony to the House committee
he’s within his right to say – I’ve already given a statement on that matter, or it is in the Mueller report, or a more simple response in a F U
“There is no such privilege.”
Apparently there is.
Zach the paid commie shill making statements he can’t back up, as usual.
fishstick: the House is not owed any such “willful” testimony
A subpoena requires the person to truthfully answer the questions, unless the person invokes Fifth Amendment protections. Saying the White House doesn’t want him to answer the questions is not a valid reason to refuse to answer questions under a subpoena.
Saying he has answered the questions before an officer of the executive branch does not mean he doesn’t have to answer questions posed by the legislative branch.
so then why did Obama as president claim executive privilege and that was somehow fine and dandy to the Left, but when Trump does it – it is somehow “unlawful”?
sorry but your argument does pass the hypocrisy test, let alone the stinky one
this guy was already investigated and gave sworn statements, Lewandowski is not legally compelled to give any more in a do-over inquiry
end of story there
fishstick: so then why did Obama as president claim executive privilege and that was somehow fine and dandy to the Left, but when Trump does it – it is somehow “unlawful”?
There can be a valid claim of executive privilege, but it certainly doesn’t apply to Lewandowski who doesn’t even work in the executive branch.
By the way, executive privilege isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but is one of the penumbras the Supreme Court has determined are inherent, in this case, due to the separation of powers. Even then, the legislature can pierce the privilege by showing sufficient cause, as they did with Nixon.
okay then, where is the “just cause” in this particular case?
and pretty sure Lewandowski is still covered under executive privilege due to his role as a campaign chair in the time of his employment
as the capacity of any added testimony the Dems want out of him is from his time working for the president-to-be
not after
and again, there is no legal standing that a House subpoena can produce sworn testimony
sure – the committee can hold you in contempt, but good luck trying to enforce it
and again – you under sell his previous testimony to the feds who had full legal autonomy at the time
to most objective people – THAT overrides any attempt by the Dems now for Lewandowski to produce different testimony to what he has already given
fishstick: okay then, where is the “just cause” in this particular case?
That concerns executive privilege, which does not apply to a private citizen.
fishstick: and pretty sure Lewandowski is still covered under executive privilege due to his role as a campaign chair in the time of his employment
Campaigns are not covered by executive privilege.
Zachriel: That concerns executive privilege, which does not apply to a private citizen.
no – your original point claims the legislative can pierce privileged if shown sufficient cause
I asked – where was such just cause ever shown?
and of course it applies to private citizens associated with the executive
Zachriel: Campaigns are not covered by executive privilege.
from my understanding of the statute and how it applies – it is anything/anyone involved with the executive during the time of an investigation
otherwise – anything could be fair game in the system you are describing
fishstick: no – your original point claims the legislative can pierce privileged if shown sufficient cause
That’s correct. See United States v. Nixon. However, there is no privilege with regards to Lewandowski.
fishstick: and of course it applies to private citizens associated with the executive
Not per United States v. Nixon which found a valid claim of executive privilege to be for “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties”. Lewandowski was not a “high Government official”.
fishstick: from my understanding of the statute
There’s your problem right there. Executive privilege is not a statute. It’s a penumbrum of the separation of powers, so that high government officials can give candid advice. It’s not to protect the president from an investigation into wrongdoing, and it certainly doesn’t apply to non-government political advisors.
fishstick: anything could be fair game in the system you are describing
Pretty much anything is fair game. It’s called oversight. The Congress can call most anyone to testify in order to understand how the government is working or not working. There are some limited exceptions, such as executive privilege, to protect classified sources (which still must be divulged to the appropriate Congressional committees), and the individual can invoke their Fifth Amendment protections.
Zachriel: That’s correct. See United States v. Nixon. However, there is no privilege with regards to Lewandowski.
question – did the Dems invoke or even imply the Nixon standard in regards to the executive privilege in the case with Lewandowski
you are comparing 2 totally different scenarios here
Zachriel: The chair is considering charging Lewandowski with contempt.
yet not with breaking a federal statute, eh?
a contempt charge is totally different than filing a case file against Trump for “illegally” claiming executive privilege
you do realize this, right?
Zachriel: Under what legal theory do you say that Lewandowski is not compelled when under a subpoena?
the one where he is not compelled to give “willing” testimony that is supposed to benefit the questioner
in this case, the Dems
the subpoena power is just for “showing up”
it has nothing to do with going along with a faux inquiry so I’m not sure which legal theory you believe holds water here
Zachriel: There is no statute. Executive privilege is a limited privilege found under United States v. Nixon, and in that case, they found against Nixon because the public interest took precedent.
you keep bringing a Nixon standard here where this case has nothing to do with it
the statute I’m talking about here is about how Trump can use his presidential authority to claim executive privilege to limit or restrain access to certain information an inquiry party may not be entitled to
and again, what you keep harping on about was already done through a federal probe
was it not?
Zach is a full of shit commie that knows nothing about the constitution or the law. he gets his talking points of the day and his $7.50 per hour to come here and spread them.
He’s a conman, snake oil sales specialty.
Thump has even put the commies back to work. $7.50 an hour should let him pay his mom some rent.
“There can be a valid claim of executive privilege, but it certainly doesn’t apply to Lewandowski who doesn’t even work in the executive branch.”
Wut???? The executive privilege that covers Lewandowski is Trump’s. It covers any Trump subordinate Trump says it covers. It’s a “privilege”. For the “executive”. That’s why it is called “executive privilege”.
Pasadena Phil: It covers any Trump subordinate Trump says it covers. It’s a “privilege”.
Executive privilege does not apply to all executive branch employees, otherwise Congress couldn’t exercise oversight, but only provides a limited privilege so the president can receive candid advice from high government officials (United States v. Nixon). In any case, Lewandowski is not a high government official. He’s not even a government employee.
Zachriel: Executive privilege does not apply to all executive branch employees, otherwise Congress couldn’t exercise oversight, but only provides a limited privilege so the president can receive candid advice from high government officials (United States v. Nixon).
but you ignore the executive privilege being exercised in this particular revolves around info gained from such “limited privilege” access to said executive
the fact he wasn’t a government employee is irrelevant
otherwise the Dems would have come out of that hearing screaming “obstruction” and filing motions to overturn Trump’s executive request
and remember – Lewandowski is under no such legal bound to give “willful” testimony to their congressional inquiry
he could have told them to “get bent” to every question posed and still been well within his legal rights to do so
Zachriel: In any case, Lewandowski is not a high government official. He’s not even a government employee.
yet it does not matter in this case as the statute pertains to the executive, in this case Trump
again the fact that none of the Dems are not filing and waiting for motions to “overrule” Trump’s executive privilege requests in their little faux inquiry speaks volumes to the legality of it all
if it was truly illegal – the Dems would have waited for judge rulings before subpoenaing these people, who again, have already given sworn testimony are were investigated by the Mueller special counsel who have full legal autonomy when compared to the House of Representatives
fishstick: but you ignore the executive privilege being exercised in this particular revolves around info gained from such “limited privilege” access to said executive
There is no such executive privilege to protect the president from each and every conversation he has, including with his political operatives, which is what you are asserting.
fishstick: otherwise the Dems would have come out of that hearing screaming “obstruction”
The chair is considering charging Lewandowski with contempt.
fishstick: he could have told them to “get bent” to every question posed and still been well within his legal rights to do so
Under what legal theory do you say that Lewandowski is not compelled when under a subpoena?
fishstick: yet it does not matter in this case as the statute pertains to the executive
There is no statute. Executive privilege is a limited privilege found under United States v. Nixon, and in that case, they found against Nixon because the public interest took precedent.
I keep getting the convos mixed up
oh well, I’ll use this post here to fill it
Zachriel: Powers are separated between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Congress has, among other things, the power of oversight.
true but the House is technically 1/2 of the legislative side
and the power of oversight is also restricted to something called due process and the Law
a House committee cannot just open inquiries just because
Zachriel: Not per United States v. Nixon which found a valid claim of executive privilege to be for “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties”. Lewandowski was not a “high Government official”.
again with the Nixon standard
I can tell you one gigantic difference in the scenario here from the inquiry hearing with Trump & Lewandowski
I’ll give you a hint: United States v. Nixon
another hint: and that wasn’t about testimony
Zachriel: There’s your problem right there. Executive privilege is not a statute. It’s a penumbrum of the separation of powers, so that high government officials can give candid advice. It’s not to protect the president from an investigation into wrongdoing, and it certainly doesn’t apply to non-government political advisors.
executive privilege is a statute by use federal authority
it has legal precedent
and it can technically apply to anyone the executive (in this case Trump) deems it into an investigation
and again – all of this has already gone through a federal probe so the House judiciary isn’t entitled to jack squat
my point stands – Lewandowski could have shown up and repeated “get bent” to every question thrown at him and he was still within his legal right to do just that
Zachriel: Pretty much anything is fair game. It’s called oversight. The Congress can call most anyone to testify in order to understand how the government is working or not working.
yes, technically, a congressional committee can open an inquiry into anything but that doesn’t mean it is rooted in some criminality or part of an impeachment process
Zachriel: There are some limited exceptions, such as executive privilege, to protect classified sources (which still must be divulged to the appropriate Congressional committees), and the individual can invoke their Fifth Amendment protections.
true
so how does this not apply to Corey Lewandowski?
and again – he already complied to a federal probe that had full legal autonomy
fishstick: this guy was already investigated and gave sworn statements, Lewandowski is not legally compelled to give any more in a do-over inquiry
There is no such privilege. As already pointed out, the legislature is a separate authority, and answering under the executive is not sufficient to absolve someone from also answering questions under the legislative. Otherwise, there could never be legislative oversight.
you can keep typing out this argument but the fact remains that there is no legal binding to force testimony through subpoena power
it just doesn’t exist
fishstick: you can keep typing out this argument but the fact remains that there is no legal binding to force testimony through subpoena power
Seriously? You’re arguing there is no power to enforce subpoenas whatsoever?
Zachriel: Seriously? You’re arguing there is no power to enforce subpoenas whatsoever?
seriously – you do realize that “power” resides in the executive
right?
again my point stands – the House has no “authority” to enforce a subpoena or demand testimony
the House can issue them out and even hold people in contempt, but they cannot force those to give “willing” testimony
the lower half of Congress is not a de-facto court of law
fishstick: you do realize that “power” resides in the executive
Powers are separated between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The Congress has, among other things, the power of oversight.
fp: the House has no “authority” to enforce a subpoena or demand testimony
A statute passed in 1857 makes refusal to testify when subpoenaed by Congress a crime against the United States.
2 U.S. Code § 192.
Congress also has inherent contempt authority, though that has not been exercised in modern times.
Zachriel: There is no such executive privilege to protect the president from each and every conversation he has, including with his political operatives, which is what you are asserting.
and yet there is no legislative privilege to gain such testimony
Trump’s use of executive privilege here will likely have legal holding in the courts due to the witness in this case having already been cooperative in a federal probe
that is what I’m asserting
Zachriel: A statute passed in 1857 makes refusal to testify when subpoenaed by Congress a crime against the United States.
okay so show me how those were enforced
you do realize not that long ago – AG Holder was held in contempt of congress
but perhaps not
Zachriel: Congress also has inherent contempt authority, though that has not been exercised in modern times.
I keep pointing this out but it keeps going over your head
so how are they going to enforce it?
Zach is a full of shit commie that knows nothing about the constitution or the law. he gets his talking points of the day and his $7.50 per hour to come here and spread them.
He’s a conman, snake oil sales specialty.
I watched the hearing and true to form I read the WSJ this morning and not one mention of the fun and games Lew threw at them. This is the lying by omission that the msm does daily. If I had not seen with my own eyes what happened, I would never find it in the msm!
The WSJ is on the other side along with MSNBC.
Haldeman?
Corey Lewandowski is a pompous, trump shilling asshole. And a liar.
Prove me wrong.
Look in the mirror!
so, uhh, what did he lie about?
He lied about being tasked by trump with delivering instructions to sessions regarding the investigation into Russian election meddling.
When asked under oath if he had lied on network television about his role in trying to obstruct the investigation, he did not deny having lied, but rather engaged in obfuscation and deflection. He did not give an honest answer to the question of whether he had previously lied.
that can hardly be taken as “lying”
as the entire Trump-Russia collusion angle was proven to have been a sham and perpetuated by Obama administration officials
so Trump was in the right in questioning the integrity of what would become the 3 year fishing expedition of the Mueller probe
if Lewandowski “lied” that meant anything, then he would have done so to the special counsel, no?
considering these actions in the context of Comey’s or McCabe’s
it is peanuts in comparison
A bald faced lie on national tv is still a bald faced lie. The fact that he didn’t lie to the special counsel shows that he’s at least smart enough to not engage in outright perjury. But he still lied to the american public about a matter that could potentially have impacted an ongoing Justice Department investigation.
When called on his lie during open testimony, instead of denying he lied, or justifying his false statement, he deflected and obfuscated. Not the hallmarks of an honest man.
coolway: When called on his lie during open testimony, instead of denying he lied, or justifying his false statement, he deflected and obfuscated. Not the hallmarks of an honest man.
except that in the end – he didn’t lie
nor was he ever really caught in one
coolway: But he still lied to the american public about a matter that could potentially have impacted an ongoing Justice Department investigation.
except this is a vast overstatement of what supposedly had happened
from what I am reading – nothing what Lewandowski did was illegal or illicit in terms of what Trump had asked him to do
Your Ragspierre, prove me wrong. Ragspee, a predictably pompous fool.
Hey, tell us again how Lewandowski assaulted that poor child journalist, Michelle Fields.
Tell us what a wonderful lawyer Avenatti is.
Tell us what a wonderful mother that hooker, Horseface, is.
Dumber than a brick, still.
You are a delusional idiot. Prove me wrong.
Still haven’t debunked my point that Lewandowski is a liar. Or a pompous ass.
But go ahead and deflect with your ‘rags’ delusion. Don’t let me get in the way of the voices in your head.
Hey Ragspeepee, tell us the lie he told and then I’ll correct your sorry lying ass.
Barry, it’s obvious you are heartbroken over being dumped by Rags, but this fixation with trying to re-establish your lover’s quarrel vicariously through me is not healthy. You should focus on recovery, and let Rags go. Pick up the pieces of your broken heart, and move on.
You will always have the memories of being entertwined in his loving arms while engaging in what can only be described as depraved acts of immorality, so at least cherish those memories.
As for Corey being a liar, a simple google search for ‘Corey Lies’ would probably get you going in the right direction. In the meantime, allow me to point you to one (of many) sources from the interweb…
Lewandowski was shown a clip of him appearing on MSNBC and denying that he had any role in facilitating communications between Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. We now know that this is a lie, because in testimony to the special counsel, Lewandowski admitted that Trump had indeed tasked him first with telling Sessions that the Mueller investigation was unfair and later to say that if Sessions would not meet with Lewandowski (a private citizen and not a member of the administration), he was fired.
Asked to reconcile his public statement with his sworn testimony, Lewandowski replied, “I have no obligation to be honest with the media.”
fyi – he is actually calling you Rags
Ragspierre was a former poster (never Trumper) on here
not too sure where he went off to, maybe got banned or some shit
but yeah if THAT what you linked is Lewandowski’s supposed lie – then that is hardly anything at all
is it even indictable?
especially considering when Trump was right in calling Sessions out for being a do-nothing AG
fyi – he is actually calling you Rags
Yeah, I get that. And I’m calling him a delusional idiot. At least one of us is right, and it’s not him.
Ragspierre was a former poster (never Trumper) on here
Since I’m not a sycophantic trump humper, I guess that makes me a commie scum never trumper named rags. Sigh. I long for the days when commenters could hold two opposing thoughts in their mind at the same time.
not too sure where he went off to, maybe got banned or some shit
I have no idea, but perhaps the level of discourse around here turned him off.
but yeah if THAT what you linked is Lewandowski’s supposed lie – then that is hardly anything at all Hardly anything… except going on national tv and lying to the american public about a matter touching on potential obstruction of justice by the sitting president.
is it even indictable?
No. It is not against the law to lie on tv. That’s why so many trump sycophants (and Bernie sycophants, and Biden sycophants, and warren sycophants) get away with it all the time.
especially considering when Trump was right in calling Sessions out for being a do-nothing AG
Pardon my french, but bullshit. He was not a toady, and arguably was right in recusing himself from the russia probe, but that doesn’t mean he was sitting on his ass. Remember the clamp down on illegal immigration at the border? That was sessions.
The Heritage Foundation has a look back at his legacy as AG, including this handsome quote;
‘… Meese gives Sessions two thumbs up, saying that he served “with distinction” and “restored integrity to the Justice Department.” One of Sessions’ main accomplishments, Meese noted, was the department’s “renewed emphasis on fighting violent crime, illegal immigration, and the drug epidemic.”’
Progs use google, Ragspee used google. Yep it’s you.
We understand why you’re ashamed to use Ragspierre. It’s been thoroughly discredited and hated by almost all.
The real tell? You can’t even post a link right. That’s right out of the incompetent idiot playbook you use.
No lie there, just a refusal to capitulate to you commie progs.
How often is a yearbook published?
Google processes over Three Trillion Search Requests a day. So me and rags aren’t the only people using google, dumbass.
Not asking for capitulation, just pull your head out of your ass once in a while.
And a yearbook gets published way more often than you have sex (at least since you and rags broke up.)
Thanks for asking, yeah I’m plenty fat and drinking right now. What’s your excuse for being such a sorry excuse? Sorry, I know what it is… your poor broken heart won’t let you think straight.
You still way overweight and drinking too much?
Your still too stupid to put a link in a comment.
And Trump is the most effective conservative president since Eisenhower. But you are still hurt that Hillary didn’t win.
Once a prog always a prog.
Your only post history exists as Ragspierre.
Your the same liar you’ve always been. The same absurd neverTrumper that was wrong about every single thing.
Progs help the commies get elected and that is your #1 goal.
coolway: Pardon my french, but bullshit. He was not a toady, and arguably was right in recusing himself from the russia probe, but that doesn’t mean he was sitting on his ass.
pardon my english, but bullshit
Sessions was not in the right to recuse himself as the section of the law he applied to himself – didn’t really apply to himself
this is just my personal opinion of him: I just don’t think Sessions wanted to be involved at all with any of it due to the media spotlight he was receiving
that’s why we didn’t hear from AG Sessions in the news cycle until a year later
you are right about one thing – Sessions wasn’t a toady
but he was worse – a plant who shriveled at the first ray of light
because when any attention was upon him, he became non-existent
coolway: Remember the clamp down on illegal immigration at the border? That was sessions.
yeah I remember that
but I remember something you didn’t
in how quickly Sessions folded like a cheap lawn chair when the press started to run negative stories on him
he just up and vanished again, never to be seen again until his inevitable departure from the Trump administration
coolway – I’m going to say this with the upmost respect I can give the guy, “Sessions was a useless sack of shit”
nothing Sessions did has had any impact in the ongoings of federal policy and he will always be remembered as a Where’s Waldo? type of character
Sessions’s main problem was he never bothered to take control of his own department
and when he knew Trump had no confidence in him and his ability to handle his own job, and that was pretty soon after his confirmation, Sessions stubbornly held on to his post just to spite Trump and only resigned after the midterms when the Republicans picked up more Senate seats
that is not the sign of a toady but a political prune well past his date
Hey, you notice commie Zach has a single upvote on his comments today?
Ragspierre. He’s the commies best friend.
Why would anyone be under any obligation to prove your opinion wrong. You do know what they say about opinions, right?
Corey Lewandowski is a pompous, trump shilling asshole. And a liar.
Prove me wrong.
Bwahahahaha…
That statement is merely your opinion. Even opinions based on nothing can’t be ‘proven wrong’ because it’s all about the person’s feelings.
Aww, show me where the bad man hurt you….
This is what happens when small minds are forced off script.
I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when reading about this hearing with Lewandowski. I hope he wins the NH Senate contest.
fishstick: did the Dems invoke or even imply the Nixon standard in regards to the executive privilege in the case with Lewandowski
No. Lewandowski refused to answer question under instructions of the White House, which claimed Lewandowski’s responses “may implicate deliberative process privilege and other Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”
The Democrats say that executive privilege doesn’t apply to someone who doesn’t even work for the government, consistent with United States v. Nixon.
fishstick: yet not with breaking a federal statute
It’s illegal to refuse to answer questions under a Congressional subpoena. 2 U.S. Code § 192. There are exceptions, however, such as executive privilege and for the Fifth Amendment.
fishstick: you keep bringing a Nixon standard here where this case has nothing to do with it
Executive privilege is not written into the U.S. Constitution. Nor is there a statute. It’s a penumbra of the separation of powers as found in United States v. Nixon, and it is very limited.
fishstick: a House committee cannot just open inquiries just because [
Actually, yes they can. And more particularly, they can issue subpoenas under House rules.
fishstick: executive privilege is a statute by use federal authority
A statute is a written law passed by a legislative body.
fishstick: all of this has already gone through a federal probe so the House judiciary isn’t entitled to jack squat
If that were true, there would be no such thing as legislative oversight, because the executive would just say they had already investigated themselves.
fishstick: so how does this not apply to Corey Lewandowski?
None of the exceptions apply. Lewandowski is required to answer questions under the subpoena.
Zachriel: No. Lewandowski refused to answer question under instructions of the White House, which claimed Lewandowski’s responses “may implicate deliberative process privilege and other Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”
which is legally bound under such direction
if it wasn’t – then the Democrats would have challenged the merit of it in court prior to such testimony
Zachriel: The Democrats say that executive privilege doesn’t apply to someone who doesn’t even work for the government, consistent with United States v. Nixon.
yeah – that’s what the Democrats say
doesn’t mean they are right, especially when the Constitution and the law is concerned
and besides – United States v. Nixon has no standing in this particular testimony as the scenarios are widely different
Zachriel: It’s illegal to refuse to answer questions under a Congressional subpoena. 2 U.S. Code § 192. There are exceptions, however, such as executive privilege and for the Fifth Amendment.
but how is it illegal?
the House has no power to compel testimony
end of story
because if it was, then the Dems would be filing motions for indictment on those grounds
which they aren’t
Zachriel: Executive privilege is not written into the U.S. Constitution. Nor is there a statute. It’s a penumbra of the separation of powers as found in United States v. Nixon, and it is very limited.
I think you are getting confused with statute in terms of word usage
statute has a common definition meaning underlining rules and procedural code and a more legal pretense meaning binding law
I’m using the former while you seem to use the latter, in which I usually sub the word statute for “law” to make things easier to follow
and yes executive privilege does have legal statute – definition #1
it is not law per say, because only law is law, but there is enough usage of it that legal precedent has been set for it
Zachriel: Actually, yes they can. And more particularly, they can issue subpoenas under House rules.
the big thing you miss here is there is regular ole oversight, then oversight masquerading as an “impeachment hearing”
which Lewandowski and several Republicans have called out that hearing on
and again – subpoena power has real limitations that Democrats somehow are just learning about now
Zachriel: A statute is a written law passed by a legislative body.
I’m using the common definition of statute
as it is easier to just say Law in the context of actual law
Zachriel: If that were true, there would be no such thing as legislative oversight, because the executive would just say they had already investigated themselves.
you are just confusing the issue at this point by not acknowledging the argument at hand
the executive in this case (Trump) was not investigated by his executive body
he was investigated in length by a special counsel – which is a totally different beast
and again – legislative oversight does not guarantee “willful” testimony as the House floor is not a court of law
again – Lewandowski could have answered every question posed with a “get bent” answer and still been within his legal rights to do so
Zachriel: If that were true, there would be no such thing as legislative oversight, because the executive would just say they had already investigated themselves.
no he’s not
there is no law on the books that deems so the argument you are trying to make
it just does not exist
President Swalwell?
I’m sure he started fantasizing hearing Hail to the Chief.
New Hampsha would be very lucky to have Mr. Lewandowski represent them. They could change their state flag to represent their new senator, with a coiled Timber rattlesnake in the center.
MAGA!
MNHGA!
President Swalwell is a PENIS w/EARS! AND sheila la la land is a~~~~~TW?T. BOTH need to be REMOVED for incompetence, IMO
fishstick: which is legally bound under such direction
Lewandowski, a private citizen, can in no way be legally bound by the direction of the White House.
fishstick: doesn’t mean they are right, especially when the Constitution and the law is concerned
That’s true, and it’s not something that has been tested, but what has been tested is that executive privilege is limited, and does not trump the power of Congress to investigate wrongdoing by the executive branch.
fishstick: but how is it illegal?
Because that’s what the statute says. 2 U.S. Code § 192
fishstick: statute has a common definition meaning underlining rules and procedural code and a more legal pretense meaning binding law
When discussing the law, a statute has a specific meaning, a written law passed by a legislative body.
fishstick: he was investigated in length by a special counsel – which is a totally different beast
The Special Counsel was an officer of the executive branch, appointed and overseen by the acting Attorney General, who was nominated by the president.
fishstick: there is no law on the books
That’s right. There is no law that says Congress can’t call witnesses. Indeed, the law says that when subpoenaed witnesses have to appear and answer questions (with some exceptions).
Zachriel: Lewandowski, a private citizen, can in no way be legally bound by the direction of the White House.
I very much doubt this because the rule applies to the executive
if what you are claiming is true, then the Democrats would already be filing motions in court to compel testimony
because they aren’t – then there are only 2 explanations as to the why
1) the executive privilege used is legally sound
or 2) their case would be weak enough in being able to compel “willful” testimony out of Lewandowski
it is one or the other, possibly both
Zachriel: That’s true, and it’s not something that has been tested, but what has been tested is that executive privilege is limited, and does not trump the power of Congress to investigate wrongdoing by the executive branch.
if so – then why haven’t the Dems brought the issue to the courts?
the reason it is ever rarely tested is due to something called due process
the House can demand the executive to bend over backwards to their whims but getting them to comply is an entirely different matter
Zachriel: Because that’s what the statute says. 2 U.S. Code § 192
again – subpoena power does not grant “willful” testimony power
especially to rehash testimony that already exists
Zachriel: When discussing the law, a statute has a specific meaning, a written law passed by a legislative body.
yes but it seems you took a couple sentences of mine out of context when I described the statute of a law as not being the law itself
I was just pointing that out in I was using statute as a specific code within a law and not the “law” itself
Zachriel: The Special Counsel was an officer of the executive branch, appointed and overseen by the acting Attorney General, who was nominated by the president.
you don’t mention there was a recusal of the AG in which an interim came in as overseer
but my point still stands that special counsel investigations don’t work in a traditional executive mode
otherwise there would be no point to ever having special counsels
Zachriel: That’s right. There is no law that says Congress can’t call witnesses. Indeed, the law says that when subpoenaed witnesses have to appear and answer questions (with some exceptions).
and because of that, subpoena power is basically a witness summon
it never granted the House or Senate the ability to obtain “willful” testimony power because they are not a court
all the legislative can do is file for a motion of contempt, which we’ve seen not that long ago still has to go through the courts to get people to comply
the fact these things aren’t happening speaks volumes of the case at hand in that the Democrats know their position is likely too weak to pull off in the courts
and again – the key difference here (and why the Dems realize their motion would likely fail in the courts) is all of this has already been litigated through a special counsel where the witness’s testimony already exists and is in the chair’s hands
for example: when AG Holder was held in contempt, it was due to him not turning over any documents regarding the House’s Fast and Furious inquiry
it is the exact opposite here
fishstick: I very much doubt this because the rule applies to the executive
It’s not a dictatorship. The president can’t order around private citizens.
fishstick: you don’t mention there was a recusal of the AG in which an interim came in as overseer
We specifically addressed that with the term “acting Attorney General”, who was a Trump nominee.
fishstick: but my point still stands that special counsel investigations don’t work in a traditional executive mode
The Special Counsel is still part of the executive branch, and works under the supervision and policies of the executive branch. Congress retains independent oversight.
Zachriel: It’s not a dictatorship. The president can’t order around private citizens.
again, where is the motion in court to counteract what you think is the “unlawful” executive privilege?
remember – this is all about confidentiality between the executive of now and his once campaign manager
Lewandowski can still be beholden to listen to the former’s directive
Zachriel: We specifically addressed that with the term “acting Attorney General”, who was a Trump nominee.
but you are missing the context of my argument
special counsels operates under a different pretext as a separate oversight from the accused party
it is not a same difference argument but a separate party not acting in junction to the executive here
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is still part of the executive branch, and works under the supervision and policies of the executive branch. Congress retains independent oversight.
no it is not
special counsels are “employed” by either the DOJ or Congress but they have a level of independence from both the executive and legislative branches they represent
it is why they are called a special counsel and they operate under a different statute (definition #1)
there is an entire set of regulations based on these guys, from how they are appointed to how they (are suppose) to function
fishstick: no it is not
The special counsel is appointed by the Department of Justice according to regulations, 28 CFR §600, hence they are part of the executive branch and under the supervision and policies of the executive branch.
Zachriel: The special counsel is appointed by the Department of Justice according to regulations, 28 CFR §600, hence they are part of the executive branch and under the supervision and policies of the executive branch.
its not executive branch – its only AG supervision
special counsels does not answer to PotUS
and title 28 deals in the federal judicial system, not the executive branch
there’s other types of special counsel that works through a congressional act, which is how Bill Clinton was investigated
fishstick: title 28 deals in the federal judicial system, not the executive branch
28 CFR Chapter I – DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR § 0.5 – Attorney General {the executive office was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789}
fishstick: its not executive branch
judiciary act of 1789 was passed by congress, not by presidential authority
been reading through title 28
still not seeing where the president has autonomy over the special counsel in this section
so my point still stands about the special counsels having independent authority from the executive head and body
fishstick: judiciary act of 1789 was passed by congress
That’s right. The Congress created the position of United States Attorney General, an officer of the executive branch, appointed by and reporting to the president.
fishstick: still not seeing where the president has autonomy over the special counsel in this section
28 CFR § 600.7 – Conduct and accountability.
The Special Counsel is an employee of the executive branch, and reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President. The Special Counsel must follow department regulations, and can be removed by the Attorney General for good cause. Under the unitary executive theory, the President can remove the Special Counsel directly for any reason; but even absent that contentious and untested power, the President can order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel. The evidence is that Trump tried to fire the Special Counsel, but that no one followed his orders.
The Congress always retains the intrinsic power of oversight.
Zachriel: That’s right. The Congress created the position of United States Attorney General, an officer of the executive branch, appointed by and reporting to the president.
but said special counsel itself is not beholden to the office of the presidency
that language is missing in the title reading
honestly – it isn’t that hard to understand
the AG is defined as the supervisor of said special counsel who retains an independent authority throughout their duration
otherwise, what is the point of a special counsel?
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is an employee of the executive branch, and reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President.
still doesn’t mean they report to the President
case in point how Rosenstein used his position as supervisor to expand the probe outside of election interference
something that I’m pretty sure he did not infer with President Trump
Zachriel: The Special Counsel must follow department regulations, and can be removed by the Attorney General for good cause.
that’s because the AG is suppose to act as a check on the independent authority said special counsel receives
Zachriel: Under the unitary executive theory, the President can remove the Special Counsel directly for any reason; but even absent that contentious and untested power, the President can order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel.
again that is if the special counsel abuses the position they were granted as defined by the title
Zachriel: The evidence is that Trump tried to fire the Special Counsel, but that no one followed his orders.
to be more accurate – you mean Trump tried to legitimately fire the special counsel that was built upon Comey leaking material he never should have still retained, upon learning the special counsel was being filled with Democrat lawyers and many of whom were later revealed to be complicit in the secret spy ring on the Trump campaign and transition, and upon his own AG completely removing himself as the only check to ensure said special counsel would not abuse their independent authority which they immediately did having their probe expanded beyond the original mandate
I think you meant to type this out, right?
Zachriel: The Congress always retains the intrinsic power of oversight.
true
but there are serious limitations as to what that “oversight” can accomplish
I’ve typed this out like 5 or 6 times on this page but no one in Congress is actually entitled to any “willful” testimony as they lack the authority to compel such
and they are not a court of law
you should have paid more attention to the Obama years as that administration hamstrung the Republican House repeatedly over their inquiries
of course the big difference there was the Obama camp either refused to testify or actively withheld physical documents and then heavily redacted those they were eventually forced to turn over
in this case you libs are complaining about – Lewandowski not only was investigated by an independent authority that was fully stacked to the left, but also has given sworn testimony to said special counsel
fishstick: but said special counsel itself is not beholden to the office of the presidency
While the regulations attempt to isolate the Special Counsel from the President, the Special Counsel is, by design, a creature of the executive branch, appointed by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President, working under the regulations and supervision of the Department of Justice.
fishstick: you mean Trump tried to legitimately fire the special counsel
Meaning the Special Counsel is not independent of the President, but subject to the President’s prerogative, even when the President is the subject of an investigation.
Z: The Congress always retains the intrinsic power of oversight.
fishstick: true
Then we are finally in agreement.
fishstick: but no one in Congress is actually entitled to any “willful” testimony as they lack the authority to compel such
Have no idea what you are trying to say. Congress does have the power of subpoena, and it is illegal to refuse to answer questions of the Congress (with certain exceptions). That the executive currently refuses to enforce the law doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, anymore than if a corrupt government accepts bribes from a criminal gang to look the other way.
There are legitimate concerns over separation of powers, which are normally resolved through the courts, or as the courts have made clear, by *good faith* negotiations between the branches.
Zachriel: While the regulations attempt to isolate the Special Counsel from the President, the Special Counsel is, by design, a creature of the executive branch, appointed by the Attorney General, who is nominated by the President, working under the regulations and supervision of the Department of Justice.
yet none of the language suggests the special counsel answers to the President, does it?
the special counsel is an independent body that is only supervised by the DOJ
they hold an investigative power that is defined as their own
Zachriel: Meaning the Special Counsel is not independent of the President, but subject to the President’s prerogative, even when the President is the subject of an investigation.
well it is because the president has to (potentially) give an instruction to fire them
if the special counsel answered directly to the president, then that would not be needed
Zachriel: Then we are finally in agreement.
only in the superficial
‘oversight’ does not come with ‘willful’ testimony for their end due to Congress not being a court of law
Zachriel: Have no idea what you are trying to say. Congress does have the power of subpoena, and it is illegal to refuse to answer questions of the Congress (with certain exceptions). That the executive currently refuses to enforce the law doesn’t mean it’s not illegal, anymore than if a corrupt government accepts bribes from a criminal gang to look the other way.
again – Congress is not a court of law so their subpoena power comes with a really big hitch as a House or Senate committee would need the cooperation of the executive body (DOJ or federal marshals) or a federal court to enforce a subpoena and/or compel testimony
fishstick: yet none of the language suggests the special counsel answers to the President, does it?
You just said he did, when you said the President could fire Special Counsel. In any case, even under the regulations, there is only one step between the Special Counsel and the President, and that is the Attorney General, nominated by the President. If the executive is corrupted, then Congress has the power to exercise oversight. Witnesses have a legal obligation to comply.
fishstick: the special counsel is an independent body that is only supervised by the DOJ
That’s right. So the Special Counsel is hired by the executive branch, works under regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and is supervised by the executive branch. Consequently, the Special Counsel is a creature of the executive branch.
fishstick: ‘oversight’ does not come with ‘willful’ testimony for their end due to Congress not being a court of law
The law specifically grants to Congress the power to subpoena witnesses. There is also an inherent power, but the statute makes it explicit.
fishstick: Congress is not a court of law so their subpoena power comes with a really big hitch as a House or Senate committee would need the cooperation of the executive body (DOJ or federal marshals) or a federal court to enforce a subpoena and/or compel testimony
While Congress does have an inherent power, the statute does require the other branches to enforce the statute, much like laws against bank robbing.
Zachriel: You just said he did, when you said the President could fire Special Counsel.
no, you are again noncomprehending words
again – the special counsel does not report to the PotUS
no language of that exists in the title
PotUS cannot get rid of said special counsels like he can his own staff
the laws define the AG acting as the supervisor and a check to the investigative powers they are granted as an independent authority in title 28
so for PotUS to actually fire him, he would need to give a directive to the AG who then complies with said directive
Zachriel: In any case, even under the regulations, there is only one step between the Special Counsel and the President, and that is the Attorney General, nominated by the President.
but you completely bypass how that one step is actually a drastic distinction from said special counsel being under the president’s employ – which you are somehow implying in your argument
because there is no direct executive command structure here
Zachriel: If the executive is corrupted, then Congress has the power to exercise oversight. Witnesses have a legal obligation to comply.
but you keep ignoring the fact that both sides of Congress are not a court of law
as such – there is no “legal obligation”
‘oversight’ as per your description of it has clear limitations due to them lacking an enforcement body
Zachriel: That’s right. So the Special Counsel is hired by the executive branch, works under regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and is supervised by the executive branch. Consequently, the Special Counsel is a creature of the executive branch.
first off – the special counsel is not hired by the executive branch
they are an appointed position that has ‘supervision’ from the AG or one who represents that office
second – their regulations are not defined by the executive body but come from the federal judiciary which they represent
as such – they are not a creature of the executive body as they wield an independent form of authority from the presidency
Zachriel: The law specifically grants to Congress the power to subpoena witnesses. There is also an inherent power, but the statute makes it explicit.
but there is no inherent power because neither side of Congress is a court of law
thus their subpoena power has a different meaning when compared to one issued by a federal court
Zachriel: While Congress does have an inherent power, the statute does require the other branches to enforce the statute, much like laws against bank robbing.
correct – the other branches have to enforce the subpoena power of Congress
because Congress lacks the authority to do so themselves
that is the limitation I have been trying to drum into your head
their subpoena power only concerns the matter of appearance and not ‘willful’ testimony those like Nadler think they are entitled to
otherwise their only recourse is to file a motion of contempt which then has to go through a federal court
the problem the Democrats have here though is they would have to make the case (argue) that they are somehow entitled under the law for Lewandowski’s testimony – which again, already exists along with a special counsel report in which he was already investigated in
so a (normal) judge would ask in that scenario, “what is the point of this hearing if you already have his sworn statements on the matter?”
in other words – the Dems would have to show where their investigation is going and what they hope to obtain by any new testimony, which they can’t because none of this is being done an official impeachment capacity
Z: You just said he did, when you said the President could fire Special Counsel.
fishstick: no, you are again noncomprehending words
fishstick: you mean Trump tried to legitimately fire the special counsel
If it was legitimate to fire the Special Counsel that means “the President could fire the Special Counsel.”
fishstick: again – the special counsel does not report to the PotUS no language of that exists in the title
The Special Counsel reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President.
fishstick: PotUS cannot get rid of said special counsels like he can his own staff
That is not not necessarily the case. A regulation can’t be unconstitutional, and the “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. In any case, the President could simply order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel.
The thing restricting the President in this regard are the well-established norms that the President is not to interfere in the investigatory process.
fishstick: the laws define the AG acting as the supervisor and a check to the investigative powers they are granted as an independent authority in title 28
And the Attorney General reports to the President.
fishstick: but you completely bypass how that one step is actually a drastic distinction from said special counsel being under the president’s employ
If the head of the company tells your supervisor that you are doing a crappy job and should be fired, that is exercising authority over you.
fishstick: as such – there is no “legal obligation”
So the criminal statute doesn’t exist?
fishstick: ‘oversight’ as per your description of it has clear limitations due to them lacking an enforcement body
It’s the same enforcement body as when they pass a law against Espionage.
fishstick: first off – the special counsel is not hired by the executive branch
That is exactly who hires the Special Counsel. We have already provided you the statute. Who do you think writes the Special Counsel’s paychecks?
fishstick: they are an appointed position that has ‘supervision’ from the AG or one who represents that office
The Attorney General is part of the executive branch.
fishstick: as such – they are not a creature of the executive body as they wield an independent form of authority from the presidency
The Special Counsel reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President. The Special Counsel regulations are an attempt to create independence, but it relies far more on norms than it does on legal protections.
fishstick: but there is no inherent power because neither side of Congress is a court of law
The courts have recognized that the sergeants at arms of the Congress can arrest someone to enforce their subpoenas, though this power hasn’t been used in modern times.
The subpoena power has to further a legislative purpose, or as part of an impeachment inquiry, but the courts have always interpreted this broadly. In this case, it concerns actions Trump took regarding the investigation about him.
Zachriel: If it was legitimate to fire the Special Counsel that means “the President could fire the Special Counsel.”
except that only the ranking supervisor can actually “fire” the special counsel
the president cannot do it directly due to the way special counsels work because they act as an independent authority
Zachriel: The Special Counsel reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President.
except the AG can both recuse himself and doesn’t have to follow the direct of the president
hence how Rosenstein used his position as the supervisor to help undermine the Trump administration
his boss was the president, no?
Zachriel: That is not not necessarily the case. A regulation can’t be unconstitutional, and the “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America”. In any case, the President could simply order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel.
but is exactly the case
you just refuse to admit it
the president could simply order the AG to “fire” the special counsel but said AG can simply ignore the order
the special counsel as defined under title 28 only has to answer to the AG and that is only in an advisory capacity
Zachriel: The thing restricting the President in this regard are the well-established norms that the President is not to interfere in the investigatory process.
you mean what really restricted the president was having an incompetent AG (Sessions) who immediately recused himself, a deputy AG (Rosenstein) who was part of the secret spy ring set up upon the Trump campaign and transition, and a boatload of Democrats hired as the special counsel
they were able to run roughshod in keeping it an open investigation for years because there was no proper oversight
Zachriel: And the Attorney General reports to the President.
again – Sessions had recused himself from the special counsel
and do you really believe Rosenstein was reporting to Trump on the ongoing activity of the Mueller special counsel?
you have to be a moron to think that is even remotely true
Zachriel: If the head of the company tells your supervisor that you are doing a crappy job and should be fired, that is exercising authority over you.
except the exact opposite happened where AG Sessions and Rosenstein tried holding onto his post, despite the fact they had no confidence from their executive boss
it was only after the 2018 midterms when the Republicans picked up a couple more sets in the Senate did they finally give in to resign
again – that is the exact opposite of being fired for doing their “crappy job”
Zachriel: So the criminal statute doesn’t exist?
again – Congress has no legal standing with their subpoena power
as they are not a court of law
Zachriel: It’s the same enforcement body as when they pass a law against Espionage.
and what enforcement body is that?
Congress has no federal jurisdiction (that I am aware of) when it comes to prosecution and arrestment
they can only recommend such actions to the other two branches of actions to be taken
Zachriel: The Attorney General is part of the executive branch.
again – the special counsel only has supervision from the AG
it is not the other way around where the AG is directing said special counsel’s actions
you keep trying to muddle the issue by making the absurd claim that Trump was somehow in charge of the Mueller special counsel
Zachriel: The Special Counsel reports to the Attorney General who reports to the President. The Special Counsel regulations are an attempt to create independence, but it relies far more on norms than it does on legal protections.
except the ranking supervisor of the special counsel doesn’t have to report their findings to the president
because that is what was happening in this Mueller probe until AG Barr got appointed, who quickly halted their open ended investigation on the issue of “obstruction”
and the title relating to the special counsel is that it is an independent body
there is no “attempt” to make it so – they are defined as an independent authority
the regulations on the special counsel is so that there are checks on the powers they are granted in their role as an investigative body
the “norms” you think they are suppose to rely on were thrown to the wayside during the Mueller probe
theirs was a very abnormal investigation rooted in trying to prove a negative – hence Trump being not not guilty
Zachriel: The courts have recognized that the sergeants at arms of the Congress can arrest someone to enforce their subpoenas, though this power hasn’t been used in modern times.
Sergeant-at-arms is basically a security guard of Congress – not a federal cop or prosecutor associated with the federal judiciary system
there is a reason that don’t go out and arrest people
Zachriel: The subpoena power has to further a legislative purpose, or as part of an impeachment inquiry, but the courts have always interpreted this broadly.
so what was the legislative purpose in the hearing here with Lewandowski?
what is the House committee here going to show a judge?
that is why Nadler & company are very wary of filing a motion for contempt because then they would have to back up their claims in court
which they can’t because the Dems can’t even decide on official impeachment proceedings
Zachriel: In this case, it concerns actions Trump took regarding the investigation about him.
you forget that the president had very legitimate reasons to question the integrity of the special counsel probe
just only considering how they got appointed to how quickly they requested Rosenstein to change their mandate
and THAT isn’t taking anything else into account
fishstick: except that only the ranking supervisor can actually “fire” the special counsel
That has never been tested in the courts. Under the unitary executive theory, the president cannot be so-constrained. But even without that, he can order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel.
fishstick: except the AG can both recuse himself and doesn’t have to follow the direct of the president
The President can fire the Attorney General if he won’t. The threat is a significant tool to exert pressure.
fishstick: hence how Rosenstein used his position as the supervisor to help undermine the Trump administration
Rosenstein was a Trump nominee, and served at the pleasure of the President.
fishstick: but is exactly the case
While we do not accept the unitary executive theory, it is certainly a viable position until the courts rule one way or the other. Please note we have argued the effects of both alternatives, while you claim that the unitary executive theory doesn’t exist, even though the Trump Administration has claimed they are a unitary executive under the Constitution.
fishstick: the president could simply order the AG to “fire” the special counsel but said AG can simply ignore the order
Keep in mind that the President nominates the Attorney General. The President can fire the Attorney General. The threat alone is significant pressure.
fishstick: do you really believe Rosenstein was reporting to Trump on the ongoing activity of the Mueller special counsel?
No.
fishstick: except the exact opposite happened where AG Sessions and Rosenstein tried holding onto his post, despite the fact they had no confidence from their executive boss
As you admit, there was inordinate pressure from the President concerning an ongoing investigation that involved the President. While the Special Counsel regulations attempt to create a level of independence, ultimately, the President can exert significant pressure.
Now you got it!
fishstick: Congress has no legal standing with their subpoena power as they are not a court of law
That is simply false. The Congress has inherent subpoena power, the law states they have subpoena power, and the courts have upheld Congress’s subpoena power as long as it is for a valid legislative purpose or part of an impeachment inquiry, which the courts have always held in very broad terms.
fishstick: the special counsel only has supervision from the AG
The Special Counsel is an officer of the executive branch, picked by the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President. The Special Counsel is supervised by the Attorney General.
Zachriel: That has never been tested in the courts. Under the unitary executive theory, the president cannot be so-constrained. But even without that, he can order the Attorney General to fire the Special Counsel.
it has likely never been tested in the courts due to the language within title 28
the ranking superior defined for the special counsel is an AG supervisor or another from their office
the president has no direct command of the special counsel
Zachriel: The President can fire the Attorney General if he won’t. The threat is a significant tool to exert pressure.
sure the president can, but THAT shows he does not have direct command of the special counsel
doesn’t it?
Zachriel: Rosenstein was a Trump nominee, and served at the pleasure of the President.
you do know he signed off on one of those FISA warrants, right?
so are you making the argument now that Rosenstein was a Trump stooge (?) who for some reason allowed the Mueller probe to venture away from Russia election interference and into process crimes involving Trump associates?
you cannot possibly be that stupid
Zachriel: While we do not accept the unitary executive theory, it is certainly a viable position until the courts rule one way or the other. Please note we have argued the effects of both alternatives, while you claim that the unitary executive theory doesn’t exist, even though the Trump Administration has claimed they are a unitary executive under the Constitution.
the point of which went completely over your head
the president has to initiate a directive to “fire” a special counsel
as the president has no direct command over said special counsel
Zachriel: Keep in mind that the President nominates the Attorney General. The President can fire the Attorney General. The threat alone is significant pressure.
except AGs need Senate approval
you left that little tidbit out
the pressure only exists if a replacement can be readily met
that is why Sessions and Rosenstein only submitted their resignations only after the Republicans picked up a couple extra Senate seats
so then I ask – why did they both not resign earlier?
especially when they both knew they did not have the president’s confidence
Zachriel: No.
your first truthful analysis on this page!
Zachriel: As you admit, there was inordinate pressure from the President concerning an ongoing investigation that involved the President. While the Special Counsel regulations attempt to create a level of independence, ultimately, the President can exert significant pressure.
z: Now you got it!
I don’t know how to break this to you but your logic is ass backwards
their actions sandbagged the president, not the other way around
all due to a severe lack of oversight on the Mueller special counsel where Sessions recused himself for a reason that didn’t apply to himself and where Rosenstein was used his role to actively expand the probe into an inquisition of all things Trump
the actions of the two actually belittle the “inordinate pressure” argument you are trying to make here
because Sessions and Rosenstein didn’t resign until AFTER the midterms
and not before
Zachriel: That is simply false. The Congress has inherent subpoena power, the law states they have subpoena power, and the courts have upheld Congress’s subpoena power as long as it is for a valid legislative purpose or part of an impeachment inquiry, which the courts have always held in very broad terms.
Congress is not structured as a court of law
end of story
your interpretation of their subpoena power is what is a falsehood as they lack the executive and judicial powers to uphold it
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is an officer of the executive branch, picked by the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the President. The Special Counsel is supervised by the Attorney General.
but the special counsel is not directed by the President of the United States, is it?
you can try to play off the title’s language as much as you want but you cannot change the facts of the matter
the special counsel operates outside the bounds of the executive branch as the title defines them as an independent body only supervised by a ranking member of the DOJ (usually AG) as a check to their investigative authority
the office of the DOJ can literally disregard the president in the matters of a special counsel
which is what happened in the case of Trump
fishstick: it has likely never been tested in the courts due to the language within title 28
It’s never been tested because no President has attempted to fire a Special Prosecutor since Nixon, and that led to an impeachment trial.
You already indicated that Trump moved to fire the Special Counsel. Whether authorized by regulations or not, the threat alone exerts political pressure on the Special Counsel.
fishstick: sure the president can, but THAT shows he does not have direct command of the special counsel
Again, that is an open legal question. In any case, very few people report to the CEO, but the CEO can still exercise considerable influence through the chain of command.
fishstick: except AGs need Senate approval
The Senate doesn’t have to approve a dismissal. Indeed, Trump is using “acting” agency heads so he can avoid oversight.
fishstick: your interpretation of their subpoena power is what is a falsehood as they lack the executive and judicial powers to uphold it
Oh gee whiz. Congress can’t uphold a law against espionage. That doesn’t mean duly enacted statutes don’t have the force of law.
Zachriel: It’s never been tested because no President has attempted to fire a Special Prosecutor since Nixon, and that led to an impeachment trial.
actually what lead to that impeachment trial was the Watergate break-in
Zachriel: You already indicated that Trump moved to fire the Special Counsel. Whether authorized by regulations or not, the threat alone exerts political pressure on the Special Counsel.
yet Trump “attempting” to fire a special prosecutor isn’t obstruction of justice
in fact – the exact opposite happened where Trump gave the Mueller probe almost unparalleled access to his administration without using the court to block motions
the action of firing one could be seen an impeachment offense (in your eyes) but by Mueller’s own words, Trump’s administration made no effort to block the activities of the special counsel
so there is still no there there
Zachriel: Again, that is an open legal question. In any case, very few people report to the CEO, but the CEO can still exercise considerable influence through the chain of command.
it isn’t an open legal question because THAT didn’t actually happen here, now did it?
your whole argument is an impeachment non-starter
Zachriel: The Senate doesn’t have to approve a dismissal. Indeed, Trump is using “acting” agency heads so he can avoid oversight.
Senate doesn’t have to approve a dismissal? what does this have to do with anything
no but they sure do have to approve of an appointee, don’t they?
AG Barr has a literal confirmed position by a Senate vote
he’s not an “acting” head like Obama’s 45 czars were
Zachriel: Oh gee whiz. Congress can’t uphold a law against espionage. That doesn’t mean duly enacted statutes don’t have the force of law.
look this argument of yours is getting tiresome
the fact is – the floor of any Congress is not a court of law and their own subpoena power is curtailed because of it
again – they are not entitled to a subject’s “willful” testimony that complies with the Dem narrative
especially from one who already investigated by an independent body and not indicted
the Dems can try to hold Lewandowski in contempt but I doubt a federal court will see what transpired through some liberal vagary
the fact they haven’t done so yet speaks volumes to what that hearing really was
This is a good example of you not taking the time to understand a position and making a substantive reply:
Z: While we do not accept the unitary executive theory, it is certainly a viable position until the courts rule one way or the other. Please note we have argued the effects of both alternatives, while you claim that the unitary executive theory doesn’t exist, even though the Trump Administration has claimed they are a unitary executive under the Constitution.
fs: the point of which went completely over your head{.} the president has to initiate a directive to “fire” a special counsel as the president has no direct command over said special counsel
But that’s the very question raised by the unitary executive theory! Does the President have direct command over the Special Counsel? The regulations say no, but the unitary executive theory says yes. All you did was repeat your position without addressing the question.
Zachriel: But that’s the very question raised by the unitary executive theory! Does the President have direct command over the Special Counsel? The regulations say no, but the unitary executive theory says yes. All you did was repeat your position without addressing the question.
and all you did was postulate your previous argument
again I will point out – the very title relating to the special counsel reads that the president has no defined control over it
because having defined parameters, as the special counsel is given in title 28, trumps any inferred reasoning you are trying to imply here
in addition – your argument makes no sense because under your analysis, there would be no reason for a special counsel if they were always in the control of the chief executive
I have to continually repeat my position because the point of it always goes over your cranium
your argument against the independent nature of the special counsel holds no water
fishstick: actually what lead to that impeachment trial was the Watergate break-in
That’s just the first article. The second is for interfering with an investigation. The third is for defying a Congressional subpoena.
Article I: “agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee”.
Article II: “impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries”.
Article III: “failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives”.
fishstick: it isn’t an open legal question because THAT didn’t actually happen here, now did it?
You keep confusing the particular with the general. It remains an open question because it has never been tested, including in the current case.
fishstick: Senate doesn’t have to approve a dismissal? what does this have to do with anything
It means the President can exert significant pressure, in this instance, concerning an ongoing investigation.
fishstick: the floor of any Congress is not a court of law and their own subpoena power is curtailed because of it
As already pointed out, many times, over and over again, the courts have upheld the Congress’s power of subpoena as long as it is for a valid legislative purpose, or during an impeachment inquiry, and they have always broadly held those circumstances.
fishstick: especially from one who already investigated by an independent body and not indicted
The Special Counsel is part of the executive branch, and Congress’s responsibilities are different. Impeachment, for instance, doesn’t require a violation of the law, but might be for violation of an oath of office, such as the President’s responsibility to faithfully execute the laws.
fishstick: and all you did was postulate your previous argument
We didn’t postulate our previous argument. We pointed out that there are two views (actually a range of views) concerning the unitary executive.
It’s not unreasonable to believe the President is bound by the regulations, but even then, he can exert considerable political pressure through the Attorney General.
fishstick: again I will point out – the very title relating to the special counsel reads that the president has no defined control over it
Yes, but are the regulations with regards to the President’s powers constitutional? You argument, such as it is, is to ignore the question.
Zachriel: That’s just the first article. The second is for interfering with an investigation. The third is for defying a Congressional subpoena.
so my point stands that what kicked off that entire investigation was the Watergate break-in, right?
again the whole crux of what I typed went over your head
everything you are talking about came AFTER, not before
and only one of the three articles got to a House vote which didn’t even happen due to Nixon’s resignation
Zachriel: You keep confusing the particular with the general. It remains an open question because it has never been tested, including in the current case.
so your argument has shifted now into a topic that didn’t happen to be tested because it could happen?
and this establishes a point, how?
your argument is getting more confusing the more you post it
Zachriel: It means the President can exert significant pressure, in this instance, concerning an ongoing investigation.
except you ignore the OPPOSITE happened to what you are claiming
Zachriel: As already pointed out, many times, over and over again, the courts have upheld the Congress’s power of subpoena as long as it is for a valid legislative purpose, or during an impeachment inquiry, and they have always broadly held those circumstances.
again – you construe events to fit a narrative that didn’t happen at all
it makes your entire analysis of it all wrong
because first – this wasn’t an impeachment inquiry
then second – the House floor isn’t a court of law
then third – Lewandowski honored the subpoena and testified, the Dems just didn’t like what he said
then to the fourth – the Dems aren’t entitled to his “willful” testimony (especially to one that already exists)
otherwise – the Dems have to go to a federal court, now don’t they?
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is part of the executive branch, and Congress’s responsibilities are different. Impeachment, for instance, doesn’t require a violation of the law, but might be for violation of an oath of office, such as the President’s responsibility to faithfully execute the laws.
first – the special counsel is not part of the executive branch as they have an autonomy all their own
you still cannot wrap your head around the fact the president does not have direct control over them, as that would defeat the purpose of a special counsel
title 28 only defines a supervisor role to act as a check on the investigative powers of the special counsel as it is suppose to be limited in nature
second – impeachment is a political beast but it has to have some root in high crimes and misdemeanors
you need something more than “OrangeMan=bad” to get enough Senate votes for a conviction
so yeah – the House can impeach simply because they don’t like the president, but that route won’t get you very far
Zachriel: We didn’t postulate our previous argument. We pointed out that there are two views (actually a range of views) concerning the unitary executive.
you actually typed out the exact same argument and wanted me to somehow disprove what hadn’t been done
Zachriel: It’s not unreasonable to believe the President is bound by the regulations, but even then, he can exert considerable political pressure through the Attorney General.
first – the president is bound by those regulations as the title definitions are pretty clear on whose oversight the special counsel falls under
second – you are making an inductive argument in your reasoning because it is true only if you believe it to be true
yet there is no proof in the “reality” of your scenario
AG Sessions recused himself and deputy AG Rosenstein was part of the cabal secretly spying on Trump who also expanded the Mueller probe to beyond election interference
the facts are more supportive of a special counsel that lacked oversight than from one that was somehow constricted due to the actions of the president
because the argument you are trying to make – just didn’t happen
Zachriel: Yes, but are the regulations with regards to the President’s powers constitutional? You argument, such as it is, is to ignore the question.
and you continually ignore the very argument I put forth
your whole argument of unitary executive theory is a moot point as there is no relevance for it as it pertains to the regulations of the special counsel
because there is no language in that title where the special counsel answers to the president or even has contact with the executive in command
it is clearly defined as an independent body that is given special investigatory powers on a limited basis
the special counsel is not defined as some special squadron of the DOJ that is lorded over by the president
fishstick: so your argument has shifted now into a topic that didn’t happen to be tested because it could happen?
The claims at issue have always been general, with Trump only one particular. What is the role of the Special Counsel? Is the Special Counsel an employee of the executive branch? How much independence does the Special Counsel have?
fishstick: Lewandowski honored the subpoena and testified, the Dems just didn’t like what he said
Lewandowski refused to answer many questions under instructions from the White House claiming executive privilege. While Lewandowski can’t be ordered around by the White House, he still followed their instructions. The House now has to decide whether to pursue the issue, or whether they can gather the required information elsewhere.
fishstick: the special counsel is not part of the executive branch as they have an autonomy all their own
The Special Counsel is an employee of the executive branch. That’s who hires him, under whose regulations he operates, who supervises him, who pays his salary. We have provided the exact regulation, but here it is again: 28 CFR § 600.3: “A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a ‘confidential employee’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).”
fishstick: you still cannot wrap your head around the fact the president does not have direct control over them, as that would defeat the purpose of a special counsel
That depends on how much power the unitary executive has, but given arguendo that the president is constrained by the regulations, he can still exert considerable pressure on the Special Counsel through the Attorney General.
fishstick: impeachment is a political beast but it has to have some root in high crimes and misdemeanors
The Congress doesn’t have to impeach in order to run an impeachment investigation. That’s rather the point, to gather facts to make the determination as to whether impeachment is warranted. They can also investigate to determine whether new legislation is required, or not.
fishstick: your whole argument of unitary executive theory is a moot point as there is no relevance for it as it pertains to the regulations of the special counsel
It’s directly relevant if the regulations cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s authority over the Special Counsel.
Zachriel: The claims at issue have always been general, with Trump only one particular. What is the role of the Special Counsel? Is the Special Counsel an employee of the executive branch? How much independence does the Special Counsel have?
but all of that is defined in title 28
it is weird reading your responses because you are having this ad hominem argument over something that is clearly defined
the role of the special counsel is to investigate or prosecute a particular case of a suspected wrongdoing within the arena of federal government where conflicts of interest could exist aplenty
it is fashioned to work as an independent body so the ones being investigated aren’t investigating themselves
yet here you are making THIS simple realization into a some kind of argument where Trump had “considerable and excised” control over the Mueller probe
you don’t realize how flawed your own arguments are
Zachriel: Lewandowski refused to answer many questions under instructions from the White House claiming executive privilege.
which he had every right to
if the Dems think it was “illegal” then their only recourse is to file a contempt charge and go to a federal court
as I keep telling you over and over and over and over…
Zachriel: While Lewandowski can’t be ordered around by the White House, he still followed their instructions. The House now has to decide whether to pursue the issue, or whether they can gather the required information elsewhere.
again, you are wrong
it is privileged information the House committee is not entitled to
otherwise – their only recourse is to file a contempt charge and go to a federal court
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is an employee of the executive branch. That’s who hires him, under whose regulations he operates, who supervises him, who pays his salary. We have provided the exact regulation, but here it is again: 28 CFR § 600.3: “A Special Counsel shall be appointed as a ‘confidential employee’ as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7511(b)(2)(C).
you keep typing this but again, it is a misleading assumption
as they are not under the direct control of the executive branch
they are defined in title 28 as wielding an independent authority that is only supervised by a ranking member of the DOJ (usually the AG)
even the AG cannot manage the special counsel
Zachriel: That depends on how much power the unitary executive has, but given arguendo that the president is constrained by the regulations, he can still exert considerable pressure on the Special Counsel through the Attorney General.
again you are making an inductive argument here
the president has no direct control over said special counsel, as none of that language is in title 28
you make the claim that it has no factual basis
Zachriel: The Congress doesn’t have to impeach in order to run an impeachment investigation. That’s rather the point, to gather facts to make the determination as to whether impeachment is warranted.
actually they do – it is called an impeachment inquiry
but the Democrats are having a hard time getting on the same page in trying to clarify these hearings as such because they are not
the more apt description is the Dems are taking a normal hearing and giving it a face lift in calling it an impeachment inquiry by way of committee vote
Zachriel: It’s directly relevant if the regulations cannot constitutionally restrict the President’s authority over the Special Counsel.
it is actually irrelevant due to the fact the special counsel is established through title regulation as an independent body outside the president’s control
fishstick: it is weird reading your responses because you are having this ad hominem argument over something that is clearly defined
Ad hominem? Where did we engage in ad hominem?
fishstick: it is fashioned to work as an independent body so the ones being investigated aren’t investigating themselves
That’s right. There is an attempt to create an office that is somewhat independent, but not entirely independent.
fishstick: yet here you are making THIS simple realization into a some kind of argument where Trump had “considerable and excised” control over the Mueller probe
Gee whiz. Even now you can’t get the argument right. Given a President bound by the regulations (not a given depending on the unitary executive theory), the President can still exert significant pressure on the Special Counsel.
fishstick: it is privileged information the House committee is not entitled to
That’s right. However, even executive privilege can be pierced if there is a valid reason for Congress to know.
fishstick: as they are not under the direct control of the executive branch
The Special Counsel is bound by executive regulations, and supervised by the Attorney General, an executive branch officer who reports to the President. Consequently, the Special Counsel is a creature of the executive branch. For instance, the parameters of the Special Counsel’s investigation is defined by the Attorney General, and the any report is delivered to the Attorney General, not to the public.
Zachriel: Ad hominem? Where did we engage in ad hominem?
by your repeated claim that the president (aka Trump) was engaged in “considerable and excised” control over the Mueller probe
I typed it out in the previous post but it went over your head (again)
Zachriel: That’s right. There is an attempt to create an office that is somewhat independent, but not entirely independent.
I can’t tell if you are being a doofus just for the sake of it
that “not entirely independent” part is due to the need for the special counsel to have a check on its investigative power
you know one of the founding principles established in the US Constitution is of checks and balances
and it wasn’t an attempt – the special counsels are defined as such
Zachriel: Gee whiz. Even now you can’t get the argument right. Given a President bound by the regulations (not a given depending on the unitary executive theory), the President can still exert significant pressure on the Special Counsel.
you keep typing out this same BS argument
alright I can re-type mine then – none of that happened or could even be established by the Mueller special counsel
in fact it was just the opposite of your claim where they were basically given free rein, for nearly THREE years
that is why the whole basis of your argument is mooted because it is just conjecture
Zachriel: That’s right. However, even executive privilege can be pierced if there is a valid reason for Congress to know.
then again – they have to file a motion for contempt and go to a federal court
as Congress lacks the authority to do it themselves
Zachriel: The Special Counsel is bound by executive regulations, and supervised by the Attorney General, an executive branch officer who reports to the President.
you typed this again
I type again – regulations in title 28 defines the special counsel as an independent body supervised by a ranking member of the executive (usually the AG)
no language within it that even implies they answer to the office of the PotUS
Zachriel: Consequently, the Special Counsel is a creature of the executive branch.
again with the same fallacy
special counsels wield an independent authority
because otherwise – what is the point of them
Zachriel: For instance, the parameters of the Special Counsel’s investigation is defined by the Attorney General, and the any report is delivered to the Attorney General, not to the public.
you do realize that is because the AG (or the ranking associate) is the check to balance the special counsel’s own independent autonomy, right?
so they don’t abuse their power
you see special counsels have subpoena power, can hire their own staff, they get their own federal funds, and have the ability to not just investigate but prosecute as well
and all this exists outside the executive branch’s control and they only answer to the supervision of what in most cases the AG unless they recuse themselves
special counsels are their own beast for the duration of their investigation
but what happened here – in the case of Trump – is Rod Rosenstein appointed Bob Mueller, who then hired a truckload of Democrat associates, and gave them an original mandate (later expanded) of election interference
however that was not the origin of this appointment
what kicked off this whole thing was James Comey selectively leaking memos (later tagged as federal docs with classified info) to the media in an effort to undermine the Trump presidency in falsely (and knowingly) claiming he was “compromised” by the Russian government
thing is we now know – many of the participants in Crossfire Hurricane (the secret spy ring set on the Trump campaign) is the same group of people who worked in the Mueller special counsel
and much of the information gleamed from said operation was never verified
in fact it was the opposite
the feds knew it was unverified info they were working with
so the entire opening premise of the Mueller probe was based on a LIE
fishstick: by your repeated claim that the president (aka Trump) was engaged in “considerable and excised” control over the Mueller probe
That’s not an ad hominem, which refers to attacking the arguer not the argument.
In any case, even after being corrected, you repeat your misrepresentation of our argument. Our argument, granting the President is bound by the regulations, is that the President can still exert pressure on the Special Counsel.
fishstick: that “not entirely independent” part is due to the need for the special counsel to have a check on its investigative power
That’s right, and under the current regulations, the Special Counsel works under the supervision of the Attorney General, who reports to the President.
Z: Gee whiz. Even now you can’t get the argument right. Given a President bound by the regulations (not a given depending on the unitary executive theory), the President can still exert significant pressure on the Special Counsel.
fishstick: you keep typing out this same BS argument
Are you saying the President can’t order the Attorney General to rein in the Special Counsel? Are you saying that if the Attorney General refuses to execute the order that the President can’t fire the Attorney General? If you aren’t saying that, then it is clear the President can exert pressure on the Special Counsel through the Attorney General.
fishstick: you do realize that is because the AG (or the ranking associate) is the check to balance the special counsel’s own independent autonomy, right?
That’s right. So the Special Counsel is not completely independent of the executive branch, and can be pressured as just described.
Zachriel: That’s not an ad hominem, which refers to attacking the arguer not the argument.
except the context of ad hominem used here is the fallacy in your focus on Trump being having an influence that did not exist
again – it went over your head
Zachriel: In any case, even after being corrected, you repeat your misrepresentation of our argument. Our argument, granting the President is bound by the regulations, is that the President can still exert pressure on the Special Counsel.
again – there was no “exerted pressure” as the special counsel operates outside the bounds of the presidency
are you are making this asinine claim the Mueller team was working on behalf of the Trump administration?
that it silly just on its face
Zachriel: That’s right, and under the current regulations, the Special Counsel works under the supervision of the Attorney General, who reports to the President.
yet title 28 does not define PotUS in having said control over a special counsel investigation
besides, you are still making the same ridiculous argument around Trump
Zachriel: Are you saying the President can’t order the Attorney General to rein in the Special Counsel?
well he ‘could’ but the AG can refuse to comply
Zachriel: Are you saying that if the Attorney General refuses to execute the order that the President can’t fire the Attorney General?
well he ‘could’ but that leaves a vacancy that requires a Senate confirmation
Zachriel: If you aren’t saying that, then it is clear the President can exert pressure on the Special Counsel through the Attorney General.
and here you fall into the same fallacy where you are arguing on the merit of actions that did not occur
as Rosenstein did the opposite of what you are claiming by both expanding the probe indefinitely and not providing proper oversight upon the special counsel’s actions
Zachriel: That’s right. So the Special Counsel is not completely independent of the executive branch, and can be pressured as just described.
but they are an independent body with an autonomy of their own
they are literally defined as such by law and regulation
you are still fixated on this argument where special counsels having oversight (checks and balances) is tantamount to being an arm of the executive branch
then you go further into disarray by “claiming” Trump was somehow “in charge” of the Mueller special counsel
your position just has no basis in the reality of events that transpired
fishstick: except the context of ad hominem used here is the fallacy in your focus on Trump being having an influence that did not exist
That doesn’t make it an ad hominem, which is an attack on someone making a claim or argument, rather than an answer to the contention made. An ad hominem is often, though not always, a fallacy. In this case, if we said “A fish rots from the head,” then you might say it was an ad hominem.
In any case, the claim you made is general, that a Congressional subpoena has no force of law.
fishstick: well he ‘could’ but the AG can refuse to comply
That’s right, and the Attorney General can be fired. That’s called pressure.
fishstick: well he ‘could’ but that leaves a vacancy that requires a Senate confirmation
Eventually. Meanwhile, the Deputy Attorney General acts as Attorney General. Both positions are nominated the president who may be under investigation. If the President then fires the Deputy Attorney General, then the order of succession is determined by the President by executive order.
By the way, this is what happened during the Nixon Administration. Nixon ordered the Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the Deputy Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He refused and resigned. Then Nixon ordered the Solicitor General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He did, and for that service was eventually nominated to the Supreme Court. The courts ruled the firing was illegal because the regulation said that the Attorney General could only fire for cause, but the ruling was never appealed because a new Special Prosecutor was appointed. That is still the case under current regulations, but what does “for cause” mean?
Regardless, the Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” disrupted the Special Prosecutors investigation, and a new Special Prosecutor was appointed by the Solicitor General.
Zachriel: That doesn’t make it an ad hominem, which is an attack on someone making a claim or argument, rather than an answer to the contention made.
ad hominem can also mean to argue in a way that focuses it onto a particular someone
Zachriel: An ad hominem is often, though not always, a fallacy. In this case, if we said “A fish rots from the head,” then you might say it was an ad hominem.
but in your particular argument, it is because you are arguing over implications which didn’t even occur
Zachriel: In any case, the claim you made is general, that a Congressional subpoena has no force of law.
here you are mixing two different arguments on this page
I described your stance of Trump exercising “considerable political pressure” as an ad hominem
not your stance on congressional subpoena power
but regardless – congressional subpoena power has no force of law due to the Congress floor not being a court of law
for a House or Senate committee to enforce a subpoena or even hold someone in contempt – they have to rely on federal cooperation that may not be forthwith
otherwise, they have to go to a federal court to try and get their ruling enforced
Zachriel: That’s right, and the Attorney General can be fired. That’s called pressure.
possibly one (a liberal) can interpret it so in that manner but none of what you described actually happened
in fact – the opposite happened, which you still currently ignore
Zachriel: Eventually. Meanwhile, the Deputy Attorney General acts as Attorney General. Both positions are nominated the president who may be under investigation. If the President then fires the Deputy Attorney General, then the order of succession is determined by the President by executive order.
again – your argument here is conjecture
Zachriel: By the way, this is what happened during the Nixon Administration. Nixon ordered the Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He refused and resigned. Nixon then ordered the Deputy Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He refused and resigned. Then Nixon ordered the Solicitor General to fire the Special Prosecutor. He did, and for that service was eventually nominated to the Supreme Court.
again – none of which happened here
Zachriel: The courts ruled the firing was illegal because the regulation said that the Attorney General could only fire for cause, but the ruling was never appealed because a new Special Prosecutor was appointed. That is still the case under current regulations, but what does “for cause” mean?
again – your argument revolves around a scenario that did not take place
Zachriel: Regardless, the Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre” disrupted the Special Prosecutors investigation, and a new Special Prosecutor was appointed by the Solicitor General.
again – none of which happened here
you are trying to compare 2 totally different scenarios that involved special prosecutions
but what you miss is that in the Nixon case – the courts got involved to force Nixon to release physical evidences (tapes and documents) he refused to release under executive privilege
THIS hearing with Lewandowski has no such comparison to draw to as at best you are talking about here revolves around “confidentiality”
and again – for Nadler & company to pierce through this layer of legitimate executive privilege, they would have to go to a court to make the case in WHY their needs outweigh the presumptive privilege that already exists between the two parties
fishstick: ad hominem can also mean to argue in a way that focuses it onto a particular someone
That’s not how the term is used.
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=ad+hominem
fishstick: but in your particular argument, it is because you are arguing over implications which didn’t even occur
The question under discussion is general, not particular.
fishstick: I described your stance of Trump exercising “considerable political pressure” as an ad hominem
That’s a misuse of the term, as noted above. In any case, your claim was general not particular, as is our response.
fishstick: congressional subpoena power has no force of law due to the Congress floor not being a court of law
Are you saying the statute making it a crime is unconstitutional?
fishstick: for a House or Senate committee to enforce a subpoena or even hold someone in contempt – they have to rely on federal cooperation that may not be forthwith
Congress has to rely on the other branches to enforce all laws. Does that mean there are no laws in America?
fishstick: your argument here is conjecture
It’s not conjecture as it has already happened before, during the Nixon Administration.
Zachriel: That’s not how the term is used.
I’ve read ad hominem used in this manner before
Zachriel: The question under discussion is general, not particular.
what?
Zachriel: That’s a misuse of the term, as noted above. In any case, your claim was general not particular, as is our response.
no it is a correct use of term
again my claim is not rooted in ‘generality’ in the issue but on the specifics of the facts that is known to us in this particular scenario
you are the one speaking in ‘general terms’ trying to give credence to speculations
Zachriel: Are you saying the statute making it a crime is unconstitutional?
where did you get that from from: [congressional subpoena power has no force of law due to the Congress floor not being a court of law]
is Congress a court of law – yes or no?
can Congress make arrests and/or prosecute – yes or no?
when you can truthfully answer those questions then you will realize the holes in your argument
Zachriel: Congress has to rely on the other branches to enforce all laws. Does that mean there are no laws in America?
an odd deflection there
but you kinda answered your own question here because if Congress has to rely on the other branches to enforce any law, then what does that say about their subpoena power?
Zachriel: It’s not conjecture as it has already happened before, during the Nixon Administration.
but it is conjecture because the events you described did not even happen in this case
you are still trying to draw some parallel of this to Nixon (for your argument’s sake) but I’ve explained to you why it is not even a valid comparison to use
the Dems can’t cry “Nixon” and get their way here
fishstick: I’ve read ad hominem used in this manner before
We provided a dictionary reference, which even included its historical usage. Here’s an encyclopedia with the same information:
Britannica: the argument ad hominem (speaking “against the man” rather than to the issue), in which the premises may only make a personal attack on a person who holds some thesis, instead of offering grounds showing why what he says is false
fishstick: again my claim is not rooted in ‘generality’ in the issue but on the specifics of the facts that is known to us in this particular scenario
You have made broad statements with which we took exception.
All of these statement were general in their scope, and false.
fishstick: but you kinda answered your own question here because if Congress has to rely on the other branches to enforce any law, then what does that say about their subpoena power?
It’s the same power that applies to any law. Like any law, it’s a law that the executive is sworn to faithfully execute. Like any such law, if there is a dispute as to its meaning, the courts may be asked to adjudicate. If there is a claim of executive privilege, the courts have encouraged the branches to reach an accommodation, but have typically ruled that Congress has broad latitude in their subpoena power.
fishstick: is Congress a court of law – yes or no?
No. Which is why the courts say that Congressional subpoenas for the sole purpose of finding criminality are not enforceable. However, if the subpoena is issued to further a legislative aim, or as part of an impeachment inquiry, the courts have upheld these subpoenas in broad terms. So yes, Congress can issue subpoenas that have the force of law.
fishstick: can Congress make arrests and/or prosecute – yes or no?
Actually, Congress can arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone under their inherent contempt power. However, they have not exercised this power since 1935.
Zachriel: We provided a dictionary reference, which even included its historical usage. Here’s an encyclopedia with the same information:
In philosophical usage ad hominem may refer to a dialectical strategy involving the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true.
per wikipedia
you are mistaken to believe that ad hominem has one set definition
Zachriel: You have made broad statements with which we took exception.
none of those are broad statement as each have a specific point
fs: there is no legal standing that a House subpoena can produce sworn testimony
which is true because Congress is not a court of law
fs: the subpoena power is just for “showing up”
again, this is true when Congress issues a subpoena
fs: the fact remains that there is no legal binding to force testimony through subpoena power
again, this is true when Congress implements it
fs: the special counsel is not hired by the executive branch
again, they are an appointed body with an independent authority as defined by title 28
saying they are “hired” is an inference to that they are employed at the sole leisure of the executive, which just isn’t true
Zachriel: All of these statement were general in their scope, and false.
none of these statements are false and are specific in the scope of this discussion
Zachriel: It’s the same power that applies to any law. Like any law, it’s a law that the executive is sworn to faithfully execute. Like any such law, if there is a dispute as to its meaning, the courts may be asked to adjudicate.
but it is not like any other law is it when Congress has to go to a federal court to hold someone in contempt
go read up on Eric Holder and his contempt motion
you might learn something about Congress and the limitations of their prosecutorial prowess
Zachriel: If there is a claim of executive privilege, the courts have encouraged the branches to reach an accommodation, but have typically ruled that Congress has broad latitude in their subpoena power.
which again – has not happened in this case with Lewandowski
Nadler & company have not filed a motion for contempt because they likely already know their case will not hold up in court
Zachriel: No. Which is why the courts say that Congressional subpoenas for the sole purpose of finding criminality are not enforceable. However, if the subpoena is issued to further a legislative aim, or as part of an impeachment inquiry, the courts have upheld these subpoenas in broad terms. So yes, Congress can issue subpoenas that have the force of law.
but again you miss the key fact that a court has to first uphold their inquiry
you do realize that Congress doesn’t automatically get access to these things, right?
so without going through the proper motions, this hearing with Lewandowski was a just normal hearing dressed up to look like an impeachment inquiry
Zachriel: Actually, Congress can arrest, prosecute, and imprison someone under their inherent contempt power. However, they have not exercised this power since 1935.
and the fact they haven’t, speaks volumes on that “power”
fishstick: … i.e. arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true.
That doesn’t even come close to supporting your use of the term.
fishstick: none of those are broad statement as each have a specific point
Take the statement, “there is no legal standing that a House subpoena can produce sworn testimony.” This statement applies regardless of the subject of the subpoena, so it is not a claim about a particular instance, but applies to all such instances.
Furthermore, the statement is false. Not only does the Congress have inherent subpoena authority, including the power to arrest, try, and imprison someone, but there is a specific statute that imposes criminal penalties on anyone who defies a Congressional subpoena.
fishstick: but it is not like any other law is it when Congress has to go to a federal court to hold someone in contempt
Congress has to make a criminal complaint as the aggrieved party. That’s not unusual in criminal law.
fishstick: go read up on Eric Holder and his contempt motion
Sure. The courts looked at the case, and found that Holder was not guilty of any wrongdoing.
fishstick: and the fact they haven’t, speaks volumes on that “power”
Are you saying the inherent power doesn’t exist just because the Congress doesn’t exercise it, but relies upon statutory enforcement instead? Don’t think the Constitution works that way.
Zachriel: That doesn’t even come close to supporting your use of the term.
yet your argument keeps circling around the opinion of Trump somehow excising a level enormous pressure over the Mueller special counsel
like I said many posts ago
yours was a very weird stance of ad hominem
Zachriel: Take the statement, “there is no legal standing that a House subpoena can produce sworn testimony.” This statement applies regardless of the subject of the subpoena, so it is not a claim about a particular instance, but applies to all such instances.
no you are making that inference
I am merely stating that a House subpoena has a lesser standard when compared to one (for instance) issued by a federal judge
it is simply because the House or Senate floors are not courts of law
Zachriel: Furthermore, the statement is false. Not only does the Congress have inherent subpoena authority, including the power to arrest, try, and imprison someone, but there is a specific statute that imposes criminal penalties on anyone who defies a Congressional subpoena.
no that statement is fundamentally true
while Congress has inherent subpoena power – it comes with a huge drawback of the lack of authority of a court
and they cannot arrest, try, and imprison people otherwise a body of Congress would have done so over the past 100 years
the furthest reach of their power is to recommend indictments as everything else has to go through the due process system of the courts
Zachriel: Congress has to make a criminal complaint as the aggrieved party. That’s not unusual in criminal law.
point goes over your cranium again: Congress has to go to a federal court to hold someone in contempt
that is highly unusual for someone claiming Congress is “entitled” to testimony
Zachriel: Sure. The courts looked at the case, and found that Holder was not guilty of any wrongdoing.
again point goes over your head: WHY was it decided by a court?
House voted on a motion of contempt, no?
Zachriel: Are you saying the inherent power doesn’t exist just because the Congress doesn’t exercise it, but relies upon statutory enforcement instead? Don’t think the Constitution works that way.
perhaps it doesn’t if that power is never excised
heck, I am not even convinced Congress could even enact a simple arrest warrant in this day and age
See Contempt of Congress.
hate to break it to ya but former AG Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for both civil and criminal citations
it was an actual vote on the House floor
a federal judge reversed the decision
—
so was Lois Lerner held in contempt (through resolution) for refusing an actual subpoena
but Obama’s DOJ refused to prosecute
see a pattern here?
the point you are failing to grasp is congressional subpoenas have a lesser scope in power because they lack the authority to back them up with either incarceration or prosecution
a House or Senate committee has to rely on the other branches to enforce these things because their own “power” you claim they have eroded a long time ago
fishstick: AG Eric Holder was held in contempt of congress for both civil and criminal citations
And the courts ruled he was guilty of no wrong-doing.
fishstick: so was Lois Lerner held in contempt (through resolution) for refusing an actual subpoena
And the courts ruled she was protected by the Fifth Amendment.
fishstick: a House or Senate committee has to rely on the other branches to enforce these things because their own “power” you claim they have eroded a long time ago
That is incorrect. Congress can enforce its own subpoenas under its inherent powers. See McGrain v. Daugherty: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution.”
Normally, the Justice Department will enforce Congressional subpoenas. When there are legitimate issues concerning privilege, then the Congress will allow the matter to play out in court. However, Congress always retains its inherent power to compel testimony.
Funny story. During Watergate, the Nixon White House was resisting Senate subpoenas. Senator Ervin threatened to send the Sergeant at Arms to drag witnesses to the Senate floor. The Nixon White House was forced to cooperate.
Zachriel: And the courts ruled he was guilty of no wrong-doing.
this is an inaccurate assessment of what occurred
actually the judge dismissed the “contempt” charge while stating Holder had to turn over documents he was flatly refusing the House committee
but again the point of which went over your head as the entire contempt motion by Congress is reliant on the court system
and it should be noted the judge (Amy Jackson) in this specific case was an Obama appointee
Zachriel: And the courts ruled she was protected by the Fifth Amendment.
again a wrong assessment as this particular case never got to a court room
instead the Obama DOJ disregarded the House decision in making the claim Lerner pleading the 5th made such an effort of prosecution unwarranted
however later on – Lerner would end up giving testimony to a court on her role in the IRS scandal and would later request a federal judge to perpetually seal such testimony
Zachriel: That is incorrect. Congress can enforce its own subpoenas under its inherent powers. See McGrain v. Daugherty: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution.”
you do realize McGrain v Daughtery was in 1927
the political system has undergone alot of changes since then
again – why hasn’t Congress detained anyone in over 90 years
even their Capitol jailhouse – which was like 2 cells – no longer exists
Zachriel: Normally, the Justice Department will enforce Congressional subpoenas. When there are legitimate issues concerning privilege, then the Congress will allow the matter to play out in court. However, Congress always retains its inherent power to compel testimony.
again wrong analysis
first off – you are assuming there are no legitimate issues concerning privilege here
I answered this by pointing out if that was so then the Dems would be filing court motions to block said privilege
the fact they would have to do that in the first place is telling enough to their lack of authority but the other fact said Dems aren’t doing it shows you they lack the case to proceed forward anyways
second – subpoena power does always equate into “willful” testimony that fits the questioner’s narrative
another thing you keep ignoring
Zachriel: Funny story. During Watergate, the Nixon White House was resisting Senate subpoenas. Senator Ervin threatened to send the Sergeant at Arms to drag witnesses to the Senate floor. The Nixon White House was forced to cooperate.
funny thing about your analysis here – none of that is applicable here
besides you even get your facts wrong
the Nixon White House was forced to cooperate due to (again) a court ruling, not the sergeant-at-arms
fishstick: actually the judge dismissed the “contempt” charge
That’s exactly right! While finding the contempt motion “entirely unnecessary”, the Congressional subpoena for non-privileged information was upheld! Congress had the power to subpoena the documents.
fishstick: but again the point of which went over your head as the entire contempt motion by Congress is reliant on the court system
Of course the parties have the right to argue their case in court. Didn’t you look McGrain v. Daugherty? Daugherty filed for a writ of habeas corpus. In McGrain v. Daugherty, the court found that the Congress had the power to detain Daugherty. In Committee on Oversight v. Holder, the court found that Congress had the power to subpoena the documents!
fishstick: again a wrong assessment as this particular case never got to a court room
You are correct. It was the Justice Department that found that Lerner was protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that she could not be compelled to testify.
fishstick: why hasn’t Congress detained anyone in over 90 years
Asked and answered. Normally, the Justice Department will enforce Congressional subpoenas. When there are legitimate issues concerning privilege, then the Congress will allow the matter to play out in court. However, Congress always retains its inherent power to compel testimony, meaning the threat is always there.
fishstick: subpoena power does always equate into “willful” testimony that fits the questioner’s narrative
Have no idea what you are trying to say. A subpoena requires truthful testimony.
fishstick: the Nixon White House was forced to cooperate due to (again) a court ruling, not the sergeant-at-arms
Tell that to Alexander Butterfield.
Z: However, Congress always retains its inherent power to compel testimony, meaning the threat is always there.
And people still retain the right to contest their detention in the courts — just like any other official act of detention. It’s called the Great Writ for a reason.
Zachriel: And people still retain the right to contest their detention in the courts — just like any other official act of detention. It’s called the Great Writ for a reason.
this has nothing to do with actual detention though
what you mean is people can contest that congressional action in and of itself
Holder and Lerner were found in contempt but were never detained
Zachriel: That’s exactly right!
well that discounts your claim of no wrong-doing
Zachriel: While finding the contempt motion “entirely unnecessary”, the Congressional subpoena for non-privileged information was upheld! Congress had the power to subpoena the documents.
except this is evidence against your claims Congress is entitled to any such information
as the court is the determining factor in any exercise of Congress’s subpoena power
Zachriel: Of course the parties have the right to argue their case in court.
except your whole argument is this House committee (due to subpoena power) was somehow entitled to the “willful” testimony of Lewandowski and that Trump’s claim of executive privilege was (somehow) invalid
so if you are now (finally) admitting that these factors have to play out in a courtroom, then it defeats the entire basis of your argument
Zachriel: Didn’t you look McGrain v. Daugherty?
not really considering it has nothing to with the discussion over Lewandowski as it happened over 90 years ago on an entirely different matter
Zachriel: In Committee on Oversight v. Holder, the court found that Congress had the power to subpoena the documents!
except the judge allowed AG Holder to still restrict access to the subpoened documents
not only that – Holder would later heavily redact even those he was instructed to turn over
Zachriel: You are correct. It was the Justice Department that found that Lerner was protected by the Fifth Amendment, and that she could not be compelled to testify.
so you not think it ‘odd’ that the DOJ just disregarded the House’s motion of contempt without question?
you do realize that pleading the Fifth doesn’t protect you against prosecution and detention, right?
Zachriel: Asked and answered. Normally, the Justice Department will enforce Congressional subpoenas. When there are legitimate issues concerning privilege, then the Congress will allow the matter to play out in court.
true but it is also true whatever power you think Congress had in having blanket authority over subpoena penalty has long since eroded away
Zachriel: However, Congress always retains its inherent power to compel testimony, meaning the threat is always there.
except that it is a threat without any teeth that has to still go through the courts for their subpoena to have any validity
the Obama years proved that
Zachriel: Have no idea what you are trying to say. A subpoena requires truthful testimony.
it means Lewandowski was every bit in his legal right to answer the Dems questions the way he did
as only a court can only effectively hold him in contempt should Nadler & company pursue that motion
again I’ve typed this out many a time before – the Congress floor is not a court of law
Zachriel: Tell that to Alexander Butterfield.
first off – there is no where in that article that describes Butterfield as being hit with a subpoena
that article reads him being a WH aide that seemed to openly say to an investigator that Nixon had secretly recorded meetings after the Watergate break-in
second and again – it was the Supreme Court that forced the Nixon administration to turn over those tapes and documents
fishstick: well that discounts your claim of no wrong-doing
A legitimate dispute over executive privilege is not a finding of wrongdoing. Indeed, the court said the contempt motion was “entirely unnecessary”.
fishstick: except this is evidence against your claims Congress is entitled to any such information
The part about privileged information? We have stated just the opposite many, many times, including in the comment to which you are responding.
fishstick: as the court is the determining factor in any exercise of Congress’s subpoena power
The courts always have jurisdiction when a write of habeas corpus is made. That includes whether the arresting agent works for the executive, legislative, or judicial branches.
fishstick: except your whole argument is this House committee (due to subpoena power) was somehow entitled to the “willful” testimony of Lewandowski and that Trump’s claim of executive privilege was (somehow) invalid
You keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. Have no idea why you keep doing that. We grant it is possible, albeit unlikely, that executive privilege could apply. Lewandowski is a private citizen, not a high government official. Even then, Congress can argue that they have an overriding interest.
But that would not mean your broad claim that Congress doesn’t have subpoena power is correct. It just means there are exceptions, as noted many, many times above.
fishstick: except the judge allowed AG Holder to still restrict access to the subpoened documents
That’s right. They were privileged, and Congress failed to show an overriding interest in obtaining them. There is an executive privilege, as we have stated many, many times above.
fishstick: you do realize that pleading the Fifth doesn’t protect you against prosecution and detention
It does protect you from prosecution for not testifying under subpoena.
fishstick: except that it is a threat without any teeth that has to still go through the courts for their subpoena to have any validity
You have that backwards. Under Congress’s inherent subpoena power, the arrest comes first, then the writ, just like an arrest done by the executive branch.
fishstick: it means Lewandowski was every bit in his legal right to answer the Dems questions the way he did
You’re assuming your conclusion. More than likely, the Congress will not pursue the issue, but they could either find him in contempt, then refer it to the Justice Department, or arrest him and let him file a writ in court.
fishstick: there is no where in that article that describes Butterfield as being hit with a subpoena
Butterfield was under subpoena of Ervin’s committee.
fishstick: it was the Supreme Court that forced the Nixon administration to turn over those tapes and documents
You have it backwards. The power belongs to Congress, as the Supreme Court made clear. Nixon claimed an exception for executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that, though there is such a thing as executive privilege, that the power of the Congress to investigate the President took precedence.
Zachriel: A legitimate dispute over executive privilege is not a finding of wrongdoing. Indeed, the court said the contempt motion was “entirely unnecessary”.
again – the question of the dispute is over whether or not AG Holder was withholding subpoenaed documents in the House inquiry
the judge in this case (an Obama appointee) – dismissed the contempt verdict while instructing Holder to release any and all documents not marked as “non-privilege” material
so again – who has the final word in the matter of Congress holding anyone in contempt?
what this shows is the limitations that come with congressional subpoena power and even contempt votes
Zachriel: The part about privileged information? We have stated just the opposite many, many times, including in the comment to which you are responding.
but they aren’t entitled to it if Congress is still beholden to due process
a House committee is not granted “willful” testimony that only follows their narrative by simple demand as they still have to go through the courts to get anything meaningful upheld
Zachriel: The courts always have jurisdiction when a write of habeas corpus is made. That includes whether the arresting agent works for the executive, legislative, or judicial branches.
but like I said previously, this has nothing to do with habeas corpus (or detention)
you are trying to justify congressional subpoena power having a superior statute to what it actually grants
the courts are (and have been) the final say in this matter
Zachriel: You keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. Have no idea why you keep doing that.
to be clear – the “scare-quotes” are for fake emphasis
Zachriel: We grant it is possible, albeit unlikely, that executive privilege could apply. Lewandowski is a private citizen, not a high government official. Even then, Congress can argue that they have an overriding interest.
first off – if it is so unlikely, then why aren’t the Dems pursuing motions for contempt for Lewandowski?
spoiler – it is because they likely know their motions will not be upheld by a judge
second – it doesn’t matter if Lewandowski is a ‘private citizen’ as the executive privilege is Trump’s not Lewandowski’s
and his testimony can be considered “privileged” due to confidentiality which is a legal standard
(not to mention said testimony already exists)
and third (and again) – the House Dems would have to argue their case of overriding interest in the courts
Zachriel: But that would not mean your broad claim that Congress doesn’t have subpoena power is correct. It just means there are exceptions, as noted many, many times above.
I don’t see my claim as being some broad statement
what I’ve been saying over and over is congressional subpoena power is rather limited in scope because they have to rely on the other branches to enforce it
Zachriel: That’s right. They were privileged, and Congress failed to show an overriding interest in obtaining them. There is an executive privilege, as we have stated many, many times above.
and again the point goes over your head
the judge ruled that
key word there being = JUDGE
Zachriel: It does protect you from prosecution for not testifying under subpoena.
it doesn’t if you aren’t already under a congressional inquiry
you cannot plead the Fifth and get absolved from an investigation or even a trial
it doesn’t work that way
Zachriel: You have that backwards. Under Congress’s inherent subpoena power, the arrest comes first, then the writ, just like an arrest done by the executive branch.
yet none of that happened with AG Holder and Lois Lerner, did it?
Zachriel: You’re assuming your conclusion. More than likely, the Congress will not pursue the issue, but they could either find him in contempt, then refer it to the Justice Department, or arrest him and let him file a writ in court.
no you are the one already assuming guilt here
I’m making my conclusion based on the previous actions of the Obama administration when dealing with House subpoenas and contempt motions
and you are right – Nadler is highly unlikely to pursue the issue because he already knows there is no case there
Zachriel: Butterfield was under subpoena of Ervin’s committee.
that’s not what the article you posted stated
per page: [James Hamilton found witness Alexander Butterfield in a barber’s chair, and convinced him to change his plans and testify about the tapes in public.]
no mention of a subpoena there
Zachriel: You have it backwards. The power belongs to Congress, as the Supreme Court made clear. Nixon claimed an exception for executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that, though there is such a thing as executive privilege, that the power of the Congress to investigate the President took precedence.
yet without the Supreme Court ruling there was no obtaining those tapes and documents
you got it “sideways” because the judicial overruled the executive in this case
without that ruling – Congress would have been blocked from obtaining said info
fishstick: dismissed the contempt verdict while instructing Holder to release any and all documents not marked as “non-privilege” material
That’s right. Congress’s subpoena power was largely upheld.
fishstick: who has the final word in the matter of Congress holding anyone in contempt?
Like with any criminal charge, there is an adjudication.
fishstick: what this shows is the limitations that come with congressional subpoena power and even contempt votes
What this shows is the limitation of any criminal statute. They all are subject to adjudication.
fishstick: but they aren’t entitled to it if Congress is still beholden to due process
A Congressional subpoena has the force of law, unless they exceed their authority. If they do exceed their authority, then it may be subject to adjudication.
fishstick: but like I said previously, this has nothing to do with habeas corpus (or detention)
Of course it does. The Congress has the inherent power to seize you off the streets to enforce their subpoena. The check on this power is the writ of habeas corpus where you can contest whether the subpoena is valid or not, but there are very few exceptions; Fifth Amendment, must be for a valid legislative purpose or impeachment investigation, grand jury information, etc.
fishstick: to be clear – the “scare-quotes” are for fake emphasis
Still have no idea what you mean.
fishstick: if it is so unlikely, then why aren’t the Dems pursuing motions for contempt for Lewandowski?
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine. Whether the Congress will pursue the issue is an open question.
fishstick: and his testimony can be considered “privileged” due to confidentiality which is a legal standard
Perhaps. But executive privilege is a very weak protection. Congress just has to show that the information is important for a legislative purpose, or is necessary to an impeachment inquiry. Courts have held Congress’s power very broadly in this regard, as a legislative purpose can be most anything.
fishstick: what I’ve been saying over and over is congressional subpoena power is rather limited in scope because they have to rely on the other branches to enforce it
That’s true of all laws. If you break a law, the executive charges you, and the courts make a determination. That’s true whether you commit espionage or jaywalk. In this case, Congress has an inherent power to enforce their subpoenas, so they can seize you off the street, and you can contest it in court. It’s the same power the executive has in enforcing any law.
fishstick: key word there being = JUDGE
That’s right. The courts ruled that Congress has the pwoer to subpoena witnesses, and also that Congress has the inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas.
fishstick: you cannot plead the Fifth and get absolved from an investigation or even a trial
That’s right, but you can’t be charged for defying a subpoena to testify.
fishstick: yet without the Supreme Court ruling there was no obtaining those tapes and documents
Gee whiz. Without a court ruling, no one would be in prison. It’s a vacuous position.
Refusing the abide by a valid Congressional subpoena is a crime. If there is a reasonable disagreement over whether or not a subpoena is valid, then Congress will typically allow the courts to decide. On the other hand, if the executive is using executive privilege to stonewall, then Congress may threaten to use their inherent enforcement powers, as they did during Watergate. But we said all this already.
Zachriel: That’s right. Congress’s subpoena power was largely upheld.
actually it wasn’t
many of the docs weren’t handed over and those that were got heavily redacted
Zachriel: Like with any criminal charge, there is an adjudication.
you finally admit Congress isn’t the final say in these matters
so making the claim the House Dems were entitled to “willful” testimony is a falsehood as they are not a court of law
Zachriel: What this shows is the limitation of any criminal statute. They all are subject to adjudication.
again because the Congress floor is not a court of law
Zachriel: A Congressional subpoena has the force of law, unless they exceed their authority. If they do exceed their authority, then it may be subject to adjudication.
what you are missing is all of them (technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law
Zachriel: Of course it does.
no it didn’t
Zachriel: The Congress has the inherent power to seize you off the streets to enforce their subpoena.
yet they need the cooperation of the executive to do so
Zachriel: The check on this power is the writ of habeas corpus where you can contest whether the subpoena is valid or not, but there are very few exceptions; Fifth Amendment, must be for a valid legislative purpose or impeachment investigation, grand jury information, etc.
but none of what you described even happened in this particular case
again you are making a speculative argument over something that did not occur
Lewandowski showed up and testified under a directive of legitimate executive privilege
and again – if the Dems don’t think it applies, then their only recourse is the courts
Zachriel: Still have no idea what you mean.
fake emphasis
Zachriel: Perhaps. But executive privilege is a very weak protection.
former President Obama would say otherwise
Zachriel: Congress just has to show that the information is important for a legislative purpose, or is necessary to an impeachment inquiry. Courts have held Congress’s power very broadly in this regard, as a legislative purpose can be most anything.
again you are arguing over something that did not even happen
Zachriel: That’s true of all laws. If you break a law, the executive charges you, and the courts make a determination.
then THAT should tell you something about the subpoena power in the hands of Congress
Zachriel: That’s true whether you commit espionage or jaywalk. In this case, Congress has an inherent power to enforce their subpoenas, so they can seize you off the street, and you can contest it in court. It’s the same power the executive has in enforcing any law.
again – that “inherent power” exists and is either upheld or dismissed among the other branches
I’m just pointing out your argument that Congress was simply entitled to Lewandowski’s “willful” testimony is a falsehood
Zachriel: That’s right, but you can’t be charged for defying a subpoena to testify.
but Lois Lerner here could have been because she was already part of an inquiry when she refused the subpoena
thus the case of a prosecution fell to the DOJ – since Congress can’t prosecute – and they passed
(for obvious reasons)
Zachriel: Gee whiz. Without a court ruling, no one would be in prison. It’s a vacuous position.
so when Congress holds someone in contempt – who ends up making the final ruling?
Zachriel: Refusing the abide by a valid Congressional subpoena is a crime.
you know Lois Lerner did just this
Corey Lewandowski did not
Zachriel: If there is a reasonable disagreement over whether or not a subpoena is valid, then Congress will typically allow the courts to decide.
again – because Congress is not a court of law
Zachriel: On the other hand, if the executive is using executive privilege to stonewall, then Congress may threaten to use their inherent enforcement powers, as they did during Watergate.
but there was no stonewalling here because the information already exists
I guess they could “threaten” to use some enforcement power but I doubt it would get them very far
and then – again – Nadler & company would have to go to a court
Zachriel: But we said all this already.
but if you paid better attention, much of our convo here is us repeating ourselves
fishstick: yet they need the cooperation of the executive to do so
No. Actually they don’t. Under their inherent power of subpoena, the House or Senate can seize someone off the street and bring them before the Congress. If the person refuses to testify, that person can be held until they do.
Zachriel: No. Actually they don’t. Under their inherent power of subpoena, the House or Senate can seize someone off the street and bring them before the Congress. If the person refuses to testify, that person can be held until they do.
yet by your own account – one would have to go back 9 decades to find the last example where Congress did just “that”
in the meantime, they currently have no enforcement arm nor any detention centers that I am aware
especially those that would currently trump any federal agency and/or judicial due process
again – Congress is not a court of law
fishstick: one would have to go back 9 decades to find the last example where Congress did just “that”
So? The power is still extant, and can be exercised anytime either chamber of Congress decides to do so. Your claim that they need the cooperation of the executive branch is false. Congressional may typically rely on the executive branch, but when the executive branch is recalcitrant, Congress maintains the threat of using their inherent power of subpoena, as they did during Watergate.
fishstick: they currently have no enforcement arm nor any detention centers that I am aware
That is incorrect. The Sergeants at Arms (Paul D. Irving for the U.S. House of Representatives, Michael C. Stenger for the Senate) or their deputies have the authority, given a Congressional subpoena, to detain a person wherever found in the United States. The Congress could keep a detained person in the Congressional cloakroom, perhaps, but they would probably keep the person detained in a hotel, maybe even the Trump Hotel!
As a sidenote, all Congressional subpoenas expire with the new Congress, so any non-cooperative witnesses would have to be released on January 3, 2021. The new Congress would have to issue a new subpoena to restart the process.
Also, if a witness remains uncooperative, they may be charged criminally, under 2 U.S. Code § 192.
Zachriel: So? The power is still extant, and can be exercised anytime either chamber of Congress decides to do so.
except Congress is not a court of law so their detention power would be easily overruled by either a federal agency or a judicial ruling
and without an enforcement arm of their own (and a jailhouse), Congress doesn’t have the general means to do any of what you are saying
Zachriel: Your claim that they need the cooperation of the executive branch is false. Congressional may typically rely on the executive branch, but when the executive branch is recalcitrant, Congress maintains the threat of using their inherent power of subpoena, as they did during Watergate.
again – a court order was ultimately the deciding factor there
not the House’s inherent power of subpoena
Zachriel: That is incorrect. The Sergeants at Arms (Paul D. Irving for the U.S. House of Representatives, Michael C. Stenger for the Senate) or their deputies have the authority, given a Congressional subpoena, to detain a person wherever found in the United States.
so a couple guys in DC whose common authority is being Capitol building security guards?
do you even realize how intangible your argument is becoming?
Zachriel: The Congress could keep a detained person in the Congressional cloakroom, perhaps, but they would probably keep the person detained in a hotel, maybe even the Trump Hotel!
now you are just stretching your argument into fantasy land here
Zachriel: As a sidenote, all Congressional subpoenas expire with the new Congress, so any non-cooperative witnesses would have to be released on January 3, 2021. The new Congress would have to issue a new subpoena to restart the process.
you mean if there were ever detained in the first place
Zachriel: Also, if a witness remains uncooperative, they may be charged criminally, under 2 U.S. Code § 192.
this also falls into the purview of a court
not the floor of Congress
fishstick: except Congress is not a court of law so their detention power would be easily overruled by either a federal agency or a judicial ruling
The subpoena power of the Congress has already been affirmed. You mean the detention could be subject to a writ of habeas corpus. The courts may or may not take their time to review the writ. Meanwhile, awaiting a response from the courts, the person could be detained, though most people would testify rather than prolong their detention. The have the keys to the jailhouse.
fishstick: and without an enforcement arm of their own (and a jailhouse), Congress doesn’t have the general means to do any of what you are saying
The Sergeants of Arms of the Congress have the power to enforce a Congressional subpoena. They can detain you wherever you are in the United States, and bring you to the floor of the Congress. (They can also detain you for violating the rules of the chamber.)
fishstick: so a couple guys in DC whose common authority is being Capitol building security guards?
Yeah, it’s interesting how badges and the rule of law work.
fishstick: this also falls into the purview of a court
Enforcing a statute, any statute falls first to the executive, which is sworn to faithfully execute the laws, then to the judiciary. None of this is required if Congress exercises its inherent power of subpoena.
Zachriel: The subpoena power of the Congress has already been affirmed. You mean the detention could be subject to a writ of habeas corpus. The courts may or may not take their time to review the writ. Meanwhile, awaiting a response from the courts, the person could be detained, though most people would testify rather than prolong their detention. The have the keys to the jailhouse.
again – what you are describing just does not happen
i.e. in the two most recent cases of contempt findings
Zachriel: The Sergeants of Arms of the Congress have the power to enforce a Congressional subpoena. They can detain you wherever you are in the United States, and bring you to the floor of the Congress. (They can also detain you for violating the rules of the chamber.)
again – Congress is not a court of law
if a sergeant-at-arms does indeed make an “arrest” in this manner, then the arrestee would still be beholden to due process
Congress couldn’t (in your mind) just detain said person
that entire scenario still has to go through the federal system thus another agency will likely intervene
Zachriel: Yeah, it’s interesting how badges and the rule of law work.
can you even name an instance where such a happenstance occurred?
I think there are like 3 sergeant-at-arms in DC with like 5-6 deputy agents
even fully mobilized, that is a very small police force in a restricted area who only have jurisdiction within a Capitol setting
Zachriel: Enforcing a statute, any statute falls first to the executive, which is sworn to faithfully execute the laws, then to the judiciary. None of this is required if Congress exercises its inherent power of subpoena.
again – Congress is not a court of law
it is why you never see Congress arresting and prosecuting law breakers, much less holding people in detention
fishstick: if a sergeant-at-arms does indeed make an “arrest” in this manner, then the arrestee would still be beholden to due process
If you mean they can file for a writ of habeas corpus, then you are right. The court may or may not intervene, but they can only intervene under limited circumstances. And they may not intervene immediately, but place it on the docket for consideration in due course.
Are you claiming the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House or Senate can’t detain someone and forcibly bring them before Congress to testify under a Congressional subpoena? That would fly in the face of history and of McGrain v. Daugherty, which upheld the power of Congress to do just that.
Zachriel: If you mean they can file for a writ of habeas corpus, then you are right. The court may or may not intervene, but they can only intervene under limited circumstances. And they may not intervene immediately, but place it on the docket for consideration in due course.
you do realize what normally happens when a federal officer arrests someone it goes straight to processing then to detention before a court even has to intervene
the sort of arrest you are referring to here is highly unusual due to Congress not being an executive agency like the police nor a sanctioned court
thus the entire process you are describing would likely be turned over to another federal authority
Zachriel: Are you claiming the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House or Senate can’t detain someone and forcibly bring them before Congress to testify under a Congressional subpoena? That would fly in the face of history and of McGrain v. Daugherty, which upheld the power of Congress to do just that.
yeah
again – you are talking about a scenario that almost occurred 90 years ago
the law and its agencies (and even code) have changed alot since then
you have judges recently throwing out congressional contempt verdicts and filing multiple injunctions on legitimate presidential executive orders, and you think Congress is going to be able to arrest then detain someone without intervention, of any sort?
I know most libs live in a bubble world but man, yours is floating sky high atm
fishstick: you do realize what normally happens when a federal officer arrests someone it goes straight to processing then to detention before a court even has to intervene
That’s right. In the federal system, the government has up to ten days before an arrestee has to be brought before a magistrate judge. Congress is under no such requirement under its inherent power. It’s up to the detainee to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and up to the courts if and when they will consider the writ.
fishstick: thus the entire process you are describing would likely be turned over to another federal authority
Sure. The executive is sworn to uphold the law faithfully, and the law makes it a crime to ignore a Congressional subpoena. Congress generally cedes this process to the executive branch under a statute they devised, but Congress still retains their inherent power under the Constitution.
Your mistake is to confuse the exception with the whole. The vast majority of people, bakers and sports heroes, federal department heads and corporate CEOs, respond to a Congressional subpoena because it is a crime not to do so. For certain officers in the executive branch, there can be legitimate reasons to not meet a subpoena, primarily executive privilege to protect the deliberative process. These situations are normally negotiated between the branches, then as a last resort, decided in court.
But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena. But we advise you to seek legal advice before you ignore a Congressional subpoena. Unless you have a legitimate reason to avoid answering the subpoena, such as the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege, a Congressional subpoena has all the force of law.
Zachriel: That’s right. In the federal system, the government has up to ten days before an arrestee has to be brought before a magistrate judge. Congress is under no such requirement under its inherent power. It’s up to the detainee to file for a writ of habeas corpus, and up to the courts if and when they will consider the writ.
what? – again, Congress is are not their own court of law and are still bound to the due process system of the US
they don’t have their own individual power to prosecute let alone indefinitely detain people
not to mention they lack an executive arm and means to do anything which you are claiming
Zachriel: Sure. The executive is sworn to uphold the law faithfully, and the law makes it a crime to ignore a Congressional subpoena.
sure and the legislative is also sworn to the same standard
Zachriel: Congress generally cedes this process to the executive branch under a statute they devised, but Congress still retains their inherent power under the Constitution.
again – I’ve pointed out where the most recent cases have undercut that ‘inherent power’
Congress never has the last word in these matters
Zachriel: Your mistake is to confuse the exception with the whole.
these aren’t “exceptions”
they are the most recent cases of contempt motions being overruled by the executive and judicial branches (each for a different reason)
Zachriel: For certain officers in the executive branch, there can be legitimate reasons to not meet a subpoena, primarily executive privilege to protect the deliberative process. These situations are normally negotiated between the branches, then as a last resort, decided in court.
except none of that happened in the Holder and Lerner contempt motions
Holder literally flat out refused to turn over subpoenaed documents regarding Fast & Furious, got held in contempt for it, then an Obama judge threw out the motion
Lerner flat out refused a subpoena hearing, pleading the Fifth, while during a mid congressional inquiry and the DOJ (under Holder) decided not to pursue an indictment (shocker!)
those were not legitimate reasons to protect some deliberative process
they were for purely partisan purposes in trying to cover their own ass for their own scandalous behavior
Lerner especially due to her testimony several years later where she cried to a judge for her sworn statements to be sealed
Zachriel: But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena.
I did not make that claim at all
I stated Congress’s power of subpoena has severe limitations as proven by the Obama administration
i.e. – they are not a court of law and they cannot prosecute
Zachriel: But we advise you to seek legal advice before you ignore a Congressional subpoena. Unless you have a legitimate reason to avoid answering the subpoena, such as the Fifth Amendment or executive privilege, a Congressional subpoena has all the force of law.
and surely you realize anyone can just claim the Fifth, right?
of course, that won’t protect you from potential prosecution but as I’ve stated many a time on this page: Congress is not a court of law
fishstick: Congress is are not their own court of law and are still bound to the due process system of the US
Congress’s inherent power is not a prosecution or even a punishment under the law. The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. To be released, the person just has to comply with the subpoena.
Even then, the detainee has the right to file a writ of habeas corpus. That’s what Daugherty did in McGrain v. Daugherty after he was detained by the Sergeant at Arms. But just filing a writ doesn’t mean the courts will intervene. In McGrain v. Daugherty, the courts upheld Congress’s inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, as well as the power of a deputy of the Sergeant at Arms to seize the person under subpoena.
fishstick: they don’t have their own individual power to prosecute let alone indefinitely detain people
Just until the end of the Congress, which is January 3 of each odd numbered year. Of course, the new Congress could issue the subpoena again.
fishstick: except none of that happened in the Holder and Lerner contempt motions
Holder was adjudicated by the courts. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights.
fishstick: and surely you realize anyone can just claim the Fifth, right?
It’s not a magic incantation. A claim of Fifth Amendment protection can be adjudicated like any other claim. If the person is protecting someone else, and is in no danger of prosecution, then there is no Fifth Amendment protection.
Zachriel: But your claim is that Congress has no power of subpoena.
fishstick: I did not make that claim at all
fs: what you are missing is all of them (technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.
That is a false statement. Congress has the power of subpoena, an inherent power as well as a statutory power.
fs: what I’ve been saying over and over is congressional subpoena power is rather limited in scope because they have to rely on the other branches to enforce it
This is also a false statement. Congress has inherent subpoena power, and the Sergeants at Arms or their deputies can seize and detain a person under Congressional subpoena.
fishstick: I stated Congress’s power of subpoena has severe limitations as proven by the Obama administration
For the vast majority of cases, Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. However, under the Fifth Amendment, no one can be forced to give testimony against themselves. And there is also executive privilege to protect internal deliberations between the President and his advisors. However, executive privilege is limited and Congress can pierce the privilege by showing a compelling need for the information. Other limitations include grand jury deliberations, classified information, and information with a privacy concern, though the information may be made available in closed sessions before select committees.
Perhaps you meant to say that Congressional subpoenas have less power when intruding into the White House, but that is a far cry from saying that people can disregard Congressional subpoenas generally.
Zachriel: Congress’s inherent power is not a prosecution or even a punishment under the law. The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. To be released, the person just has to comply with the subpoena.
but the big problem you are having here is you are assuming a Congress committee will get the first and (somehow) only say in a state affair
historically – I haven’t seen a case that matches your description of it
and realistically – it will never happen in the government of today
Zachriel: Just until the end of the Congress, which is January 3 of each odd numbered year. Of course, the new Congress could issue the subpoena again.
again – Congress is not a court of law and cannot prosecute
if a congressional committee actually goes out to try and “arrest then detain” someone over subpoena testimony, then they are going to get slapped down by 1 or 2 executive agencies then get checked by a judge
if they were to even have the balls to do such a thing
because there will be federal intervention and it will not be a delayed process that exists in your mind
Zachriel: Holder was adjudicated by the courts. Lerner invoked her Fifth Amendment rights.
yet neither were arrested nor detained, were they?
Zachriel: It’s not a magic incantation. A claim of Fifth Amendment protection can be adjudicated like any other claim. If the person is protecting someone else, and is in no danger of prosecution, then there is no Fifth Amendment protection.
now you are talking about another scenario that does not exist
anyone can claim the Fifth and they are not forced under the law to give “willful” testimony
THAT is the whole point of the Fifth Amendment
what I’m saying is THAT wouldn’t protect themselves from being charged or prosecuted
Zachriel: That is a false statement. Congress has the power of subpoena, an inherent power as well as a statutory power.
no yours is a false statement
again – Congress is not a court of law nor do they have the power of prosecution
THAT matters in the case of “inherent” subpoena power
Zachriel: This is also a false statement. Congress has inherent subpoena power, and the Sergeants at Arms or their deputies can seize and detain a person under Congressional subpoena.
again with another false statement
Congress is not a court of law nor do they have prosecution power
thus their ability to seize and detain is still beholden to the due process system
Zachriel: For the vast majority of cases, Congressional subpoenas have the force of law. However, under the Fifth Amendment, no one can be forced to give testimony against themselves.
again you are missing the context of my argument
what I am arguing is the force of law in congressional subpoena power is lesser than what exists for lets say the DOJ or a federal special prosecution
because they are not bound to the same restrictions the bodies of Congress are since they can arrest, detain, then prosecute your arse
Zachriel: And there is also executive privilege to protect internal deliberations between the President and his advisors. However, executive privilege is limited and Congress can pierce the privilege by showing a compelling need for the information.
again – you are making the case where you’ve already assumed your assumption is correct
Congress is reliant on a federal judge (up to the Supremes) to uphold any attempt at undoing executive privilege
again, none of which happened with this hearing
Zachriel: Other limitations include grand jury deliberations, classified information, and information with a privacy concern, though the information may be made available in closed sessions before select committees.
funny thing – this happened with the Mueller report where Nadler tried to make all that info public
Zachriel: Perhaps you meant to say that Congressional subpoenas have less power when intruding into the White House, but that is a far cry from saying that people can disregard Congressional subpoenas generally.
no I meant that congressional subpoenas have less power in the overall sense when compared to the subpoena power of a court or special prosecution
however I never stated that people can generally disregard said subpoena power
what I stated is they have less “force of law” behind them in compelling people to give “willful” testimony in a setting that is not a court of law
they can get said people through their DC doors but getting said witnesses to help spin the yarn of the questioner’s own fake narrative… well that is an entirely different matter
Lewandowski showed up and testified
the Dems just didn’t like what he testified to
fishstick: Congress is not a court of law and cannot prosecute
You keep getting that wrong. Detaining someone for civil contempt is not a punishment under the law, because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
fishstick: if a congressional committee actually goes out to try and “arrest then detain” someone over subpoena testimony, then they are going to get slapped down by 1 or 2 executive agencies then get checked by a judge
Only if there are grounds to contest the detention, such as executive privilege. Otherwise, the Congress has the power to enforce its own subpoenas.
fishstick: anyone can claim the Fifth and they are not forced under the law to give “willful” testimony
No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. However, you can’t use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse not to testify if there is no danger of self-incrimination. It’s not a magic get out of contempt incantation.
fishstick: Congress is not a court of law nor do they have the power of prosecution
Civil contempt is not a criminal charge, but you bring up a good point. A court has an analogous power to detain someone for civil contempt (18 U.S. Code § 401). If the judge tells you to answer the question, and you don’t have a valid legal reason not to, then the judge can immediately have you taken and held until you answer. It’s not a punishment as the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
fishstick: what I am arguing is the force of law in congressional subpoena power is lesser than what exists for lets say the DOJ or a federal special prosecution
It’s more analogous to the judge finding you in civil contempt, and having you held until you meet the judge’s direction.
fishstick: what I stated is they have less “force of law” behind them in compelling people to give “willful” testimony in a setting that is not a court of law
It’s the same force of law. Like a judge, Congress can have you detained until you meet the conditions of a subpoena. In either case, the detainee can file a writ of habeas corpus. Either case can then be treated criminally under the appropriate statute. As for executive enforcement, they have to take you before a magistrate and show cause, so that power is also limited.
By the way, you keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. The term ‘willful testimony’ is usually used in reference to perjury. What do you mean by your use of the term?
Zachriel: You keep getting that wrong. Detaining someone for civil contempt is not a punishment under the law, because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
except that for your argument, Congress has to be the one supposedly detaining said contemnor
your argument just doesn’t work here as most people convicted of contempt within a courtroom are given a term, not a choice
and again – Congress is not a court
Zachriel: Only if there are grounds to contest the detention, such as executive privilege. Otherwise, the Congress has the power to enforce its own subpoenas.
but anything could be considered “grounds” such as the reason Congress is pursuing such an action
and in the end, the matter of Congress’s contempt motion will land in a federal court to be decided if and when contested
Zachriel: No one can be compelled to testify against themselves. However, you can’t use the Fifth Amendment as an excuse not to testify if there is no danger of self-incrimination. It’s not a magic get out of contempt incantation.
except it can easily be argued any testimony can be twisted to become self-incriminatory during an federal investigation
so just as an example: if Congress is subpoenaing you, then why can’t you plead the Fifth?
so if the FBI is investigating a murder and they haul you in for questioning, (guilty or not) why can’t you plead the Fifth?
one is always within their rights to do just that without giving a reasonable explanation
Zachriel: Civil contempt is not a criminal charge, but you bring up a good point. A court has an analogous power to detain someone for civil contempt (18 U.S. Code § 401). If the judge tells you to answer the question, and you don’t have a valid legal reason not to, then the judge can immediately have you taken and held until you answer. It’s not a punishment as the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
pleading the Fifth never protected you from prosecution itself
it just helps set standards to give us citizens a level of due process before the system of government (trials)
also you can’t be detained without being officially charged
what I was implying is that Lois Lerner was under a congressional inquiry where she plead the Fifth but the Obama DOJ refused to prosecute her for stating her Fifth amendment rights trumped a possible case against her
which just isn’t the case
again later – Lerner would have to testify (2017 I think) to her role in the whole IRS scandal in targeting conservatives in a court case brought against the former administration, since they were no longer in power to stonewall the charge
Zachriel: It’s more analogous to the judge finding you in civil contempt, and having you held until you meet the judge’s direction.
look I wholly understand your argument here
I just think you overestimate Congress’s authority to do what you think they are able to do
Zachriel: It’s the same force of law.
it is not though because they are not a court of law
in addition, Congress has no executive power when it comes to these matters as they cannot prosecute
Zachriel: Like a judge, Congress can have you detained until you meet the conditions of a subpoena.
but this scenario of yours will never happen due to the factors they have no executive arm, no detention center, nor overriding authority when a judge or a federal agency comes to contest it
Zachriel: In either case, the detainee can file a writ of habeas corpus.
it wouldn’t even get this far
Zachriel: Either case can then be treated criminally under the appropriate statute.
which takes it out of the Congress’s purview
Zachriel: As for executive enforcement, they have to take you before a magistrate and show cause, so that power is also limited.
what I’ve been trying to show you is Congress can literally get sandbagged by the other two branches because the system does not favor them when it comes to these matters
especially the lower House
they just have the littlest of authority in the arena of holding people accountable because they can investigate till they are blue in the face, but they literally need the help of the other branches to even have a remote chance to enforce their verdicts
and even then – their verdicts done by a full floor vote can easily be overturned by a single judge
it doesn’t even have to go to the Supremes for their motions to get nixed
Zachriel: By the way, you keep using “willful” in scare-quotes. The term ‘willful testimony’ is usually used in reference to perjury. What do you mean by your use of the term?
it is not scare quotes
cmon man – it is just fake emphasis like doing the double finger quotation gesture
I don’t know how else to explain it
but think of the meaning as a single word for testimony that is more intentional and compliant for the questioner at hand
fishstick: your argument just doesn’t work here as most people convicted of contempt within a courtroom are given a term, not a choice
That is incorrect. Civil contempt is imposed every day in courtrooms. Civil contempt entails no right to a jury trial, and it doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
fishstick: except it can easily be argued any testimony can be twisted to become self-incriminatory during an federal investigation
You can argue whatever you want, but you have to convince the court. A simple example is when given immunity from prosecution. If you still won’t testify (absent some other immunity), then you can be held in civil contempt until you do (or until the matter is otherwise closed).
fishstick: also you can’t be detained without being officially charged
A judge can find you in civil contempt in an instant, and have you locked up. You do have a right to know why you are being locked up, and what you have to do to gain your release. You can even file an appeal while you sit in detention.
The House and Senate each have the same power.
fishstick: but think of the meaning as a single word for testimony that is more intentional and compliant for the questioner at hand
Willful means deliberate and not coerced. So perjury is the “willful {deliberate, not inadvertent or unknowing} testimony of a person under oath of material facts known to be false.”
H. Beatty Chadwick holds the U.S. record {Yay!} for longest time held for civil contempt; fourteen years, and never charged with a crime, much less convicted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Beatty_Chadwick
Just for your information, federal courts limit detention for civil contempt to the term of a grand jury, which would be at most 18 months. Similarly, detention for civil contempt of Congress is limited to the term of the Congress, which ends January 3 of each odd numbered year. When the detention is no longer coercive and becomes punitive, the petitioner must be released or charged. That’s why poor Chadwick was finally released. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
Zachriel: That is incorrect. Civil contempt is imposed every day in courtrooms. Civil contempt entails no right to a jury trial, and it doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
true to an extent but they are still term based not “indefinitely” based charges
Zachriel: You can argue whatever you want, but you have to convince the court.
yes and like I typed out many a time on this page – the court supersedes the legislative when it comes to these matters
Zachriel: A judge can find you in civil contempt in an instant, and have you locked up. You do have a right to know why you are being locked up, and what you have to do to gain your release. You can even file an appeal while you sit in detention.
however your little scenario here misses the pretext for a civil contempt violation
Fifth Amendment rights protect you from detained without being charged so any contempt violation would have an underlining charge associated with it
Zachriel: The House and Senate each have the same power.
no they don’t because all your “examples” have been court based contempt violations
Zachriel: Willful means deliberate and not coerced. So perjury is the “willful {deliberate, not inadvertent or unknowing} testimony of a person under oath of material facts known to be false.”
sure but perjury does not exist in this case
Lewandowki was never indicted or charged with obstruction
Zachriel: H. Beatty Chadwick holds the U.S. record {Yay!} for longest time held for civil contempt; fourteen years, and never charged with a crime, much less convicted.
again – that was done by way of a court
Zachriel: Just for your information, federal courts limit detention for civil contempt to the term of a grand jury, which would be at most 18 months. Similarly, detention for civil contempt of Congress is limited to the term of the Congress, which ends January 3 of each odd numbered year. When the detention is no longer coercive and becomes punitive, the petitioner must be released or charged. That’s why poor Chadwick was finally released. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
probably so but I see how that has any merit for your argument
Zachriel: The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
apparently they don’t
you would think after 14 years he would have used one to open the lock and walk out of there
fishstick: true to an extent
Not true “to an extent”. It’s true.
fishstick: but they are still term based not “indefinitely” based charges
The contemnor has the keys to the jail cell.
The person under detention for civil contempt can get out of the jail any time they are ready to follow the court’s instructions.
fishstick: Fifth Amendment rights protect you from detained without being charged so any contempt violation would have an underlining charge associated with it
That’s not true. We even provided an example, poor poor Chadwick. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
fishstick: you would think after 14 years he would have used one to open the lock and walk out of there
He could have. All he had to do was tell the court where the money was so that his ex-wife could get her share. Congress has the equivalent inherent contempt power.
You really don’t have any idea how this works.
Zachriel: Not true “to an extent”. It’s true.
your statement from before is only true to an extent
civil contempt charges are not filed everyday and any detention that may come with it is hardly indefinite
most contempt charges I’m finding on situations you are describing are basically censures, fines, and 30 day sentences
Zachriel: The person under detention for civil contempt can get out of the jail any time they are ready to follow the court’s instructions.
yes I knew what you meant
I was making a JOKE of it
again again – most contempt violations are usually NOT indefinite jail sentences
Zachriel: That’s not true. We even provided an example, poor poor Chadwick. He must have really hated his ex-wife.
yeah poor poor Chadwick
his case being brought into a conversation to “prove” Congress has some unilateral subpoena power that includes locking people up
I’m pretty sure he would laugh if he were to read this exchange because poor poor Chadwick would likely tell you, a court was the one who held him in contempt
Zachriel: He could have. All he had to do was tell the court where the money was so that his ex-wife could get her share. Congress has the equivalent inherent contempt power.
Z: You really don’t have any idea how this works.
and you really have no clue what sarcasm reads like, do you?
and again – they don’t have the same inherent contempt power
do you know why?
hint hint: they are not a court of law
fishstick: civil contempt charges are not filed everyday …
Civil contempt charged indeed are filed every day. In the U.S., they are very common in divorce or child support situations, but can occur in most any court when someone refuses to follow the court’s instruction.
fishstick: and any detention that may come with it is hardly indefinite
Civil contempt detentions are limited because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. They can get out whenever they want. All they have to do is follow the court’s instructions. Congress has the equivalent power.
fishstick: they don’t have the same inherent contempt power
That is incorrect. See McGrain v. Daugherty.
Z: McGrain v. Daugherty
John McGrain was the Deputy Sergeant at Arms who arrested the brother of the Attorney General, Mally Daugherty, pursuant to a Senate subpoena. Daugherty filed a writ of habeas corpus.
Supreme Court: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution… This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792”.
Zachriel: Civil contempt charged indeed are filed every day. In the U.S., they are very common in divorce or child support situations, but can occur in most any court when someone refuses to follow the court’s instruction.
again with this apples to oranges argument
you are still trying to compare the court to a congressional committee
I keep pointing this out but it keeps going over your head
Zachriel: Civil contempt detentions are limited because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell. They can get out whenever they want. All they have to do is follow the court’s instructions. Congress has the equivalent power.
again – Congress does not have the same subpoena power because they are not a court of law
Zachriel: That is incorrect. See McGrain v. Daugherty.
again – that ruling was over 90 years ago
and in the end – the courts were the final say in the matter
not the Congress
Zachriel: John McGrain was the Deputy Sergeant at Arms who arrested the brother of the Attorney General, Mally Daugherty, pursuant to a Senate subpoena. Daugherty filed a writ of habeas corpus.
this has gone so far from the mark of the Lewandowski hearing
Zachriel: Supreme Court: “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution… This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792”.
and none of which applies to Lewandowski hearing as he both showed up and testified
(face it) you liberals just didn’t like what you heard
the problem you have grasping is the congressional committee wasn’t owed any “willful” testimony that would fit the questioner’s narrative
so Lewandowski could have answered, “get bent”, to every question and he still would have been within his rights at that hearing since his testimony is already on record
if Nadler & company thought there was a case for actual contempt, then they would have filed a motion for it
—
and again, being held in contempt in this day and age is easily contestable in the courts despite the ruling of McGrain v Daugherty
as I pointed out with AG Holder, who refused to comply with a congressional inquiry and Lois Lerner who flatly refused an actual subpoena
so while Congress may have that power of subpoena, it only exists on paper because they lack the actual authority to carry it out
and thus these committees need DOJ support and court issues to even make their own floor motions stand
fishstick: you are still trying to compare the court to a congressional committee
As the Supreme Court made clear, “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution”.
fishstick: that ruling was over 90 years ago
It’s never been overturned, or even seriously questioned. The power exists even if you don’t acknowledge it.
fishstick: AG Holder, who refused to comply with a congressional inquiry and Lois Lerner who flatly refused an actual subpoena
Holder was adjudicated, and there was no finding of wrongdoing on his part. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
fishstick: so while Congress may have that power of subpoena, it only exists on paper because they lack the actual authority to carry it out
As the Supreme Court found in McGrain v. Daugherty, the Constitution gives Congress the inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, including the power to send their Sergeant at Arms or their deputies, to arrest and detain someone under subpoena.
Zachriel: As the Supreme Court made clear, “Each house of Congress has power, through its own process, to compel a private individual to appear before it or one of its committees and give testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution”.
again which will always end in a courtroom
not in a body of Congress
Zachriel: It’s never been overturned, or even seriously questioned. The power exists even if you don’t acknowledge it.
but the power has been chopped at the legs by the Obama administration in two very recent cases where contempt was voted upon by a congressional body
and THAT will always exist whether you acknowledge it or not
Zachriel: Holder was adjudicated, and there was no finding of wrongdoing on his part. Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
and again you miss the point
a court decided the matter of AG Holder and the DOJ refused to prosecute Lois Lerner
they just keep flying over your head
Zachriel: As the Supreme Court found in McGrain v. Daugherty, the Constitution gives Congress the inherent power to enforce their own subpoenas, including the power to send their Sergeant at Arms or their deputies, to arrest and detain someone under subpoena.
and the cases of AG Holder and Lois Lerner brings that entire ruling to a standstill as the House literally found both in contempt but there was no detention or prosecution
do you know why?
because Congress is not a court of law
fishstick: again which will always end in a courtroom
Any detention can be contested in court. That doesn’t mean the person will win in court.
fishstick: but the power has been chopped at the legs by the Obama administration
The Obama Administration can’t “chop” away a power granted by the Constitution.
fishstick: and the cases of AG Holder and Lois Lerner brings that entire ruling to a standstill as the House literally found both in contempt
Congress didn’t attempt to directly enforce their subpoenas. In Holder, Congress deferred to the courts as they usually do, while Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
History and the Supreme Court have made clear that Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, much like a grand jury. You keep repeating that Congress is not a court, but even courts are subject to oversight. If a court detains someone for civil contempt, that person can appeal that decision like any other decision. But the appeal will only be successful if there are valid grounds, otherwise the appeals court is helpless to intervene. Similarly, with Congress detaining someone to enforce a subpoena. The detention can be appealed, but the appeals court can only intervene if there are valid grounds.
Zachriel: Any detention can be contested in court. That doesn’t mean the person will win in court.
all I’m saying is – that doesn’t mean Congress will either
it all depends on what a judge will determine that day
Zachriel: Congress didn’t attempt to directly enforce their subpoenas. In Holder, Congress deferred to the courts as they usually do, while Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment.
but one has to consider if they even could enforce their subpoena
Lerner pleading the Fifth didn’t protect her from prosecution, as I stated before that the DOJ refused to bring a charge against her
Zachriel: History and the Supreme Court have made clear that Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, much like a grand jury.
and recent history has shown a congressional contempt vote done on the floor can literally get cancelled by a judge and stonewalled by an AG
Zachriel: You keep repeating that Congress is not a court,
and Congress isn’t
ultimately any exercise of their “subpoena power” will end up before a judge/s
Zachriel: …but even courts are subject to oversight.
that’s true but Congress needs 2/3 to perform such an oversight on a court
it is not a likely scenario
Zachriel: If a court detains someone for civil contempt, that person can appeal that decision like any other decision.
yes but what I’m getting at is theirs holds a greater weight because no one but a higher court can overturn their decision
Zachriel: But the appeal will only be successful if there are valid grounds, otherwise the appeals court is helpless to intervene. Similarly, with Congress detaining someone to enforce a subpoena. The detention can be appealed, but the appeals court can only intervene if there are valid grounds.
lets face it – that would not be much of a stretch to claim,
as there are cases out there that are just borderline weird when compared to charges of being detained without officially charged (which is another Fifth amendment right)
for instance: Johnny Depp got subpoenaed for a “crime” he was no where at (and 5 years after) as a character witness for a person he never personally met
then there’s the guy who sued over a “haunted house” he purchased, and his lawsuit over the previous seller actually made it to a state supreme court
fishstick: that doesn’t mean Congress will either
That’s right. A subpoena ordered by a grand jury, or court, or legislature, can be contested. However, the appeal can only succeed if there are valid legal grounds. Just saying you don’t want to follow a subpoena, or that they “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law” doesn’t mean you can simply ignore a grand jury or Congressional subpoena.
fishstick: what I’m getting at is theirs holds a greater weight because no one but a higher court can overturn their decision
It’s much the same weight. The difference is the Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, while a court or grand jury have to rely upon other branches. All of these subpoenas are subject to appeal, but that may not immediately get you out of detention, which often depends on the strength of the appeal.
fishstick: but one has to consider if they even could enforce their subpoena
The Congress’s Sergeants at Arms or their deputies have the power to seize a person and bring them before the Congress, and to detain them until they respond to the subpoena.
Zachriel: That’s right. A subpoena ordered by a grand jury, or court, or legislature, can be contested. However, the appeal can only succeed if there are valid legal grounds. Just saying you don’t want to follow a subpoena, or that they “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law” doesn’t mean you can simply ignore a grand jury or Congressional subpoena.
true enough
but Congress is not a court of law as they cannot prosecute but only recommend indictments, which could then be ignored by a court or federal branch
Zachriel: It’s much the same weight. The difference is the Congress can enforce their own subpoenas, while a court or grand jury have to rely upon other branches. All of these subpoenas are subject to appeal, but that may not immediately get you out of detention, which often depends on the strength of the appeal.
it is two different weight classes
and you have it reversed
the Congress has the littlest authority to enforce a subpoena where a court will always have the backing of some federal, state, or local branch
Congress can get knee-capped by the judiciary and is reliant on the executive to carry out any enforcement of their subpoena power
Zachriel: The Congress’s Sergeants at Arms or their deputies have the power to seize a person and bring them before the Congress, and to detain them until they respond to the subpoena.
except two very recent examples of contempt motions passed by the House show this will not be the case in today’s politics
fishstick: charges of being detained without officially charged (which is another Fifth amendment right)
As noted many times, civil contempt isn’t covered by the right to a trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell
Zachriel: As noted many times, civil contempt isn’t covered by the right to a trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt because the contemnor has the keys to the jail cell
but what you are missing is a judge can overturn such a civil contempt done by a congressional body
as judges don’t nominally overturn their court’s own rulings on these matters
fishstick: but Congress is not a court of law as they cannot prosecute
We’re not talking about a prosecution, but civil contempt. You really don’t know how this works, or you wouldn’t keep making the same mistake.
fishstick: Congress can get knee-capped by the judiciary and is reliant on the executive to carry out any enforcement of their subpoena power
Congress has the power to enforce their own subpoenas. You keep making the same mistake.
fishstick: but what you are missing is a judge can overturn such a civil contempt done by a congressional body
A court can overturn civil contempt by a judge, grand jury, and Congress; but only if there are valid grounds to quash the the subpoena. The power of the appeals court is limited by the constitution and precedent.
Your argument is based on a faulty foundation. A stronger argument would be that subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) are suspect when applied to the President or his close advisors. However, an impeachment inquiry can probably pierce even that privilege.
A recent case, Trump v. Mazars, upholds the power of Congressional subpoenas:
Zachriel: A recent case, Trump v. Mazars, upholds the power of Congressional subpoenas:
again those are judges deciding the issue
not a congressional committee as their fishing expedition into Trump’s finances went through a grand tour through the courts
so it will likely land in the Supreme Court in the coming year like almost every other Dem backed scheme to stymie the president before it
Zachriel: We’re not talking about a prosecution, but civil contempt. You really don’t know how this works, or you wouldn’t keep making the same mistake.
no you are the one who keeps making the same mistake here
Congress is not a court of law and they cannot levy charges then prosecute people
Zachriel: Congress has the power to enforce their own subpoenas. You keep making the same mistake.
again you keep making the same mistake
Congress cannot prosecute people
thus their subpoena power is reliant on the executive and judicial bodies to go along with it
if any one of the other two branches decide to intervene, then Congress has to win their case all the way to the Supremes for it to stand
Zachriel: A court can overturn civil contempt by a judge, grand jury, and Congress; but only if there are valid grounds to quash the the subpoena. The power of the appeals court is limited by the constitution and precedent.
a court can overturn anything within any reasoning they can try to justify under the law
case in point how a single judge was able to dismiss a congressional floor vote
Zachriel: Your argument is based on a faulty foundation. A stronger argument would be that subpoenas (Congressional or otherwise) are suspect when applied to the President or his close advisors.
my argument has been on a solid foundation of Congress’s subpoena power having clear limitations due to them having no power to arrest and prosecute people
your counter-argument is bringing up a statute that last happened over 90 years ago
while I’m pointing out things that happened within the last six
Zachriel: However, an impeachment inquiry can probably pierce even that privilege.
which would depend moreso on what that inquiry was based upon
fishstick: again those are judges deciding the issue
Actually, the court said they had no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.
fishstick: your counter-argument is bringing up a statute that last happened over 90 years ago
It’s not a statute, but the Supreme Court ruling that they have no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.
Zachriel: Actually, the court said they had no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution.
except the very contention is the Dems’ attempt there is not being a proper constituted subpoena
Zachriel: It’s not a statute, but the Supreme Court ruling that they have no power over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, and that Congress’s power to enforce their subpoena comes from the Constitution
again – statute by meaning of way of procedure, not written law
and again – the ruling is over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, which demanding the Trump family finances doesn’t merit for the Dems’ reason of “just because”
fishstick: except the very contention is the Dems’ attempt there is not being a proper constituted subpoena
That wasn’t your claim, which was that all Congressional subpoenas “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.” Statute and Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. Congress has inherent and statutory powers to issue subpoenas.
What is not “properly constituted” about Congressional subpoenas? Based on what precedent (if applicable)?
fishstick: again – statute by meaning of way of procedure, not written law
A statute IS a written law, as opposed to common law. The U.S. may be a common law country, but has diverged substantially from the predecessor common law since the written constitution was ratified. In any case, please use the term correctly so as not to confuse others.
Merriam Webster: statute, a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statute
Black’s Law Dictionary: statute, An act of the legislature; a particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative department of government, expressed with the requisite formalities.
https://thelawdictionary.org/statute-n/
and statute also has a meaning of being a rule or code of an organization or institution
when used in this manner – statute would have a contextual meaning instead of a direct one subbing for “written law”
fishstick: and statute also has a meaning of being a rule or code of an organization or institution
Meaning the organization creates the equivalent of a written law.
Statute is distinct from common law. We’ve provided you references, including from a legal dictionary. There is no reason for you to continue to mangle the term.
Zachriel: Statute is distinct from common law. We’ve provided you references, including from a legal dictionary. There is no reason for you to continue to mangle the term.
I’m not mangling the term
well I can’t help if you keep getting confused to my usage of the word statute
again – we had this discussion before where I literally typed out when I’m speaking of law law, I type law
and where I said about using “statute” to describe practicing procedure that aren’t inherently defined by law books themselves
fishstick: and where I said about using “statute” to describe practicing procedure that aren’t inherently defined by law books themselves
That’s exactly wrong. Common law refers to the unwritten precedents set by courts over time, such as the constitutional meaning of probable cause in the U.S. legal system. Statute refers to written laws promulgated by a government, such as a law defining murder and its penalties.
Zachriel: That’s exactly wrong. Common law refers to the unwritten precedents set by courts over time, such as the constitutional meaning of probable cause in the U.S. legal system. Statute refers to written laws promulgated by a government, such as a law defining murder and its penalties.
actually it is right due to statute having the alt-meaning of code within a law and not the law itself
I know that statute also means written law – but in that case I just use the word LAW
hence the distinction I made to you a while back and today on this page
Zachriel: That wasn’t your claim, which was that all Congressional subpoenas “(technically) exceed their authority because they are not a court of law.” Statute and Supreme Court precedent says you are wrong. Congress has inherent and statutory powers to issue subpoenas.
what you are doing here is mixing 2 different arguments
first off – I’m still right as Congress is not a court of law
case in point why this particular motion is going through an actual court
and second – the appeal is based on grounds that the subpoenas the Dems issued in this particular case are not “properly constituted”
in other words – it is a simple demand for information they are not entitled to
it would be like the cops search and seizing a suspect without due cause
Zachriel: What is not “properly constituted” about Congressional subpoenas? Based on what precedent (if applicable)?
from what I’m reading, that is what is being argued here
that the subpoena is an unfounded attempt at discovery where its basis itself is in question
as the Dems want confidential info from Trump business dealings and associates
Zachriel: A statute IS a written law, as opposed to common law. The U.S. may be a common law country, but has diverged substantially from the predecessor common law since the written constitution was ratified. In any case, please use the term correctly so as not to confuse others.
when I type law – I mean law
when I type statute – I generally mean “code or procedure” related to a law
otherwise I would just type “law”
we had this same convo before you know
fishstick: the ruling is over a properly constituted Congressional subpoena, which demanding the Trump family finances doesn’t merit for the Dems’ reason of “just because”
You apparently didn’t read the briefs. Did you want to make a substantive argument instead?
Zachriel: You apparently didn’t read the briefs. Did you want to make a substantive argument instead?
no I didn’t read them briefs but considering how far left the Dems have gone these past 3 years, it wouldn’t be too much to counter that their claims are BS on the scale of the Steele dossier
from what I read in news articles and clippings (months ago) the gist was the Dems want financials from periods before Trump even ran for the presidency which begs the question of legitimacy and relevancy in their entire motion
so it is a matter whether or not the DC court will uphold or upend an investigation where the Dems cannot list the infraction Trump is supposedly guilty of while having no reasonable basis outside of their “just because”
and if it is upheld – then it will be appealed to the Supremes like ever other overreach by a judge who tried to sandbag this president
fishstick: so it is a matter whether or not the DC court will uphold or upend an investigation where the Dems cannot list the infraction Trump is supposedly guilty of while having no reasonable basis outside of their “just because”
Well, “just because” is not part of Congress’s filings. Congress pointed to legislative purposes, based on whether the President’s required financial filings are accurate, along with possible violations of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and related conflicts of interest, all within the purview of Congressional oversight. This is far more than “just because”.
Of course, now that there is an official impeachment investigation, Trump’s previous arguments about Congress not having a legitimate legislative purpose are probably moot. If the House can impeach for wrongdoing by the President, it’s clear they can investigate wrongdoing in order to make that determination.
(I am currently on a device that cannot highlight, copy, or paste)
(so I can’t iso and address specific sentences)
again – the argument is that the Dem-committee subpoenas are outside their bounds in wanting this confidential information, since their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”
so when you claim the president is violating the emoluments clause, you should be atleast able to point out where this infraction occurred, no?
as it looks right now – it amounts to wanting privileged info for nothing more than base allegations
—
but you guys are still having trouble isolating to any actual “wrongdoing” here
just like how the Mueller probe turned into a fishing expedition
so you guys still have a problem with its legitimacy angle
remember, the House has to draft articles to impeach on and the Dems don’t even have the foundation of that yet
fishstick: again – the argument is that the Dem-committee subpoenas are outside their bounds in wanting this confidential information, since their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”
The court has already determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose. Indeed, legislation has already been proposed to address future conflicts of interest. The courts don’t require actual legislation, but only that legislation could be had, and the courts have found that it is not their role to second guess Congress’s intentions.
But the distinction may be moot. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry.
Zachriel: The court has already determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose. Indeed, legislation has already been proposed to address future conflicts of interest.
true enough as it pertains to the courts
I would only add that their ruling would have to survive the Supremes whom could bat theirs down as a gross misinterpretation
which wouldn’t surprised me at all considering how the liberals have used the district courts to try and stonewall Trump’s administration on… well every single thing
Zachriel: The courts don’t require actual legislation, but only that legislation could be had, and the courts have found that it is not their role to second guess Congress’s intentions.
again – the root basis of the Dems’ “intention” in this case is never specified
they are trying to use “impeachment” as a cover to gain access to information that has nothing to do with the Trump presidency
it is the whole Mueller probe in wanting a more expanded mandate, all over again, because the first two pony tricks didn’t work out
however this time around, Congress has a limited capacity to orchestrate such a move without judicial help
Zachriel: But the distinction may be moot. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry.
granted that is possible
however the Democrats are still going to have to make the case their investigation into this area of Trump’s life has merit to his public position
because otherwise you are creating a precedent where a sitting president can be called up for impeachment (which only requires a simple majority) and then probed in affairs long before he ever took up the office
—
now contrast this to when the Republicans used their subpoena power on the Obama administration, it was investigations directly associated with said administration
like Fast & Furious and the IRS targeting conservatives
another notable is Benghazi
fishstick: I know that statute also means written law – but in that case I just use the word LAW
That just makes your confusion worse. Per your usage, “law” means statutory law. But per that usage common law is not “law”.
Common law is law. Statutory law is law. They’re both law. However, the former is based on court precedents accumulated over time, while the latter is based on written laws as promulgated by a government.
We’ve provided definitions, including from Black’s Law Dictionary. Also see Statutory vs. Common Law
Zachriel: That just makes your confusion worse. Per your usage, “law” means statutory law. But per that usage common law is not “law”.
and the confusion is still all yours
statute has 2 definitions meaning written law or rule and procedure pertaining to the general
so when I use [statute], I refer to the latter
as when I refer to the former, I just type out the word [law]
it is not my fault you continue to muddle yourself on this issue
fishstick: their motion lacks any set predetermination outside of “just because”
The lower court determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose.
The brief provides numerous specifics.
fishstick: so when you claim the president is violating the emoluments clause, you should be atleast able to point out where this infraction occurred
The brief points to the Washington Trump Hotel, as well as his other hotels. Notably, Zelensky made a point of saying he had stayed at Trump Hotel, something which has become standard diplomatic protocol for world leaders.
In addition, his possible debts to foreign banks may create a conflict of interest, which is well within Congress’s legislative prerogative.
fishstick: remember, the House has to draft articles to impeach on and the Dems don’t even have the foundation of that yet
That is not correct. The Zelensky affair is a substantial foundation for impeachment. But perhaps impeachment is not warranted. That’s why you have an inquiry, to collect facts to make the determination.
fishstick: the root basis of the Dems’ “intention” in this case is never specified
While spelled out in their 69 page brief in the matter, that is no longer a relevant criteria, as there is now an official impeachment inquiry. Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry. Of course, they were hoping it wouldn’t come to that.
fishstick: because otherwise you are creating a precedent where a sitting president can be called up for impeachment (which only requires a simple majority) and then probed in affairs long before he ever took up the office
It has to do with conflicts of interest Trump carried into the White House, which is well within Congress’s legislative purpose.
fishstick: now contrast this to when the Republicans used their subpoena power on the Obama administration, it was investigations directly associated with said administration
The Zelensky affair is directly relevant to the conduct of the President, which is the basis of the impeachment inquiry.
Zachriel: The lower court determined there is a facially valid legislative purpose.
yeah those lower courts have tended to do that alot against this presidency
only for their rulings to fall flat when the Supremes step in
odd huh?
Zachriel: The brief points to the Washington Trump Hotel, as well as his other hotels. Notably, Zelensky made a point of saying he had stayed at Trump Hotel, something which has become standard diplomatic protocol for world leaders.
oh yeah, it sounds entirely plausible Trump is literally forcing all the world leaders to stay at a Trump Hotel or otherwise no diplomacy for you…
you really can’t be that naive to think that
Zachriel: In addition, his possible debts to foreign banks may create a conflict of interest, which is well within Congress’s legislative prerogative.
your whole sentence here reads like a conjecture argument to create an investigation where a crime is not apparent
like I typed before, you don’t get to create inquiries and get confidential and privileged info on “just because” arguments
you need actual articles to investigate and base suspicions don’t meet that threshold (or shouldn’t anyways)
Zachriel: That is not correct. The Zelensky affair is a substantial foundation for impeachment. But perhaps impeachment is not warranted. That’s why you have an inquiry, to collect facts to make the determination.
how so?
there is no foundation because both the transcript and complaint was already given forth
the fact the Dems can’t even rally behind a single motion here shows they are having a hard time trying to suss out a possible infraction for impeachment
cause really, what are they going to investigate here?
the Trump administration’s investigation of US corruption by the previous administration into foreign affairs relating to Ukraine?
Zachriel: While spelled out in their 69 page brief in the matter, that is no longer a relevant criteria, as there is now an official impeachment inquiry.
of course that is not entirely accurate as Speaker Pelosi actually changed the House rules, much like how the whistleblower rules, to allow for an impeachment proceeding without a floor vote
Zachriel: Trump’s own lawyers indicated in oral arguments that these limitations would not apply to an impeachment inquiry. Of course, they were hoping it wouldn’t come to that.
pretty sure the above will be pointed out in the new arguments
as the reason for Pelosi’s sly rule change prevents the minority party enforceable rights during the proceedings and thus framed around a highly partisan effort
Zachriel: It has to do with conflicts of interest Trump carried into the White House, which is well within Congress’s legislative purpose.
that is called conjecture as that argument is based upon an assumption you cannot prove
Zachriel: The Zelensky affair is directly relevant to the conduct of the President, which is the basis of the impeachment inquiry.
how so?
when the Dems have yet to flag a single impeachable offense Trump has supposedly had done
face it – the left is still looking for an article they can rush through the House that can atleast pass the smell test
but in the meantime, them Dems want access to Trump’s financials “just because, we’re Congress g-dammit!”
problem is – they have to go through the courts to get it because their own subpoena power can only get them so far because of that due process thingy
fishstick: statute has 2 definitions meaning written law or rule and procedure pertaining to the general
Pertaining to the general what? What’s interesting is that you use scare quotes where you don’t need them, but lack them where you do.
Mangling the definition doesn’t advance your argument. How many citations will it take? Did you even bother to read the article about the distinction between common law and statutory law? Maybe you are confusing statutory law with procedural law, contrasted to substantive law.
fishstick: only for their rulings to fall flat when the Supremes step in
The ruling appears to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent in that the subpoena is based on a legislative purpose, such as whether there should be new conflict of interest laws.
fishstick: it sounds entirely plausible Trump is literally forcing all the world leaders to stay at a Trump Hotel or otherwise no diplomacy for you
Enough of an inducement that Zelensky thought it proper to bring it up with Trump.
fishstick: your whole sentence here reads like a conjecture argument to create an investigation where a crime is not apparent
It doesn’t have to currently be a crime to be considered for legislation. Indeed, quite often not.
fishstick: that is called conjecture as that argument is based upon an assumption you cannot prove
You seem to be confusing a legislative inquiry with an accusation. The legislative inquiry is to determine whether or not there is a conflict, and whether or not legislation should be considered to address the issue.
Of course, all this is moot as they have moved onto an impeachment inquiry.
Zachriel: Pertaining to the general what? What’s interesting is that you use scare quotes where you don’t need them, but lack them where you do.
again you are confusing scare quotes as fake emphasis
Zachriel: Mangling the definition doesn’t advance your argument. How many citations will it take?
it isn’t mangling the definition when statute can mean literally rule or code of a law or procedure
you still have your panties in a bunch over a “word”
Zachriel: Did you even bother to read the article about the distinction between common law and statutory law? Maybe you are confusing statutory law with procedural law, contrasted to substantive law.
have you not even realized yet – it doesn’t even matter
the variance of law has no meaning in the context of how I am using “statute” here
Zachriel: The ruling appears to be consistent with Supreme Court precedent in that the subpoena is based on a legislative purpose, such as whether there should be new conflict of interest laws.
except the entire basis of the Dems’ cry of conflict of interest violations are based on conjecture
thing is they want Trump’s financials because they have no case right now
but it will ultimately be decided (Supreme) on whether these specific subpoenas will merit a valid legislative purpose
Zachriel: Enough of an inducement that Zelensky thought it proper to bring it up with Trump.
so you are naive enough to think that Zelensky staying at a Trump hotel amounts to some kind of criminal conspiracy?
you know my parents stayed at the Trump hotel in Vegas last year
perhaps they too are complicit in some “illegal activity”, eh?
Zachriel: It doesn’t have to currently be a crime to be considered for legislation. Indeed, quite often not.
what?
your argument has no factual premise
let me put it to you this way: what does the House intel committees (think) they have right now that would amount to obtaining investigative rights over mostly confidential information not associated with the Trump presidency
you see what I mean – there is no crime
them Dems are just hoping to find a crime with such an a levy of access to such privileged information
but there is nothing drafted that these committees can actually admit to which is why they are using conjecture, which really amounts to nothing more than opinion
Zachriel: You seem to be confusing a legislative inquiry with an accusation. The legislative inquiry is to determine whether or not there is a conflict, and whether or not legislation should be considered to address the issue.
but you need to have a form of levity within said inquiry to obtain such confidential information like this to serve some per-determined purpose or outset of grounds
the reason being so that it doesn’t look like the Dems are going on a massive fishing expedition into Trump’s financials over the past decade looking (and hoping) for a crime
otherwise Congress can just demand Trump for stuff and say, “our oversight power allows us access to anything in America! so you have to give it to us”
IT just doesn’t work that way
Zachriel: Of course, all this is moot as they have moved onto an impeachment inquiry.
however the argument above still holds water due to the nature of the information the Dems are demanding and their reasoning behind it
because them Dems still have no basis for drafting an actual article, don’t they?
remember when Clinton got “inquiried” – there were actual charges levied that were targeted by an independent counsel
and that only happened after Bill perjured himself after trying to delay a court case