Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Democrats Drag Rick Perry Into Impeachment Mess, Issue Subpoena

Democrats Drag Rick Perry Into Impeachment Mess, Issue Subpoena

“We gave recommendations at the request of the Ukrainian government and will continue to.”

Democrats have cast a wide net, hoping to find something, anything that will stick in their impeachment theater. Thursday, House Democrats issued a subpoena to Energy Secretary, Rick Perry.

From Politico:

House Democrats issued a subpoena to Energy Secretary Rick Perry as part of their ongoing impeachment inquiry.

The subpoena demands a series of documents related to Perry’s knowledge of President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Democrats also want information about U.S. officials’ potential efforts to make changes to the board of a Ukrainian state-owned gas company.

The subpoena has a deadline of Oct. 18.

Last week, political media reported Perry planned to resign his post as Energy Secretary ahead of official inclusion in the impeachment investigation. A few days ago, Perry denied those reports.

Politico again (different article):

Energy Secretary Rick Perry on Monday denied that he pressed the Ukrainian government to put two U.S. businessmen on the board of the state energy company or that he was planning to leave the Trump administration.

Perry’s comments at a press conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, come amid growing scrutiny into the Trump administration’s diplomacy in Ukraine, which has triggered a House impeachment inquiry into whether the president withheld aid to the country in exchange for a pledge from President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his son.

Perry acknowledged making the recommendations to Ukraine’s state-owned natural gas company Naftogaz, but said he did so only at the request of that country’s government. He also said it was “true” that he had pressed President Donald Trump to make the July call to Zelensky that is at the center of the impeachment inquiry.

“Absolutely, I asked the president multiple times, ‘Mr. President, we think it is in the United States’ and in Ukraine’s best interest that you and the president of Ukraine have conversations, that you discuss the options that are there,’” he said. Axios reported on Saturday that Trump told House Republicans he made the call at Perry’s request.

Perry also said he discussed the issue of corruption broadly with Zelensky and his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, but only as part of an effort to make the nation more appealing for energy investment opportunities. No public evidence has emerged to show that Perry asked Zelensky to investigate Biden and his son Hunter.

POLITICO was first to report about how Perry urged Ukranian officials to put the U.S. businessmen on the supervisory board of Naftogaz. An Associated Press story subsequently outlined similar allegations, though Perry steadfastly denied any impropriety.

“The idea that the AP story basically said that we said, ‘you put these people on there’ is just not correct. That was a totally dreamed-up story, best I can tell,” Perry said. “We gave recommendations at the request of the Ukrainian government and will continue to.”

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Was it served, or mailed?

    Tweeted.

    Voyager in reply to snowshooze. | October 10, 2019 at 5:38 pm

    At this point, does it matter? The Democrats have made it clear that they will not allow the defense to do discovery or cross examine witnesses or any of then other standards of law. Why should anyone respond to a subpoena that is clearly a Kafkatrap?

    The functioning of the rule of law is based on the premise that one will have the opportunity to defend oneself once within the court of law. When that basic standard has been stripped away, why should anyone put themselves within said court? If showing up merely gives your opponent physical possession of you, what is the value of showing up at all? Merely to make a martyr of oneself?

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Voyager. | October 10, 2019 at 5:45 pm

      RE: “Why should anyone respond to a subpoena that is clearly a Kafkatrap? ”

      They won’t.

      Besides all the DESPERATE DEMS “subpeonas” are FAKE!

      Voyager: The functioning of the rule of law is based on the premise that one will have the opportunity to defend oneself once within the court of law.

      An impeachment inquiry not a court of law. The House acts as prosecutors. The trial, if there is an impeachment, is conducted by the Senate.

    rabidfox in reply to snowshooze. | October 10, 2019 at 7:16 pm

    Makes no difference. This star chamber proceeding has no validity in law and they cannot compel witnesses.

      MattMusson in reply to rabidfox. | October 11, 2019 at 6:35 am

      Exactly. No matter what the news reports – it is NOT a subpoena. They do not have legal authority to issue a genuine subpoena.

      They have sent a letter with the word subpoena on it. Not the same thing.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to snowshooze. | October 10, 2019 at 8:44 pm

    Emailed. Through a server. ;-{)}}}

It’s not a subpoena.

legacyrepublican | October 10, 2019 at 6:01 pm

Ironically, Perry has been through the same anal examination here in TX. The crafty bunch in Harris County wanted him to answer for firing a drunk official who tried to use her status to get out of a DWI.

I remember they accused him of breaking the law for holding up legislation until she resigned.

He won in the end.

And, yes, it was a DEMONcrat led witch hunt too.

    Oh yeah, they even CHARGED HIM WITH A CRIME!!! They claimed he vetoed some funding for political reasons. Political prosecutor got a Grand Jury to indict him and everything. A lower judge refused to throw the case out, and it went to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the Supreme Court for Texas criminal cases) They threw the entire case out on the grounds that you cannot charge a Governor for doing something that he was legally authorized to do. In other words, they agreed, the entire case was purely political.

“The subpoena demands a series of documents related to Perry’s knowledge of President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.”

Documents? The whole world has read the phone call transcript. Besides, Trump already told Pelosi to eff off. The Executive branch ain’t playing this rigged game.

It’s not a subpoena, it’s not an impeachment, and it’s not a whistleblower. We apparently need to keep repeating those facts.

    alaskabob in reply to Dantzig93101. | October 10, 2019 at 6:23 pm

    Until the House votes formally to start impeachment proceedings these are only requests and have no subpoena power.

    You are absolutely correct!!

    Voyager in reply to Dantzig93101. | October 10, 2019 at 7:16 pm

    So I hope Jacobson can weigh in on this with a far more qualified legal analysis than mine is ever likely to be, but as I understand it, the only hard rules are that the House must pass a majority vote to send it to the Senate, and that the Senate must pass a 2/3 vote to remove the president.

    Everything else appears to be what ever rules the respective house selects for it. So, if the house goes by its current calvinball rules, there’s nothing but their own consciences to hold them back. Thing is, as near as I can tell their only enforcement power, beyond impeachment itself, is one guy, so all they can do is try to convince people to go along with them.

    I think that’s where this all breaks down into lunacy. No sane person would walk into such a blatant star chamber. Are they simply trying to convince a large enough majority that this is a fair process that they could do a removal or takeover both house and Senate? And if they do, do they genuinely think that they’ll convince a large enough super majority that there won’t be significant problems even if they do succeed?

    At some point people stop having something to lose worth keeping their heads down. If they won’t run an honest trial in the biggest stage in the world, why would anyone expect them to run an honest trial for an average nobody from suburbia?

      rabidfox in reply to Voyager. | October 10, 2019 at 7:20 pm

      As I understand it, the HOUSE must vote to begin the investigation. The Speaker apparently does not have the authority to begin an investigation of the Administrative Branch all on her own. Only the vote from the entire House can initiate that authority.

        Voyager in reply to rabidfox. | October 10, 2019 at 7:48 pm

        Well, after going through the Constitution, the only thing it says about the House is that they must vote to send it to the Senate. It doesn’t really cover anything else.

        I think the thing about the House voting to start their debate was just convention or House rules, and the House decides how those get changed. Without having read through the House rules for this Congress, it’s quite possible for them to have set up a rule that lets them issue subpoenas for impeachment investigation like things without having held a vote.

        But because as I understand it, impeachment is a purely political decision, rather than a legal one, I don’t believe there are the usual enforcement mechanisms associated with it.

          lgbmiel in reply to Voyager. | October 11, 2019 at 10:34 am

          The Constitution says the House has the power to impeach. The entire House, not just the Speaker or some of the House.

          There must be a vote of the whole chamber before any impeachment inquiry is legal and valid.

        Milhouse in reply to rabidfox. | October 11, 2019 at 8:22 am

        Voyager is correct. There is no such requirement. Never has been. Those claiming there is one are pulling it out of their rear ends.

        Legally these subpoenas are valid, and those defying them are breaking the law. But the chances of them being prosecuted for it are slim to none, and in this case they’re doing the right thing. The process is contemptible and should be treated that way.

          ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 10:31 am

          Are you saying that the Democrat caucus has subpoena power? The House of Representatives certainly does, but the Democrat caucus? They can do this without it being the business of the House?

          lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 10:32 am

          Wrong. The House has the power to impeach. The entire House. Not just the Speaker, or some of the House. The entire House. That’s what the Constitution says.

          There has to be a vote of the entire chamber before any subpoenas are valid.

          These are request letters, not subpoenas.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 5:39 pm

          No, the Democrat caucus has no subpoena power and is not issuing subpoenas. Lgbmiel, as usual, is full of sh*t. No committee is proposing to impeach the president. Any impeachment vote will of course go to the full house. But congressional committees have subpoena power.

          lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 9:55 pm

          Awwww…Milhouse….poor baby.

          In impeachment, only the judiciary committee has the power to issue subpoenas. They only gain the authority after the entire chamber has voted to open an impeachment inquiry/investigation.

          Impeachment is much different than the ‘regular’ House business.

          I think you need a refresher course on this.

          Barry in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 11:27 pm

          “Legally these subpoenas are valid…”

          No, they are not. They are not subpoenas and they cannot be enforced as such.

          As usual, you’re so wrong it is painful.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 13, 2019 at 1:31 am

          And lgbmiel continues to be full of sh*t.

          In impeachment, only the judiciary committee has the power to issue subpoenas.

          Liar.

          They only gain the authority after the entire chamber has voted to open an impeachment inquiry/investigation.

          Liar.

          Impeachment is much different than the ‘regular’ House business.

          Liar.

          You have no basis for any of those assertions, and made them up out of your own diseased imagination.

          Barry:

          No, they are not. They are not subpoenas and they cannot be enforced as such.

          You’re a liar too. They are subpoenas and they can be enforced as much as any congressional committee’s subpoenas can be. If someone fails to appear the committee can vote to refer them to the full house for a contempt vote, and if that passes Pelosi will refer them to the US Attorney for DC for prosecution, and the USA will send it to the circular file.

He was a very good governor who will acquit himself well on the platform they provide raising his national profile.

    rabidfox in reply to dunce1239. | October 10, 2019 at 7:22 pm

    Ha! All questioning is done behind closed doors with only one republican there as a witness. The dems will leak whatever they want to from his testimony to make him and the President look bad. THIS is why Nasty Pelosi didn’t want any formal impeachment hearings which would be held publicly among other protections given to the accused.

2smartforlibs | October 10, 2019 at 6:47 pm

Does this clown show never end

Is it a subpoena or just a “we would really like it if you would…” letter?

And it will be hidden with leaks since he might just say “Oh, we discussed how corrupt the Bidens were, and how much was paid to the Clinton Foundation and how people there were going to prison and how we seem stupid or corrupt for not throwing our oligarchs in prison…”

    rabidfox in reply to tz. | October 10, 2019 at 7:24 pm

    Not a subpoena. The House doesn’t have authority to issue a subpoena without an full House vote authorizing the investigation. The courts already told Nadler to pound sand on this issue.

Democrats have always made the mistake of assuming Rick Perry is a dolt because that was the portrayal of the MSM. He is anything but.

So it’s more like a “subpoena” than it is an actual subpoena.

That was not a subpoena. Just a letter identifying itself as a subpoena.

Kemberlee is addicted to Fake News. Why not post the letter instead of Politico’s version of it?

rabid fox: This star chamber proceeding has no validity in law and they cannot compel witnesses.

MattMussen: They have sent a letter with the word subpoena on it. Not the same thing.

Pasadena Phil: It’s not a subpoena.

Dantzig93101: It’s not a subpoena

alaskabob: Until the House votes formally to start impeachment proceedings these are only requests and have no subpoena power.

cucha: That was not a subpoena.

The Congress has both statutory (2 U.S. Code § 192) and inherent power (McGrain v. Daugherty) to issue subpoenas. Ordinarily, a congressional subpoena has to be related to oversight or have a legislative purpose, though the courts have an expansive view of what constitutes oversight and legislative purpose. However, this limitation doesn’t apply during an impeachment inquiry.

The President could invoke executive privilege, but this is a weak protection, and can be pierced when there is evidence of wrongdoing. Invoking executive privilege will send it to the courts for adjudication, where it could delay the process for weeks or months. The courts have made clear that the other branches should negotiate in good faith to resolve issues of executive privilege. Also, Congress wants to reach a speedy resolution of the issue.

But that’s not what the White House has done. They have refused to cooperate at all, and have decided to ignore congressional subpoenas entirely. That is the very definition of lawlessness.

    ss396 in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2019 at 10:36 am

    So far this is not the business of the House, it is only the proceedings of the Democrat caucus. The Democrat caucus does not have the powers and authorities of the House. Bring it to the floor and even if every Republican votes against it, it will properly be the business of the House. Until then, it is chattering within and among a social club.

      Dr S in reply to ss396. | October 11, 2019 at 1:31 pm

      “So far this is not the business of the House, it is only the proceedings of the Democrat caucus.”

      This is the perspective that makes the most sense to me. Are the subpoenas valid? Without the inclusion of the minority party (more than the token single observer) in the hearings and cross examination then the subpoenas are coming from only part of the House.

      What are the laws regarding congressional subpoenas? I can’t find direct reference in article I of the constitution.

      ss396: So far this is not the business of the House, it is only the proceedings of the Democrat caucus.

      A majority of the members of the House of Representatives approved House rules at the beginning of the session. Those rules gives power to the committees to act on behalf of the House, including the power to issue subpoenas. There are limitations, some of which are discussed above.

      ss396: What are the laws regarding congressional subpoenas?

      The Congress has both statutory (2 U.S. Code § 192) and inherent power (McGrain v. Daugherty) to issue subpoenas.

    lgbmiel in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2019 at 10:39 am

    And you’re wrong. Only the entire House has the power to impeach. Not just the Speaker or some of the House.

    There must be a chamber vote in order for the House to issue legal and valid subpoenas for an impeachment inquiry.

    The entire House has to be involved – all the members must be consulted.

      Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | October 11, 2019 at 5:40 pm

      That is utter bullcr*p. You have no basis for it at all, except wishful thinking.

        lgbmiel in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 9:50 pm

        Of course I have basis for it. It’s called the Constitution.

        There’s also the little matter of a SCOTUS case.

        I know you are dismissive of the Conservative Treehouse — probably cause you got banned by Sundance for your obnoxiousness. However, you should read this…

        https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/10/another-day-another-phony-subpoena-impeachment-narrative-rick-perry-edition/

        FTA —

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

        The committees are issuing request letters only.

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

          That makes no sense. There is no “Judiciary Committee” in the Constitution. It’s a creation of the House of Representatives by a vote of the majority of the members, and can be changed anytime they want in any way they want by a vote of the majority of the members.

          The House can assign the power of subpoena in whatsoever way they want. They can assign the power to enforce a subpoena to the Sergeant at Arms, if they so choose. And they can exercise the power of impeachment according to whatever rules they choose, including how an impeachment investigation begins.

          Most congressional subpoenas require a “legitimate legislative purpose”, which the courts have interpreted very broadly. What an impeachment inquiry does is eliminate this requirement. However, subpoenas still have to have a legitimate judicial purpose. Even then, executive privilege still applies, as the Supreme Court said in United States v. Nixon.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 11:15 am

          Hey Zach.

          Maybe try reading the articles I linked to. Sundance explains it better than I could.

          The House must hold a vote of the entire chamber to give it the authority to pierce through the firewall of the separation of powers and executive privilege with subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry.

          Makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunate that you don’t understand.

          lgbmiel: The House must hold a vote of the entire chamber to give it the authority to pierce through the firewall of the separation of powers and executive privilege with subpoenas in an impeachment inquiry.

          No. The majority of the House has to approve its rules. If the majority votes to give the House Committee on Postage Stamps the power to begin an impeachment inquiry, then that is the will of the House. No court will say otherwise, that is, no court will tell the House how to conduct its own business.

          A judicial purpose does not eliminate executive privilege, as the Supreme Court said in United States v. Nixon. Rather, an impeachment inquiry eliminates the need to show a “legitimate legislative purpose”. But there still has to be a legitimate judicial purpose.

          lgbmiel: Maybe try reading the articles I linked to.

          We did. Now read our counterargument. There is nothing special about the Judiciary Committee. It could be the Committee on Friday Night Blogging. It could consist of only the most junior member of the House. There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about House committees. That’s just how the House has decided to go about its business.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 12:15 pm

          I’m not interested in your counter argument.

          You think this is a debate. No.

          Milhouse in reply to lgbmiel. | October 13, 2019 at 1:40 am

          And you continue to be full of sh*t. Nothing you have written bears any resemblance at all to reality. And you continue to lie through you’re f*cking teeth. I have never been banned by “sundance”, who is as full of sh*t as you are. CTH is the site that made up the crazy idea that skittles and watermelon-flavored Arizona iced tea are the ingredients of “lean”, and also the idea that Jenteal’s reference to Zimmerman as a “crazy ass cracker” was somehow a homophobic slur. It’s a worthless trash site and only worthless trash people like you frequent it.

          There are so many things wrong with that article, but let’s start with this:

          Absent the creation of judicial authority the House has not created a penalty for non-compliance.

          That is simply incorrect. The Congress has both statutory (2 U.S. Code § 192) and inherent power (McGrain v. Daugherty) to issue subpoenas. However, the courts have ruled that congressional subpoenas must generally have a “legitimate legislative purpose”. But they are fully enforceable otherwise, given certain exceptions, such as for executive privilege (weak) and Fifth Amendment protections (strong).

          What an impeachment inquiry does is simply eliminate the requirement for a legislative purpose, but instead the subpoena must have a legitimate judicial purpose. The protections for executive privilege and Fifth Amendment protections remain, and courts can intervene to protect these and other rights.

          Even if Congress were to enforce inherent subpoena, the person detained can apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 12:21 pm

          Like I said. This isn’t a debate.

          I’m not interested in one of your long, drawn-out, back and forth, repetitive threads.

          If you want to argue, go argue on the Treehouse.

          You have your opinion based on certain things; I have mine.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 12:26 pm

          Let me add one thing, Zach.

          You are arguing about the process after an impeachment inquiry has been authorized.

          I’m saying no inquiry has been authorized, yet.

          I’m not going to debate the process when there’s no agreement that this is legitimate. Waste of time.

          lgbmiel: I’m saying no inquiry has been authorized, yet.

          The majority of the House has to approve its rules. If the majority votes to give the House Committee on Postage Stamps the power to begin an impeachment inquiry, then that is the will of the House.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 1:18 pm

          That is your opinion that the House can vote to give the authority to begin an impeachment inquiry to a committee.

          Your opinion is based on things.

          I believe something quite different. That belief is based on different things.

          I am not going to debate opinion.

          lgbmiel: That is your opinion that the House can vote to give the authority to begin an impeachment inquiry to a committee.

          We provided a reasoned argument, one for which we have marshaled evidence to support our position. We pointed to statutory and inherent congressional subpoena authority, providing citations. We pointed out that a judicial warrant is still subject to executive privilege, and provided a citation. And we referred to the U.S. Constitution concerning the lack of constitutional language regarding how the House should order its business, including committees.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 1:44 pm

          No. You have not. You only think you have. That’s where the opinion part comes in.

          I don’t find your argument convincing at all. I don’t even think you are making the right arguments.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 1:49 pm

          P.S. ‘Zach’…who is ‘we?’

          lbgmiel: You only think you have.

          We directly addressed the points raised, providing reasoned arguments with citations. You have responded “This isn’t a debate,” and “Is not!”

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 2:02 pm

          This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. A pointless, drawn-out thread that goes nowhere.

          What you have provided does not address the fact that impeachment is different. All you have provided are citations for regular House business.

          The Constitution says the House. It doesn’t say the Speaker may begin an impeachment inquiry nor does it say a committee may do so.

          Impeachment requires the entire House be consulted first. The House can’t make rules to circumvent that.

          Impeachment involves an entirely different branch of the government than the House. A branch with its own powers and protections.

          Stop acting like this is just a piece of legislation.

          Nothing you have provided has come close to supporting your position.

          lgbmiel: This is exactly what I wanted to avoid. A pointless, drawn-out thread that goes nowhere.

          To be clear, you made several posts that you weren’t going to argue, then capped it off by saying “Is not!”

          lgbmiel: What you have provided does not address the fact that impeachment is different.

          We have addressed how impeachment is different and how it is the same, providing citations. An impeachment inquiry allows congressional subpoenas for legitimate judicial purposes (difference), but executive privilege still pertains (same).

          Another claim was that under the Constitution only the Judiciary Committee can have judicial subpoena power, which is clearly false, as the Constitution doesn’t instruct the House on how to order its business regarding committees or any other matter. Rules are passed by a majority of its members, and committees have long had the power of subpoena. If the rules give the power to investigate a civil officer to the Committee on Circumlocution, then that is the will of the House.

          lgbmiel</b.: Impeachment requires the entire House be consulted first. The House can’t make rules to circumvent that.

          In the three previous instances of judicial impeachments, however,

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

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 2:46 pm

          Another claim was that under the Constitution only the Judiciary Committee can have judicial subpoena power

          Hahaha. I never said that. That was a court ruling and that’s not what the ruling said.

          The ruling said if the entire House votes to begin an impeachment inquiry, only the judiciary committee had the authority to issue subpoenas related to the impeachment.

          Again, who is we????

          I’ve already said that you thinking you have addressed the points is merely your opinion. I don’t agree. That’s how opinion works.

          Now we are debating about not debating.

          Why don’t you and whomever this ‘we’ is go and have a conversation amongst yourselves.

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 2:52 pm

          Judicial impeachments. The executive holds all the power of the executive branch and it is quite different. The executive has different powers and protections than a judge.

          lgbmiel: The ruling said if the entire House votes to begin an impeachment inquiry, only the judiciary committee had the authority to issue subpoenas related to the impeachment.

          Yes, that was the claim. But the claim is false because the Constitution has no say on how the House of Representatives organizes itself, how it will distribute power among committees, or even if it will have committees. What makes you think that the Judiciary Committee has a unique constitutional role (as opposed to a role assigned to it by the House rules, which have been passed by a majority of the members of the House)?

          lgbmiel: The executive has different powers and protections than a judge.

          How are the protections different? And on basis do you make the claim?

          lgbmiel in reply to lgbmiel. | October 12, 2019 at 3:31 pm

          Answer my question.

    Voyager in reply to Zachriel. | October 11, 2019 at 11:19 am

    I think the legal question is what actually defines an Impeachment Inquiry in the current house code. As near as I can tell, no one has actually articulated that.

    To view it from the other side, the way the impeachment inquiry is being conducted, by denying the right to discovery and the right to know your accuser, is also the very definition of lawlessness. To comply with a lawless order is in itself to condone lawlessness too.

      Voyager: I think the legal question is what actually defines an Impeachment Inquiry in the current house code.

      The rules of the House of Representatives allow a member to submit a resolution for an inquiry (referred to the Rules Committee) or a call for impeachment (referred to the Judiciary Committee). It would not be practical to have every such resolution be put to a vote of the entire body before it has been vetted by the committee process. The rules then allow the committee to issue subpoenas in the name of the House.

      Impeachment inquiries have often started in committee, such as with Judge Thomas Porteous, whose case was referred to committee in 2008 by none other than Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House.

    “However, this limitation doesn’t apply during an impeachment inquiry.”

    This is NOT an impeachment inquiry. It is an extra-constitutional abuse of power by members of one party, many of whom are chairpersons of committees that have no special powers to investigating outside of their purview. Mad Max chairs the House Banking Committee e.g. What authorizes her to “subpoena” witnesses to report to her committee to address…. what? There are no charges. This is a witch hunt being conducted by criminals looking for a crime to prosecute. It’s total BS.

      Pasadena Phil: Mad Max chairs the House Banking Committee e.g. What authorizes her to “subpoena” witnesses to report to her committee to address

      The rules of the House of Representatives approved by a majority of the members.

Trump is taking the right approach to this. The House is within its rights to stage this circus, but he is within his rights not to cooperate. Those defying subpoenas at his direction may be technically breaking the law, but if so it’s a law that needs to be broken. And the DC US Attorney, whose job it is to prosecute contempt of congress charges, works for Trump and can be directed not to prosecute, just as 0bama’s US Attorney refused to prosecute Holder.

    Voyager in reply to Milhouse. | October 11, 2019 at 11:22 am

    And that’s the big question I hope someone with a solid legal background can answer: what are the actual laws here? As near as I can tell there are not any.

    If there are no laws, we need to know that. If there are laws in force, we need to know that. This game of Calvinball just hurts all of us.

      Voyager: And that’s the big question I hope someone with a solid legal background can answer: what are the actual laws here?

      The Congress has both statutory (2 U.S. Code § 192) and inherent power (McGrain v. Daugherty) to issue subpoenas.

      But to address Milhouse’s point, the Justice Department will probably not enforce the statute, but the courts can issue an order. If upheld on appeal, then continued refusal could result in judicial contempt.

        Milhouse in reply to Zachriel. | October 13, 2019 at 1:45 am

        Which the DOJ can (and should) still refuse to prosecute, and we’re back to step 1.

          Milhouse: Which the DOJ can (and should) still refuse to prosecute, and we’re back to step 1.

          Contempt of Court is subject to judicial punishment. It’s an inherent power, and doesn’t require prosecution by the executive branch. The person does have the right of appeal, but if upheld, then the person in contempt can be fined, imprisoned, or subject to some other sanction.

          Contempt can be civil or criminal.

          Civil contempt is when the court coerces compliance with a legal court order, and does not require a jury trial or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s because the person being coerced has the “keys to their own jail house.” They just have to comply with the court order. They can, of course, file for a writ of habeas corpus. A famous case of civil contempt was Bill Clinton who was found to have “deliberately violated this court’s discovery orders and deliberately undermined the integrity of the judicial system”.

          Criminal contempt does require a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the federal court system, if the government won’t prosecute the criminal contempt, then the judge must appoint another attorney. See Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

There is no constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch cooperates with the House on impeachment. NONE.

gwsjr425: There is no constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch cooperates with the House on impeachment.

The Congress has the power to subpoena persons and documents from the executive branch. Executive privilege has been upheld by the courts, but can be pierced when there is evidence of wrongdoing or a significant public need to know. The courts have also urged the other branches to negotiate in good faith. A blanket refusal to cooperate is not negotiating in good faith.

I’m gonna put this here for Milhouse and Zach and his ‘we’ and ‘our.’

Article I Section 2 clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Constitution delegates the power of impeachment to all the members of the House. That delegation of power cannot be negated by House rules — no matter who votes for them.

The authority to have a say in whether or not an impeachment inquiry happens is decided by the Constitution, not partisan politicians.

    lgbmiel: The Constitution delegates the power of impeachment to all the members of the House. That delegation of power cannot be negated by House rules — no matter who votes for them.

    Impeachment must be voted on by the entire body of the House of Representatives, however, an impeachment inquiry, under the current rules, is assigned to either the Rules Committee or the Judiciary Committee.

    lgbmiel: The authority to have a say in whether or not an impeachment inquiry happens is decided by the Constitution, not partisan politicians.

    How an impeachment inquiry occurs is up to the House of Representatives. The Houses rules specify when an impeachment inquiry occurs, and how it is to proceed. Are you claiming the House can’t have a committee conduct an impeachment inquiry? It’s not as if it has never happened before.

And you continue to be full of sh*t. Nothing you have written bears any resemblance at all to reality. And you continue to lie through you’re f*cking teeth. I have never been banned by “sundance”, who is as full of sh*t as you are. CTH is the site that made up the crazy idea that skittles and watermelon-flavored Arizona iced tea are the ingredients of “lean”, and also the idea that Jenteal’s reference to Zimmerman as a “crazy ass cracker” was somehow a homophobic slur. It’s a worthless trash site and only worthless trash people like you frequent it.

Wooo a little idle speculation and you are frothing at the mouth. Quite the anger problem you have there, Millie.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend