It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Trump’s EU ambassador ordered to not give deposition

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

Ah, channeling the Founding Fathers now, eh? Tell Tommy Jefferson I said "Hello"?

TheRedneck




posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

I repeat:

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

Exactly which word is giving you trouble?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:01 PM
link   
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris



I repeat:
Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.




Exactly which word is giving you trouble?

TheRedneck


None. Those words are clear. It is your false spin on those words that trouble me:


"That means the chairman can unilaterally issue a subpoena, but a full vote by the House is still required to enforce it... which is exactly what President Trump is demanding happen."


"Authorized" by the House of representatives does not mean "full vote".
"Directed" does not mean "full vote".

No where in that passage does it speak of voting by the house, not majority vote, not 2/3rds, not ANY vote required.

You made that part up.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

So is it your informed opinion that a single member of the House can speak for the entire House?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Extorris

So is it your informed opinion that a single member of the House can speak for the entire House?

TheRedneck


It is my informed opinion that Committees are empowered by the House to issue and enforce Subpoenas.

A reality that was unanimously acknowledged and often cheered by the right-wing (including on ATS) when they were investigating the last administration.

Don't take my word for it.

Ask Trey Gowdy or Lindsay Graham..
The sound awfully passionate about the issue.

www.rollingstone.com...



Trey Gowdy:

"The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
edit on 9-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



A) Where is the evidence they were investigating Hunter Biden in Feb?


www.foxnews.com...



Holy crap.

You mean THIS guy? On HANNITY?

John Solomon foisted a bogus story on Fox News viewers. His punishment? A contract.
www.washingtonpost.com...

He is a one man BS factory. Remember when he said the IG report was going to recommend Comey go to jail?

He is literally working with Rudy to construct Biden Conspiracy theories.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Extorris


It is my informed opinion that Committees are empowered by the House to issue and enforce Subpoenas.

Really?

Read it again.

Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee under subparagraph (1)(B) may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House.

"...may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House."

Why, pray tell, is that line in there if all subpoenas are already authorized to be enforced by the House?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm no lawyer, but I just don't think that says what you think it says.

No one is really seriously arguing that. Even the most conservative sites and their scathing reviews of the Democrat's impeachment process admit Pelosi doesn't have to take a vote.


A formal vote to initiate an “impeachment inquiry” is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now.



Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection.

theconservativetreehouse.com...< br />
IIt's hard to believe that none of these legal scholars read that line in the rules the way you do.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha


Even the most conservative sites and their scathing reviews of the Democrat's impeachment process admit Pelosi doesn't have to take a vote.

See, there is where I lose you... I do not care whether a source is conservative or liberal; is it accurate? That's all I care about.

In this case, I am quoting the line exactly as it appears in the official House rules. Exactly. I have not even left out any context; I quoted the whole subparagraph. Now, you can probably find a lawyer to argue that all grass is pink. I will still believe it is green, whether your lawyer thinks so or not.

Three times I have posted that excerpt. Every time it says the same thing: "Compliance with a subpoena issued by a committee or sub-committee ... may be enforced only as authorized or directed by the House." Who is the House? The House is 435 Representatives from districts across the United States. A subpoena from a committee or subcommittee may be enforced... note that it doesn't say issued; it says enforced... ONLY, as in no other way... as authorized or directed by the House... not the Speaker of the House, not the Honorable Congressman from Kansas, not a group of Representatives... the House, as in 435 different members.

Now, Extorris is right; it doesn't say a vote has to happen. Maybe he or you know of another way to have all 435 Congressmen in the House weigh in on authorization; I have never seen an action pass the House, even a non-binding Resolution, which did not get voted on. That's how the House works.

According to that, Adam Schiff, as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has broad power to issue subpoenas as he sees fit, in accordance with House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and 2(m)(3). Yes, they say he can do that. Enforcement of those subpoenas must be as authorized or directed by the House. That can be done by taking a vote to commence an official impeachment inquiry, where the House authorizes subpoenas concerning the investigation, or it can be done one at a time with individual votes. But it has to be done, or the subpoena is no more than a request. Nancy Pelosi can't authorize it, because she is not the House. She is the Speaker of the House and represents one single Congressional district.

Why even argue over this is my question. Would it not be easier for Pelosi to just hold a vote making the investigation official and at the same time authorizing enforcement of all subpoenas? That's how it was done with Nixon; that's how it was done with Clinton. Why can it not be done that way with Trump? What are they trying to pull?

That's a rhetorical question, by the way.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Now, Extorris is right; it doesn't say a vote has to happen. Maybe he or you know of another way to have all 435 Congressmen in the House weigh in on authorization


Maybe through the rules?

I'm just not hearing this argument any where else. Pretty much all the talking head legal scholars are agreeing that Pelosi doesn't have to hold an inquiry vote, then they debate why she should or shouldn't.



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I linked the rules... that's all of them. Feel free to look. I saw nothing about authorization to enforce a subpoena except what I quoted. If you can show me something in the rules that says what you are claiming, I'll be happy to accept it.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 9 2019 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I linked the rules... that's all of them.


You linked a "survey". crsreports.congress.gov...

Here are the rules: clerk.house.gov... (ETA: I see that you have also linked these rules. Ooops My bad)

They're complicated and the segment you're referring to, in Rule XI, Clause 2, also refers to Rule X and Rule XII.

I don't pretend to understand them. Like I said, I just don't see anyone arguing that particular clause. Maybe Gowdy will.


edit on 9-10-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hahaha, I linked the entire path I took to find them.

Bottom line is that the rules as I excerpted indicate that the House itself, not the committee and not the Chairman of that committee, has to approve enforcement. It is possible there is another rule in there that says different, but I read the entirety of House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and 2(m)(3). The survey you mention (which was the source for the editorial article you initially linked, which is how I found it), identified House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and 2(m)(3) as the rules that Schiff is operating under. The rule I pointed out was in House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3).

I will say this: If, as you claim, Adam Schiff can issue a subpoena and enforce it all by himself, Adam Schiff is above the law. He has the power, if that is true, to imprison anyone he wants any time he wants, without oversight by anyone else. That is not how the legal system in the USA works. All he needs to do is send out a subpoena for a made-up reason asking for information that does not exist, and then imprison his target since they do not produce that which does not exist. That is how things worked in Communist Russia. That is how things work in Iran. That is not how things work in the United States, and those rules need to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The difference between a lawyer and everyone else is that the lawyers are able to dig up rules and laws that the rest of us don't have imprinted in our brains. Anyone can read a law... just break it down into individual phrases. It's not easy, but it is possible. For example, the two big issues I have participated in discussion on lately are immigration and the Emergency Powers Act. I took the time to look up the law on them, and I know know that immigration law is codified in the section around 8 USC §1325 and the Emergency Powers Act is around 50 USC §1631. A lawyer would have already known those codes; I had to look them up.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Now, Extorris is right; it doesn't say a vote has to happen. Maybe he or you know of another way to have all 435 Congressmen in the House weigh in on authorization;


Again, you are inserting language.

"Authorized or Directed by the house" does NOT EQUAL "all 435 Congressmen".

Your answer is in the same Doc. It must be signed by the Speaker of the House. Seal of the House affixed etc. etc.



4. The Speaker shall sign all acts and joint resolutions passed by the two Houses and all writs, warrants, and subpoenas of, or issued by order of, the House.




(d)(1) The Clerk shall attest and affix
the seal of the House to all writs, warrants, and subpoenas issued




edit on 10-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris



Remember when he said the IG report was going to recommend Comey go to jail?

he was right
the ig recommended charges
the doj declined

aside from that he has produced documents that show an investigation was going on in feb of 19
trump asking the new president about the status of an ongoing investigation is not trump asking the new president to start an investigation

the house of cards has fallen for this event



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris



Remember when he said the IG report was going to recommend Comey go to jail?

he was right
the ig recommended charges
the doj declined



No it did not.

Inspector general finds James Comey did not release classified information to the public
www.cbsnews.com...

the inspector general did not make recommendations on whether the former top government official should face any charges
thehill.com...

* You seem to have fallen prey to the propaganda of the source you are defending.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris

is that the same hill that everyone says is fake because of Solomon??

that hill??

Just asking.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Extorris
npr perhaps?

www.npr.org...



DOJ: Comey Violated Policy On His Trump Memos — But Won't Be Prosecuted




Former FBI Director James Comey violated official policy in the way he handled his memos describing his exchanges with President Trump, an investigation concluded — but Comey won't be charged.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz conducted the investigation into Comey's actions and then referred his results to prosecutors. "After reviewing the matter, the DOJ declined prosecution," the inspector general's office said in a statement on Thursday.
Investigators concluded that Comey broke several rules.

The ig presented crimes.
The doj declined prosecution.

pretty simple
and solomon was accurtate



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
npr perhaps?

www.npr.org...



DOJ: Comey Violated Policy On His Trump Memos — But Won't Be Prosecuted




Former FBI Director James Comey violated official policy in the way he handled his memos describing his exchanges with President Trump, an investigation concluded — but Comey won't be charged.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz conducted the investigation into Comey's actions and then referred his results to prosecutors. "After reviewing the matter, the DOJ declined prosecution," the inspector general's office said in a statement on Thursday.
Investigators concluded that Comey broke several rules.

The ig presented crimes.
The doj declined prosecution.

pretty simple
and solomon was accurtate




I think the conversation has exhausted it's utility when you choose to be this dishonest.

These facts are true:

The IG Report said Comey broke policy
Policy is not law and not following policy is not a crime
The IG determined Comey broke no laws
The IG made no Recommendation for prosecution
Either did AG Barr and DOJ

The IG did not present ANY crimes What-So-Ever by Comey.

The idea that you would continue to claim that speaks to dishonest intent.

Your source lied.

You echo that lie despite debunking.

edit on 10-10-2019 by Extorris because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

is that the same hill that everyone says is fake because of Solomon??

that hill??



Solomon no longer works there for a reason.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join