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 Stonewalling of Impeachment Inquiry Is an Impeachable Offense

page: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody




"officially" the subpoenas they issue for such are not worth the paper printed on


Why exactly? Why does the Executive Branch have the right to ignore congressional subpoenas?


current legal precedent says yes, without a floor vote
tho they may attempt to enforce the subpoenas through the sergeant at arms, or doj
neither of which seem likely




posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
"The Constitution."

Citation please?

Objection: asked, and answered...

Oh never mind, here, take the red pill...

Article I, Section II, Clause VI

"The House of Representatives shall ... have the sole Power of Impeachment."

It doesn't say the Speaker of the House, or some Committee that didn't even exist at the time. It says 'The House'... meaning, the WHOLE House.

There is no other possible meaning.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




current legal precedent says yes, without a floor vote


There is no precedent. The House rules under the Nixon impeachment were different that the House rules under the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans changed the House rules again in 2012, that allowed committee chairs unilateral subpoena authority, without needing floor votes. The rules have been consistently inconsistent when it comes to how the US has conducted impeachments in the past.

There are arguments why a vote should be held anyway, but there is no legal imperative that they do.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

as far as i know the saa has no power other than in the house nor does his counter part in the senate. and all the house or the senate can do is request That the DOJ do something. the decision is up to Attorney General, and it is doubtful that he would act without talking to the President



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

This isn't "impeachment" YET. It's an inquiry, an inquiry of the Executive Branch and the President himself, therefore an "impeachment inquiry". Once the committees investigate the evidence, they will drop Articles of Impeachment for the entire body of The House to vote on.

Once "The House" has voted affirmatively on the articles of impeachment, then you have an "impeachment". Then the president will be officially impeached by The House.

Then the charges, The Articles of Impeachment, go to the Senate for Trial. The Senate will decide whether or not the charges rise to "high crimes and misdemeanors" and removal from office.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody




current legal precedent says yes, without a floor vote


There is no precedent. The House rules under the Nixon impeachment were different that the House rules under the Clinton impeachment. The Republicans changed the House rules again in 2012, that allowed committee chairs unilateral subpoena authority, without needing floor votes. The rules have been consistently inconsistent when it comes to how the US has conducted impeachments in the past.

There are arguments why a vote should be held anyway, but there is no legal imperative that they do.


Then they can send it to the Supreme Court. They can not override the executive branch because they are having a hissy fit.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha



There is no precedent.

oh but there actually is
the precedent has nothing to do with the house rules

this is a pdf
www.theusconstitution.org...


One important caveat regarding the House’s power to enforce subpoenas through civil suit is that under existing precedent, authorizations for such suits may not be initiated solely by individual legislators or legislative committees. In a 2006 case, minority members of the House Government Reform Committee sought a court order granting them access to certain records at the Department of Health and Human Services.117 The court held that the Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. County Commissioners—which held that Senators could not bring suit to enforce a subpoena unless the full Senate specifically authorized them to sue118—“put Congress on notice that it was necessary to make authorization to sue to enforce investigatory demands explicit if it wished to ensure that such power existed.” 119 In short, following the district court decisions described above, “it appears that all that is legally required for House committees, the House general counsel, or a House-retained private counsel to seek civil enforcement of subpoenas or other orders is that authorization be granted by resolution of the full House.”120 This power is sure to be a critical aspect of the House’s ability to enforce subpoenas and, more broadly, its ability to fulfill its right to effectively investigate.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: shooterbrody

as far as i know the saa has no power other than in the house nor does his counter part in the senate. and all the house or the senate can do is request That the DOJ do something. the decision is up to Attorney General, and it is doubtful that he would act without talking to the President




constitutioncenter.org...


The third type of contempt power—Congress’s dormant inherent contempt power—is rarely used in modern times. Inherent contempt was the mode employed by Congress to directly enforce contempt rulings under its own constitutional authority until criminal and civil contempt statutes were passed, and it remained in use into the twentieth century. Under inherent contempt proceedings, the House or Senate has its Sergeant-At-Arms, or deputy, take a person into custody for proceedings to be held in Congress.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody




Supreme Court’s decision in Reed v. County Commissioners


Really?


U.S. Supreme Court
Reed v. County Commissioners, 277 U.S. 376 (1928)
Reed v. County Commissioners
of Delaware County, Pennsylvania
No. 744
Argued and submitted April 25, 26, 30, 1928
Decided May 28, 1928


Like I said, the congressional rules have changed since then.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Then they can send it to the Supreme Court.


Can they? What would that brief look like?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha
and I showed you what the current legal precedent is
according to this lady
www.huffpost.com...



Brianne was an Attorney-Adviser in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. She also served as a law clerk for Justice Stephen Breyer on the U.S. Supreme Court, a law clerk for Judge Robert A. Katzmann on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and a law clerk for Judge Jed S. Rakoff on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York


I will believe what she has to say about this more than some rando on the interwebs

no offense intended



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

No matter, she will believe whoever backs up what she wants to believe.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Then they can send it to the Supreme Court.


Can they? What would that brief look like?

Yes, they can. Maybe you can look at the one that was filed to force Nixon to turn over tapes, it would look like that.


Ordering compliance with a trial subpoena "forthwith," the court rejected Mr. Nixon's broad claims of unreviewable executive privilege and said they "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."

www.washingtonpost.com...

I guess you don't know as much as you thought you did. So now you see the standard required to override Executive privilege.
edit on 10-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: shooterbrody

No matter, she will believe whoever backs up what she wants to believe.

I agree
they asked
I answered as honestly as I could



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That case wound it way through the Circuit Courts and the Court of Appeals before it went to SCOTUS. Are any of the congressional subpoenas in the circuit courts now?

There has been suggestions that the Congress might be able to go directly to SCOTUS over a separation of powers issue, though.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Good luck to her with that argument. Bill Barr also wrote a 30 page opinion letter assuring Donald Trump that the Executive Branch has ultimate authority and could do anything he wanted to do. He still believes that. And, so do you, I guess.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That case wound it way through the Circuit Courts and the Court of Appeals before it went to SCOTUS. Are any of the congressional subpoenas in the circuit courts now?

There has been suggestions that the Congress might be able to go directly to SCOTUS over a separation of powers issue, though.




That's the process, yes. Although the SC may simply hear it outright. Either way that avenue is available, if it is NOT in the courts, why is that?

There is no Constitutional crisis, this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. In their ruling what was the reason why Executive privilege could not be invoked? Does that reason apply to Trump?

I hope you give an answer to those questions, as it will likely answer the question of why it's not in the court system yet.
edit on 10-10-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl

This isn't "impeachment" YET. It's an inquiry, an inquiry of the Executive Branch and the President himself, therefore an "impeachment inquiry".

I see you put it in quotes, denoting that it isn't really, not until the House votes on it.


Once the committees investigate the evidence, they will drop Articles of Impeachment for the entire body of The House to vote on.

But the 'Committee' doesn't have the sole power of Impeachment.

You seem to be refusing to grasp the fact that an 'Impeachment Inquiry' is a part of the impeachment process, therefore it falls under the purview of 'The House of Representatives', not some Committee, Committee Chair, or the Speaker of The House.

I understand you are suffering from TDS level 6, but really, you need to just unplug for a few years - say, 5+?



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




There is no Constitutional crisis


Of course there is. Trump is denying congressional power of oversight, not to mention all the other ways he's mocked Congress' authority. He and his team are asserting that "if it's political" it's unconstitutional. Trump is actually saying that the Constitution is unconstitutional.



posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




There is no Constitutional crisis


Of course there is. Trump is denying congressional power of oversight, not to mention all the other ways he's mocked Congress' authority. He and his team are asserting that "if it's political" it's unconstitutional. Trump is actually saying that the Constitution is unconstitutional.




This is my post you replied to.



There is no Constitutional crisis, this is EXACTLY how it's supposed to work. In their ruling what was the reason why Executive privilege could not be invoked? Does that reason apply to Trump?

I hope you give an answer to those questions, as it will likely answer the question of why it's not in the court system yet.

This is the only part you responded to.


There is no Constitutional crisis


I wonder why that is. I guess you don't want to answer those hard questions.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join