Here is my "take" on the impeachment inquiry, that it violates the 6th Ammendment

a reply to: dfnj2015

No matter how much you ignore, it is quite clear Trump broke Federal election laws.

The question was about what law is violated by Congress in its current impeachment investigation, not what laws Trump may or may not have violated.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

First off, the laws of the House itself.

What "law" is being violated? Waiting.

No matter how much you ignore, it is quite clear Trump broke Federal election laws.

"The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92–225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.) is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign spending and fundraising. The law originally focused on increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns."

"Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Donald Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other political operatives illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national—by urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The allegations were first published in The Wall Street Journal, and subsequently President Trump admitted that during a July 25th phone call he pressured President Zelensky to pursue the investigation of his political rival and his son.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election. Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Others for Illegal Solicitation of Contribution from Ukrainian President

These Watergate era laws exist for a reason.

It is also quite clear that Obama and Biden said they knew about Russian interference in the election and did nothing to try and stop it. Isn't that a violation of law?

But you have not said yet - do you think it is acceptable and good for Democrats to:

1. have a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed

2. have a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena

3. violate long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction

4. allow only Democrats to leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment

5. have an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony

So I take it you support secret, behind closed doors, investigations with no defense allowed, no sympathetic people to the accused allowed in the room, that is purposely designed to convict someone of a crime and send them to jail.

I take it you support the pre-planning of arresting the Cabinet of the President of the US, for refusing to testify in a setting designed to lead to criminal conviction without their lawyers or counsel present?

Ok, that is what I think most Democrats support these days, totalitarianism and repression not unlike what we see in China.

a reply to: Liquesence

I see I'm going to have to do all your homework for you because you are not able to do it yourself.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Presidential Impeachment: The legal Standard and Procedure

Currently the 116th Congress enacted the rules of the 155th Congress...

H.Res 6

And here are the House rules...

House Practice

Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.

I'm waiting...

a reply to: infolurker

another big difference is the fact so far no Independent cousel has been appointed like in nixon and clintons cases, nixon fired his then appointed bork (saturday massacre) and clinton had starr but never fired him so far none has been appointed for the trump Ukraine situation

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: dfnj2015

So you are supportive of the idea it is fully acceptable to:
1. have a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed
2. have a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena
3. violate long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction
4. allow only Democrats to leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment
5. have an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony
6. pre-plan on arresting and jailing witnesses

I have yet to have a single Democrat reply to this, maybe you will be the first!

Is the theory "He was bad, so we can do something worse?"

I will try to answer them the best I can but I am not a Constitutional lawyer. The answer to #1 is Congress can subpoena anyone they want. They can question anyone they want behind close doors. They can keep it secret.

I have never heard or seen any evidence of #2. Please provide a link to a legitimate news organization and some some mudslinging site owned by someone living in a trailer park.

For #3, any committee of Congress can investigate anything. If the House wants to impeach Trump then by law they have to have a vote to begin impeachment proceedings.

For #4, if any Congressmen has violated Congressional ethics rules then Republicans need to file a complaint and stop being so incompetent. Otherwise, Congressional committees answer to no one. They are just as powerful as the president.

counsel represent him just like Nixon did with his lawyers.

For #6, What is your evidence. I have to be honest with I am sick and tire of Republicans throwing out mudslinging accusations with no evidence other than made up opinions. If someone is breaking the law then Republicans need to stop being so incompetent and do their Constitutional duty by getting Democrats indicted.

Otherwise, if there are NO indictments being handed out, then shut your mud throwing mouth.

Trump admitted twice on television he broke the law. I've seen the video. He broke his oath of office. He should be impeached.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

First off, the laws of the House itself.

What "law" is being violated? Waiting.

No matter how much you ignore, it is quite clear Trump broke Federal election laws.

"The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA, Pub.L. 92–225, 86 Stat. 3, enacted February 7, 1972, 52 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.) is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign spending and fundraising. The law originally focused on increased disclosure of contributions for federal campaigns."

"Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging that President Donald Trump, his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, and other political operatives illegally solicited a political contribution from a foreign national—by urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden. The allegations were first published in The Wall Street Journal, and subsequently President Trump admitted that during a July 25th phone call he pressured President Zelensky to pursue the investigation of his political rival and his son.

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election. Federal law also prohibits a person from soliciting or providing substantial assistance in the solicitation of such a contribution from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”"

DOJ & FEC Complaints Filed Against President Trump, Rudy Giuliani and Others for Illegal Solicitation of Contribution from Ukrainian President

These Watergate era laws exist for a reason.

The FEC does not consider information to be a thing of value.

So information is not considered a political contribution.... by the FEC.

Keep up.

a reply to: Lumenari

Excellent point.

Right now the Democrats have forbidden any representative of the opposing party to be present.

No press allowed, no public allowed to attend proceedings.

This is what they call transparent democracy, I call it Chinese/Russian style democracy.

a reply to: Lumenari

You can split hairs all you want so Trump is innocent in your eyes. But no one in their right mind is interpreted what Trump was doing in the way you are.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.
I'm waiting...

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Laws are not designed to ever tell you what you can do. Laws are only ever designed to tell you what you can't do.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Lumenari

You can split hairs all you want so Trump is innocent in your eyes. But no one in their right mind is interpreted what Trump was doing in the way you are.

I wasn't splitting hairs at all... I was telling you the law.

And as far as the rest...

In America everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

This isn't Soviet Russia, FFS.

I understand why you are disappointed by that.

However, after trying to push that silly lawsuit on this site for a few days, do you FINALLY understand that the lawsuit will go nowhere?

You know, so you can stop copy-pasting it.

originally posted by: underwerks
The irony of ranting about totalitarianism in defense of a President who is trying to legally argue that he's above the law...

Yes but the Democrats are behaving above the law with secret, behind closed door meetings, that bar anyone who might have anything to say they may not agree with, so they can convict and jail someone for what they discover.

a reply to: Lumenari

Those are legal arguments. Not law.

From your quote/link:

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee.

Witnesses are interrogated. As part of the investigation. Just like with any investigation. Cross examination occurs during a trial, not an interrogation. But the minority members can ask questions/interrogate. The accused (or the person being investigated/impeached) has no say. Because not a trial.

Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.

What law says they can't?

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: dfnj2015

No matter how much you ignore, it is quite clear Trump broke Federal election laws.

The question was about what law is violated by Congress in its current impeachment investigation, not what laws Trump may or may not have violated.

No law was broken. Congressional committees can subpoena anyone they want to testify in any investigation.

a reply to: Lumenari

I wasn't splitting hairs at all... I was telling you the law.

You haven't provided law, only legal opinion.

This isn't Soviet Russia, FFS.

That's why the Constitution, and impeachment, is a glorious thing. Because we are not a dictatorship....yet.

It's called Congressional oversight and checks and balances. Something Dear Leader hates.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Lumenari
Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.
I'm waiting...

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Laws are not designed to ever tell you what you can do. Laws are only ever designed to tell you what you can't do.

Obviously you have a comprehension problem.

Does the 2nd Amendment tell me I have the right to bear arms?

Or does it say I can't?

Back on topic...

Where is the law (or rule, in this case) that states you can do committee business without a vote to do so?

Where is the rule, the exception to the rule, the paragraph or sentence in the House Rules that says that Pelosi can just investigate away by using committees that have not voted to investigate?

Please feel free to post it!!

a reply to: Lumenari

Please quote for me where it says that a committee can investigate without a vote of the committee to proceed.

House Rule XI, clause 2(m)(1) and (3) authorizes House committees and subcommittees to issue subpoenas for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. Senate Rule XXVI, paragraph 1 authorizes Senate committees and subcommittees to subpoena witnesses and documents. In turn, most House and Senate committees have adopted in their own rules subpoena provisions containing procedures for exercising this grant of power from their parent chamber.

Committee rules may cover authorization, issuance, and service of subpoenas; may cover just one or two of these actions; or may be silent on exercise of the subpoena power. A subpoena must be authorized pursuant to committee rules—a decision to approve this legal order to a person to appear or to provide documents. Once authorized, if the committee wishes to take the next step, a subpoena must be issued pursuant to committee rules—signed and given to an individual to deliver the subpoena to the person named in it. To deliver a subpoena to the person named is to serve the subpoena.

crsreports.congress.gov...

Finally, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi signs all the subpoenas coming out of the House.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

You haven't provided law, only legal opinion.

To you, there is a difference between a law and a legal guideline?

And I'm splitting hairs?

LOL

That why the Constitution, and impeachment, is a glorious thing.

It's called Congressional oversight and checks and balances. Something Dear Leader hates.

I think when you were reading the Constitution you skipped over the part about co-equal branches of government.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: Lumenari

I wasn't splitting hairs at all... I was telling you the law.

You haven't provided law, only legal opinion.

To you, there is a difference between a law and a legal guideline?

And I'm splitting hairs?

LOL

This isn't Soviet Russia, FFS.

That why the Constitution, and impeachment, is a glorious thing.

It's called Congressional oversight and checks and balances. Something Dear Leader hates.

I think when you were reading the Constitution you skipped over the part about co-equal branches of government.

Speak for yourself.

Congress is co-equal. Oversight, Checks and balances, the power of impeachment. Holding the executive to account. Something Dear Leader hates.

What law is Congress violating?

a reply to: Lumenari

To you, there is a difference between a law and a legal guideline?

There is a great difference between a law and a legal opinion, yes.

One is law. One is opinion.

What law is Congress violating?

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: dfnj2015

So you are supportive of the idea it is fully acceptable to:
1. have a closed door secret investigation with no one sympathetic to the accused allowed, no witnesses for the accused, no lawyers for the accused allowed
2. have a secret closed door meeting where people are openly plotting in advance to arrest and jail people they subpoena
3. violate long standing tradition of taking a vote of the House to start an investigation that is promised to lead to conviction
4. allow only Democrats to leaked what is happening in the secret meetings with no censure or punishment
5. have an investigative process that is designed to lead to a criminal conviction being held in secret, without the defense present or a representative of the defense, and the press and public forbidden to hear or even read the testimony
6. pre-plan on arresting and jailing witnesses

I have yet to have a single Democrat reply to this, maybe you will be the first!

Is the theory "He was bad, so we can do something worse?"

I will try to answer them the best I can but I am not a Constitutional lawyer. The answer to #1 is Congress can subpoena anyone they want. They can question anyone they want behind close doors. They can keep it secret.

I have never heard or seen any evidence of #2. Please provide a link to a legitimate news organization and some some mudslinging site owned by someone living in a trailer park.

For #3, any committee of Congress can investigate anything. If the House wants to impeach Trump then by law they have to have a vote to begin impeachment proceedings.

For #4, if any Congressmen has violated Congressional ethics rules then Republicans need to file a complaint and stop being so incompetent. Otherwise, Congressional committees answer to no one. They are just as powerful as the president.

counsel represent him just like Nixon did with his lawyers.

For #6, What is your evidence. I have to be honest with I am sick and tire of Republicans throwing out mudslinging accusations with no evidence other than made up opinions. If someone is breaking the law then Republicans need to stop being so incompetent and do their Constitutional duty by getting Democrats indicted.

Otherwise, if there are NO indictments being handed out, then shut your mud throwing mouth.

Trump admitted twice on television he broke the law. I've seen the video. He broke his oath of office. He should be impeached.

So you agree with #1, Behind closed door secret meetings designed to gather information to convict and jail someone are appropriate and you support them.

#2 Tlaib Floats Detaining White House Officials in Detroit for Refusing to Comply with Subpoenas (news.yahoo.com...)

#3 You support starting what Pelosi said was a formal impeachment investigation, without anyone in Congress being allowed to vote on it, a unilateral decision.

#4 You say it is the Republicans fault for not being told about secret committee meetings. They are to blame for being shut out. Ok, sound very progressive to me

#5 No legal counsel has been allowed to be present in this investigation that is specifically designed to convict and send the accused to jail.

#6

Speaking to her constituents at a town hall in her hometown of Detriot, Tlaib said Democrats are puzzled about how to arrest Cabinet secretaries, telling voters in a video captured by America Rising PAC that they could be taken into custody if Congress votes to hold them in contempt.
“So they’re trying to figure out, no joke, is it the D.C. police that goes and gets them? We don’t know. Where do we hold them?”

conservativeactionnews.com...

Now, I won't insult you back.

I believe in intelligent and intellectual repartee.