No House vote on impeachment at this time

originally posted by: Gryphon66
If the President and Executive Branch continue to try to ignore Congressional subpoena, and Contempt of Congress is declared, you can bet your bippy that the courts will be involved probably all the way to SCOTUS.

Exactly - which is precisely why they haven't gone that route, because they know they'd lose big time, and their charade would come to a screeching halt.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I actually agree with you, however its important to note that Chief Justice Roberts would have to come up with a ruling that in this single instance means that executive branch members don't have to comply with subpoena's, while contrarily maintaining that rule of law for any future (sic. Democrats who would ignore subpoena's) instances.

Again, I agree with you that the SC is very likely to rule in favor of the Republicans being allowed to ignore subpoena's, its just going to be a fascinating bit of mental gymnastics by Roberts to make it look kosher/reasonable and not some obtuse partisanship for why it should apply to Democrats but not Republicans.

you guys really think it matters who's president? it's all part of the plan.
he will get impeached if they want him to.

Just heard that an impeachment vote in the house has been pushed back until after Christmas.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: tanstaafl

I actually agree with you, however its important to note that Chief Justice Roberts would have to come up with a ruling that in this single instance means that executive branch members don't have to comply with subpoena's, while contrarily maintaining that rule of law for any future (sic. Democrats who would ignore subpoena's) instances.

Again, I agree with you that the SC is very likely to rule in favor of the Republicans being allowed to ignore subpoena's, its just going to be a fascinating bit of mental gymnastics by Roberts to make it look kosher/reasonable and not some obtuse partisanship for why it should apply to Democrats but not Republicans.

Not at all...

The President would be required to comply - if it was a legitimate formal impeachment inquiry.

If I were prosecuting the case, I'd push for four questions to be submitted to the court:

1. Does "The House of Representatives" as that phrase is used in Article I Section II Clause V, mean the whole House, in that any action undertaken pursuant to 'the sole Power of Impeachment' as described in that same section would have to be in the form of a vote, by the whole House?

Supreme Court ruling: YES.

2. Are the terms impeachment 'inquiry' or 'investigation' or any other similar/related term, included within the meaning of the term 'Power of Impeachment', as that term is used in Article I Clause II Section V of the constitution?

Supreme Court ruling: YES.

3. Does the House of Representatives have to have a vote of the full House in order to launch a formal impeachment inquiry?

Supreme Court ruling: YES.

4. When the House of Representatives votes to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry/investigation, do they gain extra-ordinary subpoena powers they would not normally have, that extend to people/evidence/areas that are normally outside their purview? If so, can you elaborate?

Supreme Court ruling: YES. The potential targets of their subpoena power would be extended greatly, to include almost anything with regard to the President and his actions the House considers potential impeachable offenses. If the subject matter in any way appears to be relevant, they have the power to compel (testimony, evidence, whatever)...

5. If one or more individual members of the House of Representatives, or the Chair of any Committee of the House of Representatives, engage(s) in any informal impeachment inquiry/investigation, do they have any additional subpoena power outside the ordinary subpoena power they wield when engaging in their normal legislative oversight responsibilities?

Supreme Court ruling: NO.

Judgement in favor of the Defendant, President Donald John Trump.

One thing I'm not really clear on, is whether or not the Judicial branch would have the power to clamp down on a renegade House of Representatives and Senate that intended to impeach the President solely because they don't like his demeanor, his foreign policy, and think his breath stinks.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't think its quite as cut and dry as that, since there's plenty of 'wiggle room' legally to assess the validity of subpoena's before an formal inquiry has been made. I do still think we're probably arguing over the semantics of how it is done, rather than the outcome (which I believe we agree on - Judgement in favor of Trump).

Regarding your last point, I feel pretty confident the SC would prefer to maintain as much 'bi-partisan optics' credit as it can, so I can't imagine some fanciful retributive action/ruling. My take is Roberts wants very much to advance Conservative/Republican agenda and help entrench Republican politics for as long as possible, but is keenly aware of how he has to keep up appearances and 'tow-the-line' so to speak in regards to the optics of the SC remaining impartial. I think that's why he's ruled in favor of some liberal cases recently (as a means of adjusting the perspective scale) for people who might turn a critical eye to more common/blatant partisanship in the courts. I really do think Roberts is a very clever man (despite my disagreements with many of his rulings).

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: tanstaafl

I don't think its quite as cut and dry as that, since there's plenty of 'wiggle room' legally to assess the validity of subpoena's before an formal inquiry has been made. I do still think we're probably arguing over the semantics of how it is done, rather than the outcome (which I believe we agree on - Judgement in favor of Trump).

Regarding your last point, I feel pretty confident the SC would prefer to maintain as much 'bi-partisan optics' credit as it can, so I can't imagine some fanciful retributive action/ruling. My take is Roberts wants very much to advance Conservative/Republican agenda and help entrench Republican politics for as long as possible, but is keenly aware of how he has to keep up appearances and 'tow-the-line' so to speak in regards to the optics of the SC remaining impartial. I think that's why he's ruled in favor of some liberal cases recently (as a means of adjusting the perspective scale) for people who might turn a critical eye to more common/blatant partisanship in the courts. I really do think Roberts is a very clever man (despite my disagreements with many of his rulings).

I dunno, I get the feeling Roberts is compromised somehow by the deep state...

Either way, the good news is, we may actually get at least some answers to these questions...

I know one priority for Congress should be to write some strong laws laying out the legal process for an impeachment inquiry.

And in case I wasn't clear - I was suggesting that an 'informal' inquiry, as is going on now, is no different than you or I deciding we wanted to investigate someone - we could hire PIs, and try to accumulate evidence, but we wouldn't have any way to force anything unless/until we got enough evidence to get the DOJ to open a formal investigation.

The liberal Mainstream media is upset because this new whistleblower will not reveal who he or she is. Go figure..

www.cnbc.com...

Democrats and liberal media are flailing about like they are drowning in their own frustration.