Trump obstruction of Congress continues.

[Cow Poke]

By using a double standard?

When you're a NetNanny, it's what you do!

(expect complaints of ad hominem)

[Mountain Man]

Doesn't matter, blocking testimony and documents is still obstruction, subpoena or no.

Yes, it does matter. It matters a great deal if you have any regard for due process. If the Democrats want the power to issue legally sufficient subpoenas as part of an impeachment inquiry then they are required by judicial precedent to seek authorization from the appropriate chamber, which in this case means putting it up for a vote in the House.

[Mountain Man]

They started issuing subpoenas last night...

They're calling them subpoenas, but they're really not. They're unenforceable demand letters. Representatives can't issue subpoenas unless they are granted the authority to do so by the House, which means putting it up for a vote.

[Sam]

They're calling them subpoenas, but they're really not. They're unenforceable demand letters. Representatives can't issue subpoenas unless they are granted the authority to do so by the House, which means putting it up for a vote.

This continues to be false and remarkably so. It's pure dreck. Committees would have subpoena power even without an impeachment inquiry and an impeachment inquiry doesn't require a vote, as noted above through the CRS reference.

House/DOJ hearing over grand jury materials is done for the day. Probably safe to say it didn't go great for DOJ.

Image 054.jpg

[Mountain Man]

Committees would have subpoena power even without an impeachment inquiry and an impeachment inquiry doesn't require a vote, as noted above through the CRS reference.

This sentence makes it unclear exactly what you're objecting to.

Yes, a committee could have subpoena power without an impeachment inquiry, and yes, an impeachment inquiry doesn't require a vote; HOWEVER, for subpoenas to be legally sufficient requires the authorization of the chamber, which in this case means a vote by the House of Representatives. This is case law, as I pointed out earlier:

They're no subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Contempt_of_Congress

Until the chamber -- meaning the House of Representatives as a whole -- gives authorization, whatever committee is cobbled together by Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the rest of the crooks has no authority to issue subpoenas. In fact, the latest version of the "demand letters", which liberals are deceptively calling "subpoenas", have removed any implicit or explicit threat of penalty for non-compliance.

In summary, Pelosi and her gang of crooks can convene whatever committees they want, but until the House votes on it, they are restricted to only issuing impotent "demand letters" as opposed to legally enforceable subpoenas.

[seer]

Bill Clinton asked UK's Tony Blair to 'take a look at' fixing problem during 2000 'political season'

I guess it was OK when Clinton did it to help Gore...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-c...trump-campaign

https://clinton.presidentiallibrarie...ems/show/48779

[Cow Poke]

Bill Clinton asked UK's Tony Blair to 'take a look at' fixing problem during 2000 'political season'

I guess it was OK when Clinton did it to help Gore...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-c...trump-campaign

https://clinton.presidentiallibrarie...ems/show/48779

Oh, oh, pick me, pick me!!!!



You Whataboutismist, you!!!!

[JimL]

How could Trump be ‘obstructing Congress’ when Congress hasn’t taken a vote to subpoena people and hasn’t issued any? Believe it or not, Republicans still have rights.

The House doesn't need to issue subpoenas in order that Trump block witnesses from testifying, which is what he did. That's obstruction! But what you should be asking yourselves is why, why is Trump obstructing the investigation if there is no wrong doing. I think you all know why!

[JimL]

I'm currently on drugs (prescription pain meds) but, as I understand it, the Democrats have issued, in essence, demand letters which they are falsely representing as subpoenas.

No, the House is not falsely representing anything, they are going through the process which the president, due to his guilt, is of course doing his best to stall, so they will now issue the subpoenas to force testimony.

[Cow Poke]

No, the House is not falsely representing anything, they are going through the process which the president, due to his guilt, is of course doing his best to stall, so they will now issue the subpoenas to force testimony.

You'll please excuse me if I don't take your word for it, given that you're about as credible as Trump.

[JimL]

Yes, it does matter. It matters a great deal if you have any regard for due process. If the Democrats want the power to issue legally sufficient subpoenas as part of an impeachment inquiry then they are required by judicial precedent to seek authorization from the appropriate chamber, which in this case means putting it up for a vote in the House.

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the President is obstructing Congress by blocking witnesses from testifying. I'm sure he'll try to fight the subpoenas if he can as well.

[seer]

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that the President is obstructing Congress by blocking witnesses from testifying. I'm sure he'll try to fight the subpoenas if he can as well.

Like Clinton and Obama did?

[JimL]

This sentence makes it unclear exactly what you're objecting to.

Yes, a committee could have subpoena power without an impeachment inquiry, and yes, an impeachment inquiry doesn't require a vote; HOWEVER, for subpoenas to be legally sufficient requires the authorization of the chamber, which in this case means a vote by the House of Representatives. This is case law, as I pointed out earlier:
In summary, Pelosi and her gang of crooks can convene whatever committees they want, but until the House votes on it, they are restricted to only issuing impotent "demand letters" as opposed to legally enforceable subpoenas.

No, The committees investigation is obviously already authorized by the House, they don't need additional authorization to issue subpoenas.

[JimL]

Like Clinton and Obama did?

I'm not going to research past incidents, whether you are correct or not with respect to past presidents actions is irrelevant to the facts of this case. If Obama or Clinton were guilty of the same, then the same remedy was available to Congress. No whataboutism! This case is this case, try sticking to it.

[Mountain Man]

The committees investigation is obviously already authorized by the House...

Nancy Pelosi is not the House and can not grant subpoena authority by fiat. According to judicial precedent, only the chamber, meaning the full House, can grant such authority, and this is typically done by a vote. No vote means no committee has the authority to issue subpoenas. That's why they're sending out "demand letters" instead.