State Department tells ambassador named in text messages about Ukraine not to appear before House

Thank goodness the Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with your radical views on Due Process and Congressional hearings.

 

Did I miss a ruling?

 

Yes...a lot apparently.

 

I already directed you to the letter.




Schiff's bold strategy of lying and hiding testimony should work out well, don't you think? who in America doesn't like a rigged court?

 

That letter provided a laughably pathetic and legally insufficient justification for Trump's decision to engage in total obstruction. The "let's make obstruction charge easier to prove" is a laughably short-sighted decision given that the currently public evidence is already sufficiently damaging.

Also, I love your logical inconsistency of of applauding total obstruction from the Trump administration and yet simultaneously demanding more information from that already gathered.

 

They can investigate all they want. They can't force the Executive Branch to testify on it. They have nothing so far. The transcript blew the Democrats and their Orwellian MSM out of the water. You have nothing.

 

That "nothing" is currently resulting in a majority of Americans supporting the impeachment inquiry and a significant plurality supporting his outright removal.

 

So the house needs executive branch consent to impeach?

 

Actually it was well written and provided case law, that you have...well already admitted to "missing"

 

Well yeah....even the President has called for a vote to start the inquiry....Nancy and Shifty won't do it....they want to obstruct, misinform, and create their own "parody"

 

well, as we discussed before they need a high crime or misdemeanor, then they need resolution.....they've got neither in this case...hence why Shifty is whining and resorting to "parody"

 

So don’t let them invesigate them say since they didn’t, They don’t have anything lol

 

Why won’t the admin commit to cooperate if they have the vote?

 

What are you attempting to say here?

 

They have...geez....

 

Let's take a moment to review the "provided case law." There are only three cases referenced in the footnotes of the letter and all come from the same section.


So, they cite to two cases for the claim that "the Due Process Clause applies to all congressional investigations." Fine. But the one case that they cite to the notion that "Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings" is a case that was decided by a District Court and then vacated on other grounds by the Circuit Court. And finally, they have a citation to the claim that "rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back 150 years." And that is...yea...obvious, but not applicable.

Now, no one is claiming that the President is not entitled to Due Process during the Impeachment Trial, but that is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether the President must cooperate with validly issued subpoenas and requests for information before the Impeachment Inquiry has been put to a ful vote before the House.

And at no point do they provide any case law for the notion that the Full House must formally vote to start an impeachment inquiry before the impeachment inquiry can be deemed to have started.

And then, let's note that two out of the three sections - the ones designed to provide the legal justification for their actions are entitled, "The Invalid 'Impeachment Inquiry' Plainly Seeks to Reverse the Election of 2016 and to Influence The Election of 2020," and "There is No Legitimate Basis for Your 'Impeachment Inquiry'; Instead, the Committees' Actions Raise Serious Questions." It does not take a great deal of analysis to realize that those are hyper-partisan opinions that provide almost no legal basis for their decision to obstruct.

 

Watkins v US

Held: Petitioner was not accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer, and his conviction was invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 354 U. S. 181-216.

(a) The power of Congress to conduct investigations, inherent in the legislative process, is broad, but it is not unlimited. P. 354 U. S. 187.

(b) Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of Congress. P. 354 U. S. 187.

(c) No inquiry is an end in itself; it must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress. P.354 U. S. 187.

(d) The Bill of Rights is applicable to congressional investigations, as it is to all forms of governmental action. P. 354 U. S. 188.

Hastings v. US held that it does as well....all proceedings. The issue in Hastings though was the Senate already ruled and removed the Judge...therefore they had no authority to reinstate him.

Face it, no matter how much you and the Dems want to turn the House into a Starr Chamber.....it's not gonna happen.

 

Source?

 

I'm struggling to find anything in your further description of the precedents that I already discussed which notes the House must hold a full vote on an impeachment inquiry before the impeachment inquiry is deemed valid or that the executive branch is subject to an increased legal requirement to respond to subpoenas at that point.

 

The White House has stated that they will cooperate with the investigation after the House votes on the impeachment inquiry?

 

Read the WH letter

 

Yep.

 

It includes no commitment

 

They can do what they want. They just can't compel the Executive Branch like this and everyone knows it. It won't mean anything. Except more Republican votes in a year and change.

 

lol.... This... THIS IS IT!!!!

Keep on beating that horse. It's comical.