Pelosi faces serious legal challenges to ‘casual’ impeachment inquiry

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s declaration of an impeachment inquiry is barely a week old, and it’s already running into serious challenges on the legal front.


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s declaration of an impeachment inquiry is barely a week old, and it’s already running into serious challenges on the legal front.

A top Republican told a federal judge Thursday that Mrs. Pelosi’s move is only words and carries no real weight. It can’t, for example, unlock secret grand jury information, said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Worse yet, said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Mrs. Pelosi has yet to lay out any of the ground rules for impeachment.

The California Republican said until Democrats come up with a plan for calling witnesses, allowing access to evidence and giving President Trump’s attorneys the ability to be part of the proceedings, there can’t be a fair impeachment inquiry.

Congress‘ own legal team at the Congressional Research Service said Mrs. Pelosi is trodding new ground in pursuing an impeachment without getting the entire House on record and laying out clear rules of the road.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s declaration of an impeachment inquiry is barely a week old, and it’s already running into serious challenges on the legal front.

A top Republican told a federal judge Thursday that Mrs. Pelosi’s move is only words and carries no real weight. It can’t, for example, unlock secret grand jury information, said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.

Worse yet, said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Mrs. Pelosi has yet to lay out any of the ground rules for impeachment.

The California Republican said until Democrats come up with a plan for calling witnesses, allowing access to evidence and giving President Trump’s attorneys the ability to be part of the proceedings, there can’t be a fair impeachment inquiry.

Congress‘ own legal team at the Congressional Research Service said Mrs. Pelosi is trodding new ground in pursuing an impeachment without getting the entire House on record and laying out clear rules of the road.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/3/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-inquiry-faces-legal-chall/

 

It's not an official inquiry, there was no formal vote to proceed. This way they block the GOP from being able to do anything and they keep their radical socialist hot head faction happy and they don't have to expose vulnerable Democrats to having to vote on the measure.

 

It's not a real impeachment, it's a distraction and a democratic election strategy..

 

The Democrats or rather the liberal one world order freaks, are running scared on what Trump's investigation might expose, so they're doing everything they can to stop it. Even Australia's opposition wants conversations with Trump revealed - but Trump's not falling for the scare tactics. He asked China to investigate Biden's connections there.

This is the opinion I formed from what I know. Of course I might be wrong

 

that's the democrats problem right there, they don't care if they are wrong, like i said in another place they are just playing political Whack-A -Mole hoping to win a few tickets they can spend to buy some cheap Chinese toys for their presidential election

 

It sounds to me like they are trying to protect Biden?

 

That is correct. The Opposition want to know exactly what Trump as POTUS asked Morrison (Australian Prime Minister) to assist him with. We do not want to get involved in any ongoing way in USA domestic political election campaigns

 

Your sample size consists of three prior impeachments of Presidents. That is awfully small to determine much precedence You exclude countless other impeachments of justices etc where there was no 'formal vote' to authorize a resolution of impeachment in order that the Speaker to act in full accordance with the same authority just as she would for any other legislative business to be conducted. The Speaker refers the matter to a committee to schedule hearings, come up with witness lists to testify, and then write up the necessary documents ( legislative language) for consideration first by the full committee, then by the full house. That is how this stuff normally works because it is logical

In effect, the minority position is the equivalent of demanding that any potential subject of legislation, be voted on before witnesses who advocate for a bill, even show up to testify on its contents or need, and before the first write up session is scheduled ,to determine what is even going into the proposed 'bill'. Legislators are expected to vote on what does not yet exist. It was silly in 1973, and in 1998 and it is silly now.

There is no instructions on how the House or Senate is obliged to conduct their respective processes of deciding impeachment or removal or define what starts or ends one, under Article 1 or Article 2 and the courts are not about to proscribe any now. The House rule on the matter is ambiguous and the process by which House rules are interpreted, is established in the House by officers of the House and the courts are not likely to usurp that process.

Now the resulting product of those hearings will be a series of articles of impeachment representing a formal indictment and that product, requires a vote of the full House on those specific and very concrete articles of impeachment. http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019...t-that-house-approve-impeachment-inquiry.html.

There are remedies for the minority party. They can object to the Speaker's rulings, and call for a vote. They can move to table those articles and call for a vote. They can move to re-commit the articles back to the same committee from whence they came or they can move to re-commit them to a different committee and call for votes on those motions. They can vote the articles down outright. They can even move that the Speaker be replaced and call for that vote.

The problem isn't a lack of remedies for Keven McCarthy. Its a lack of votes.

That's just too damn bad.

 

There is no legal requirement to hold a floor vote to proceed.

 

In what alternative reality? The Dems are pushing for testimony. The WH is blocking information wherever it can.

 

With the White House blocking valid congressional information requests and testimony, it is creating an impeachable offense.

Once again, it’s the cover up, not the crime.....

 

Or the cover up ofvan investigation in which everyone knows there is no crime.

 

Trump's impeachment is just another obstruction ploy by the Democrats. They want to stop any investigation into the Russian collusion conspiracy and what part Ukraine might have played.

Right now there are lawsuits pending against the Democrats for some of their illegalities over the nothing burger impeachment, but it's not something the Democrat aligned MSM wants people to know.

 

The Dems are not trying to hinder any investigation. Trump is.

 

It wouldn't matter even if it were true. Congress is completely within it's rights and people who choose to ignore Congressional subpoenas are pretty much always violating the law.

I really don't understand the logic here anyway. On the one hand the administration keeps telling everyone that nothing improper happened. On the other hand they're forbidding anyone from testifying to such under oath or from submitting documents that would presumably prove their innocence.

I can certainly understand taking a stand on principle if the other side is breaking the rules. I mean, I probably wouldn't let the police search my house without a warrant just on principle, but if they had the warrant then the rules say that I have to let them in … innocent or not.

 

isnt this kind of like a warrant "inquiry"?

like when the cops bring you in for questioning and you just keep repeating "am I being charged, am I free to go?"

maybe I'm wrong, honestly I dont understand the fine print of this whole mess with regards to inquiry/official.

 

How about Eric Holder? Back in 2012 he snuffed house issued subpoenas.

 

Yeah, you keep believing that.

DEMOCRATS ​

​

It's this way, that way, front and back,
To cover up our every track
and start a-new on our attack
of turning white into a black.- Jeannette

​

 

Alexander downer already accomplished that one.

 

And here's a few segments from the letter from the White House as to why it won't cooperate with the impeachment inquiry:

You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.

“You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers,” the letter continued “All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.”

Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.

Going along with the inquiry under its “current unconstitutional posture” would “inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers,” the letter said, adding that Democrats have “left the president no choice” but to refuse to cooperate.​

 

CNN ain't leading with that..

 

Nope. He passed the information on to Canberra who then passed it on to Washington. After that had occurred Downer did have direct contact with a US Govt official in the UK, and also told him of his conversation with Papadoupolis during which he informed Downer that Russia had provided Trump with dirt on Clinton.....those emails which then found their way mysteriously (?) to Wikileaks which published them. Remember, Trump loved Wikileaks! Join the dots?

 

ZERO reference to any law.

 

Pelosi is facing a serious crisis. She wrestled a leadership position when no one really wanted her to be the speaker. Now she is dealing with millennial snowflakes arriving to congress.
She is as old as dirt. If I was her I’d weigh a couple of options: 1. Because of the age she can say screw this lets go with impeachment full force and whatever happens - happens (she will have comfortable retirement no matter what). 2 she can just say screw this, I’m resigning and retiring.
Pretty interesting times.

 

If there is no crime why are they trying to block testimony? That makes no sense. If they were clean they would want everyone involved to testify in open hearings before the US public. They are acting like gangsters, trying to stall and rub out witnesses.