is it fair for the jan 6 committee to subpoena a senior advisor to the president?

It was legal... hint The Electoral Count Act of 1887...

 

The Elector Count Act does not allow the VP to just ignore some EC votes and count "alternates" instead or just ignore entire states altogether. Please actually read it. At least try. Is that seriously too much to ask for?

 

correct,

that is why trumps main defense will be delay delay delay
the GOP can stall the current DOJ from doing its job
some members of the GOP already are stalling by refusing to cooperate
then trump gets elected and names a new head of the DOJ

 

Again, you are thinking of Trump. That's what Trump and his supporters want.

 

It was legal... do your homework... hint The Electoral Count Act of 1887... this has been out there for awhile... now suddenly we are looking at it as not legal when it was...... you don't know what you are talking about....

Let me just repost my question you disregarded...
Do you think if Pelosi had even a sniff of a chance to nail Trump on this during fake impeachment # 2... that she would not hesitate.... this is old news

 

I've already pointed out how this has nothing to do with the ECA. Which is why you ran away. Please read it if you are going to refer to it. Why is that a difficult request?

 

What is the legislative purpose and BTW this committee in it's charter is prohibited from writing any legislation.

 

Why hasn't Trump's legal team thought to make this their legal challenge? Why have the courts not substantiated this defense?

 

Purely logical question!!

Because it's BS gaslighting and a strawman reach.

 

There were VERY serious attempts at faithless electors and I have already cited the 11 attempts in the Electoral certification where the Dems tried to get electors replaced. Stop with this stop canard that Trump is the first person to ever try to challenge the EC certification.

And here is what President Biden, then Senator Biden voting on removal, had to say about the impeachment of President Clinton

"And if he did, do these actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary to justify the most obviously anti-democratic act the Senate can engage in--overturning an election by convicting the President."

" Not generally, but specifically, did he do what is alleged--and if he did, do these actions rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors necessary to justify the most obviously anti-democratic act the Senate can engage in overturning an election."

" Never in our history has the Senate overturned the results of an election and removed a President from office."

"The power to overturn and undo a popular election of the people, for the first time in our nation's history, must be exercised with great care and sober deliberation."

"They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people."

" It is simply antithetical to our constitutional democracy to use impeachment to overturn an election on partisan grounds. It violates the independence of the Presidency and it usurps the people's voice."

" To overturn a popular election......"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/bidentext021399.htm

Seems he talked A LOT about impeachment overturns an election.

 

The only examples you've given me have been recounts. Which you falsely claimed before were all that Trump wanted (they weren't). But at least you've since run away from that fantasy. Meanwhile, I have no problem with recounts. That wasn't what Trump pushed for. And there was no serious attempt at faithless electors (which aren't the same thing as fake "alternate" electors). There wasn't a single faithless elector for Clinton. And Trump's plot had nothing to do with faithless electors.

Are you expecting someone to pay you to join the topic or something? Because that isn't going to happen.

Impeachments don't overturn elections. But thank you for admitting that the best you have to offer is that you inspire to be at least as wrong as Biden on this subject. Weird flex, but okay.

 

The fact is the ECA is vague about the matter and Pence would had sent it back to the state legislatures under the legal theory that was briefly proposed but not implemented.

The Republicans are trying to pass a bill to clarify the ECA and make it completely clear that Congress cannot decertify the slates of Electors of the various states. The Dems are opposing that. Which side do you land on?

 

The ECA does not provide for this VP power. At all. And anyone who has read the Constitution knows that the VP does not have such power.

And the plan wasn't for Pence to just send it back to the legislatures. Read the Eastman memo. If we need a new law that tells the GOP that they need to follow the law, then so be it. As I've told you before. Now, if you are done evading the argument and making **** up . . . ?

 

If, that's a mighty big 'if'.

 

Committees, or not all committees. write legislation, they find facts, make reports , and submit to congress for possible legislation. That fact does not change the principle of 'legislative purpose' because committees, subcommittees, operate to forward the duties and responsibilities of Congress, who do, indeed, write legislation.

The legislative purpose has been commented on by at least one federal judge, and is written in the establishing resolution.

Search for it, if you really need to know it.

 

If they knock down executive privilege, that will apply to Joe and Hunter. The Democrats nuked the filibuster for Judicial nominees and look at the shift in the courts. The Democrats think what they do to Republicans now won't be done to them.....it will.

 

Trump wanted fraudulent votes he believe existed tossed. He wanted, on the advice of some on his legal team, state legislatures to declare there was too much evidence of fraud and for them to select new slates of electors, which he believe to be legal. It didn't go anywhere and Pence totally discounted the idea from the get go.

So Biden even back then as the master of the Senate didn't know what he was talking about?

How about the Boston Globe?

"Which means that, if Democrats choose to follow AOC and her clueless crew of airhead adolescents down the impeachment rabbit hole they’re going to have to get Americans to support overturning an election because Trump allegedly tried to cover up a crime that he didn’t commit."
https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/04/20/lesson-to-democrats-from-clinton-fiasco-let-it-go/

 

Hunter already has nothing to do with executive privilege. What the hell are you even talking about?

 

since trump came along there have been nothing other than "BIG IFS"

and even if trump does not run the campaign promise of any GOP candidate will be

"when elected, on Day one I will fire Merick garland and end all investigations against trump"

 

He wanted 5 entire states tossed. Not just the fake "fraudulent" votes

His legal advisors and the DOJ warned him that this was all bull ****. The only legal "advisors" who were cheering him on to do this were ones who later admitted that they hadn't actually reviewed the veracity of these claims.

You might want to look more into this.

Again, impeachment doesn't overturn elections. If your only ambition is to be as wrong as they are, then go for it. It's sad, pathetic, and willfully ignorant, but I honestly can't say you've brought anything better to the table.

 

get back to me as soon as any democrat has the unmitigated lack of ethics to appoint his own daughter and her husband to government jobs.

 

Separation of powers for one thing between the Judicial and the Legislative and the several court cases I have repeatedly cited.

"The Court’s Decision After describing the history of how subpoena-based disputes between Congress and various presidents have been resolved, the Court discussed the basis for—and limits to—Congress’s subpoena power. Specifically, the Court affirmed that Congress’s subpoena power cannot be used for law enforcement purposes. In other words, Congress cannot use its subpoena authority to put someone on trial for a crime or wrongdoing, nor does Congress have the “power to expose for the sake of exposure.” Slip Op. at 12. Indeed, the Court confirmed that congressional investigations used solely to “punish” those investigated would be “indefensible.” Not only that, the Court reinforced the limitations to the subpoena power, including that the subpoena must serve a “valid legislative purpose,” and is proper only if it is “related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of Congress.” Slip Op. at 11. In addition, the Court reaffirmed that those subject to a congressional subpoena have both constitutional and common law privileges—including attorney-client privilege—against the subpoena."
https://jenner.com/system/assets/pu...s_Congressional_Subpoena_Power.pdf?1594417043

 

Why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled in your/Trump's favor, even with a conservative majority and 3 Trump appointees?

 

Yea in when it was Trump Dems wanted several stated votes tossed.

More did and the plan was not used.

Well it didn't work and in part because Pence said he would not accept any of the challenges.

I can go on showing you more. Is the President who is impeached still the President as elected, nope it is overturned. It's semantical, the use of the term overturned seems to be a burr under your saddle, oh well let it be.

 

My hope is the 1/6 committee will have completed its work before the Repubs can shut it down, a reasonable assumption. There are going to be public hearings starting fairly soon, then a preliminary report issued during the summer if all goes according to plan. Even if the Repubs take over Congress they'll be a final report as well. It's going to be a doosie.