DOJ OLC- House subpoenas had no legal merit

[semitope]

So we're talking about potentially legally binding documents and you're okay with the house just doing whatever it wants? What about scribbles on a napkin does that count too?

literally how it works. House sets its rules, house decides who can issue subpoenas. They were given authority to issue subpoenas, they issued them. I don't know what their rules are on what the media needs to be so direct that napkin question elsewhere.

That letter in of itself is not a subpoena, it looks like something that would accompany one though.

possibly. its likely that form was in the package sent to Mulvaney with the letter.

The argument that these subpoenas weren't legitimate is ridiculous. People need to stop getting stuck on every little thing and learn to accept things for what they are.

[JoshSP1985]

literally how it works. House sets its rules, house decides who can issue subpoenas. They were given authority to issue subpoenas, they issued them. In that subpoena they even justify the authority to issue subpoenas. I don't know what their rules are on what the media needs to be so direct that napkin question elsewhere.

But that's exactly what's being discussed, if they wanted to issue subpoenas it appears there is a form for that. If we know anything about government they love their forms. So why not do it how it was done previously?

[semitope]

But that's exactly what's being discussed, if they wanted to issue subpoenas it appears there is a form for that. If we know anything about government they love their forms. So why not do it how it was done previously?

can't even make that argument. That letter refers to a schedule that is not included in the available copy. It might also have included the form since it seems the form is attached to the schedule. https://science.house.gov/imo/media/...%209-12-16.pdf

its possible that subpoena used to represent an official one was also accompanied by a letter

[JoshSP1985]

can't even make that argument. That letter refers to a schedule that is not included in the available copy. It might also have included the form since it seems the form is attached to the schedule. https://science.house.gov/imo/media/...%209-12-16.pdf

its possible that subpoena used to represent an official one was also accompanied by a letter

I can't dispute this. We may not find out the truth.

[semitope]

I can't dispute this. We may not find out the truth.

actually you may. because https://science.house.gov/subpoenas-...n-iris-program seems that is how its done. The person who made this point posted the cover letter for one subpoena and the form for the other and acted as if something was wrong. Both would likely have come with a cover letter and the subpoena form with schedule.

Wouldn't expect better from Procta.

[Procta]

actually you may. because https://science.house.gov/subpoenas-...n-iris-program seems that is how its done. The person who made this point posted the cover letter for one subpoena and the form for the other and acted as if something was wrong. Both would likely have come with a cover letter and the subpoena form with schedule.

Wouldn't expect better from Procta.

Are you trying to debate what I provided or the OP because I was supporting the OP with my post of the letter vs subpoena

[Thankless]

hey man, keep it up. Blindly follow these people leading you over the cliff. They won't follow you.



where is the SCOTUS ruling text with this wording? I haven't seen it. Would be strange if SCOTUS was willing to dig into the workings of the house like that. i.e. house decides how to handle its subpoena power. And since committees aren't even mentioned in the constitution, how could they do that?



You guys seem to think separation of powers means the executive can do what it wants and congress cannot ask about it.



and who decided this for the house? The courts sure as hell can't deliberate internal house processes. So is it the executive telling congress how to run its business?



literally not how this works. holder was held in contempt for defying a subpoena from a committee and it wasn't even an impeachment inquiry. Are you trying to claim that the house has even less power when impeachment is on the table? that suddenly they can no longer control where they use their subpoena power? please. A committee could have issue valid subpoenas for these documents without an impeachment inquiry and the inquiry amplifies this.

I think it's clear that the president has the authority to claim executive privilege. This isn't the first dispute with the executive branch over access to information. If the House chose to seek judicial enforcement of an investigative demand, There are three potential ways in which the impeachment power could, relative to a legislative investigation, provide the House with a stronger legal position. It's up to the house to seek judicial enforcement, they did not. They chose not to seek an article of impeachment for contempt of Congress either. Instead of conducting a proper impeachment investigation they chose to push it through without seeking any of the above. They don't have evidence of wrongdoing. They're not actually attempting to impeach, they're clearly attempting to sway votes. If they actually thought they had a solid case to impeach the president other than feelz, they would've conducted a proper investigation.

[sandaltan]

lol the house does not need to hold a vote to issue lawful subpoenas

fukking lol

you guys are idiots

[Thankless]

lol the house does not need to hold a vote to issue lawful subpoenas

fukking lol

you guys are idiots

You're right, and what happens when there's a dispute with the executive branch over access to information?

[GreatOldOne]

WTF. Executive privilege IS NOT obstruction. If the House brought their requests to the Judicial Branch, and the Judicial Branch ruled for the subpoenas, and then Trump did blocked, THEN it would be obstruction. But the House did not follow legal protocol and did not bring it's requests to the Judicial Branch.

How are you not getting this? We've described the rules and protocol clearly.

Claiming privilege over anything and everything which clearly isn't covered IS. Which is why he is charged with obstruction.

That's what happened.

What will happen next is the Republicans will say "we don't care."

Which will mean the next Dem won't give Congress a damn thing, for any reason...no matter how unjustified...just like Trump did.

Enjoy.

[sandaltan]

You're right, and what happens when there's a dispute with the executive branch over access to information?

i dunno, what happened when the same dispute occurred with the nixon tapes?

the house subpoenad them and the nixon claimed executive privilege

if only we knew what happened with that one

[Thankless]

i dunno, what happened when the same dispute occurred with the nixon tapes?

the house subpoenad them and the nixon claimed executive privilege

The house sought Judiciary enforcement with Nixon.

in Trumps case, Trump wanted to take it to court, the house did not. Thus, no Judiciary enforcement.

Why didn't the house seek Judiciary enforcement against Trump? He was willing to comply if the court ruled against him. Why didn't the "investigating committee" recommend an article of impeachment for contempt of Congress to the house?

The house didn't conduct a proper impeachment investigation, just admit it. Once you accept it, ask yourself WHY the house didn't conduct a proper investigation.


So once again, what happens when there's a dispute with the executive branch over access to information Sandaltan? and why didn't the house conduct a proper investigation?

if only we knew what happened with that one

Now you know.

[Austanian]

i dunno, what happened when the same dispute occurred with the nixon tapes?

the house subpoenad them and the nixon claimed executive privilege

if only we knew what happened with that one

The house took it to the SCOTUS. They ruled in the house's favor and Nixon resigned...

If it was so open and shut I wonder why the house was scared to take it there this time? Care to speculate Mr. 200k in debt lawyer?

[chaunce54]

The house sought Judiciary enforcement with Nixon.

in Trumps case, Trump wanted to take it to court, the house did not. Thus, no Judiciary enforcement.

Why didn't the house seek Judiciary enforcement against Trump? He was willing to comply if the court ruled against him. Why didn't the "investigating committee" recommend an article of impeachment for contempt of Congress to the house?

The house didn't conduct a proper impeachment investigation, just admit it. Once you accept it, ask yourself WHY the house didn't conduct a proper investigation.


So once again, what happens when there's a dispute with the executive branch over access to information Sandaltan? and why didn't the house conduct a proper investigation?





Now you know.

[BFast55]

Claiming privilege over anything and everything which clearly isn't covered IS. Which is why he is charged with obstruction.

That's what happened.

What will happen next is the Republicans will say "we don't care."

Which will mean the next Dem won't give Congress a damn thing, for any reason...no matter how unjustified...just like Trump did.

Enjoy.

You act like this practice is rare. Happens in every administration. The problem is that anything less than full capitulation will be called "obstruction" by you people.

[Thankless]

The house took it to the SCOTUS. They ruled in the house's favor and Nixon resigned...

If it was so open and shut I wonder why the house was scared to take it there this time? Care to speculate Mr. 200k in debt lawyer?

They wanted to get him with "obstruction". They knew even if SCOTUS ruled in their favor bypassing executive privilege they still wouldn't have ****. If they actually believed he was "hiding" anything incriminating/worthy of impeachment behind executive privilege, they would've taken this to SCOTUS in a heartbeat. If nothing came out of it after SCOTUS, they wouldn't have abuse of power or obstruction. Without taking it to SCOTUS they still have abuse of power with an article of obstruction added on, and they get to claim it's a "cover up".


They're playing political games with impeachment. These people should be fined into bankruptcy

[semitope]

The house sought Judiciary enforcement with Nixon.

in Trumps case, Trump wanted to take it to court, the house did not. Thus, no Judiciary enforcement.

Why didn't the house seek Judiciary enforcement against Trump? He was willing to comply if the court ruled against him. Why didn't the "investigating committee" recommend an article of impeachment for contempt of Congress to the house?

The house didn't conduct a proper impeachment investigation, just admit it. Once you accept it, ask yourself WHY the house didn't conduct a proper investigation.

So once again, what happens when there's a dispute with the executive branch over access to information Sandaltan? and why didn't the house conduct a proper investigation?

Now you know.

Maybe because nixon wasn't preventing all cooperation and wasn't publicly saying he would never cooperate. Maybe because nixon wasn't also in court telling the courts they can't decide on the issue between the executive and house.

Why don't I ever see any of you say "ok sure its a bit suspicious making this much effort to hide information, but...."

They wanted to get him with "obstruction". They knew even if SCOTUS ruled in their favor bypassing executive privilege they still wouldn't have ****. If they actually believed he was "hiding" anything incriminating/worthy of impeachment behind executive privilege, they would've taken this to SCOTUS in a heartbeat. If nothing came out of it after SCOTUS, they wouldn't have abuse of power or obstruction. Without taking it to SCOTUS they still have abuse of power with an article of obstruction added on, which is really their main play right now.


They're playing political games with impeachment. These people should be fined into bankruptcy

huh? how do you take something to SCOTUS in a heartbeat? odds are it would have gone through the courts for a year or more. The McGahn case that they won, that should have applied to all these cases, took mid 2018 till late 2019 and the administration is prolonging even that for more months or years. If you guys think its a good idea for a president to be able to hold off investigating his potential wrongdoing and impeachment for years through the courts, why?

[Thankless]

Maybe because nixon wasn't preventing all cooperation and wasn't publicly saying he would never cooperate. Maybe because nixon wasn't also in court telling the courts they can't decide on the issue between the executive and house.

Are you insinuating Trump publicly stated he wouldn't cooperate with a SCOTUS ruling? because you're making it seem like that's what you're saying.

Weren't you in here claiming the courts can't get involved on subpoena issues between the executive and the house? now you're indirectly claiming it's Trump who doesn't want the courts involved.

why don't I ever see any of you say "ok sure its a bit suspicious making this much effort to hide information, but...."

Because that's exactly what the Dems are hoping would happen. They're using it to sway simpletons such as yourself

If they wanted to find out what Trump is "hiding" they could've taken it to SCOTUS. Either they don't want to find out what Trump is "hiding" or they know there's nothing to find. Pick 1 of those

[Thankless]

huh? how do you take something to SCOTUS in a heartbeat? odds are it would have gone through the courts for a year or more. The McGahn case that they won, that should have applied to all these cases, took mid 2018 till late 2019 and the administration is prolonging even that for more months or years. If you guys think its a good idea for a president to be able to hold off investigating his potential wrongdoing and impeachment for years through the courts, why?

May 9, 1974: Impeachment hearings begin before the House Judiciary Committee.
July 24, 1974: United States v. Nixon decided: Nixon is ordered to give up tapes to investigators. Congress moves to impeach Nixon.
July 27 to July 30, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes Articles of Impeachment.


Impeachment investigations take priority.

Once again, why didn't they take it to SCOTUS? please answer my question.

claiming "time is of the essence" is retarded, even for you. "THERE IS NO TIME TO CONDUCT A PROPER INVESTIGATION, HE MUST BE REMOVED NOW! QUICK..NOW! NOW." Only to sit on it for a month, so it "doesn't get in the way of the Dem debates". Then to accuse the Senate of a cover up, when the house is supposed to investigate and uncover any "cover ups" before sending it to the senate.

"AHHDURR WHY WON'T THE SENUTT INVESTIGATE TRUMP PROPURLEY ADURRP, IT"S SUSPICEESUS. TURMP IS HYDING STUF AND HOUSE WANT 2 QUIK REMOVE, NO TIME 2 SPARE. ELECTION TIME UPON US" That's literally not how these things work Semitope, but keep trying sweetheart.

Why should the Senate do what the House should've done but refused to? Yet, you don't claim the house is "covering" for Trump.

You should be investigated for covering up your deductive reasoning ability.

[rampagefc77]

Let’s not forget trump literally declassified the call transcript for all to see... and we are claiming he is obstructing the case and not turning over the information?

Dems say trump can’t be above the law... but havent even accused him of breaking a law.

The whole thing is mind blowing.

[Thankless]

Let’s not forget trump literally declassified the call transcript for all to see... and we are claiming he is obstructing the case and not turning over the information?

Dems say trump can’t be above the law... but havent even accused him of breaking a law.

The whole thing is mind blowing.

They're just making a statement. Trump can't be above the law, that's true. It's like saying "crimes will not go unpunished, Trump is not above the law", Both statements can't really be argued, but it Doesn't mean Trump broke the law. People hear this, over and over again and assume Trump broke the law, got caught, and is evading justice.

They never outright claim Trump broke the law. They're master manipulators

[chaunce54]

They're just making a statement. Trump can't be above the law, that's true. It's like saying "crimes will not go unpunished, Trump is not above the law", Both statements can't really be argued, but it Doesn't mean Trump broke the law. People hear this, over and over again and assume Trump broke the law, got caught, and is evading justice.

They never outright claim Trump broke the law. They're master manipulators

But much like the Jedi mind trick, it only works on feeble minded liberals or those with severe cases of TDS.

[Thankless]

Claiming privilege over anything and everything which clearly isn't covered IS. Which is why he is charged with obstruction.

That's what happened.

What will happen next is the Republicans will say "we don't care."

Which will mean the next Dem won't give Congress a damn thing, for any reason...no matter how unjustified...just like Trump did.

Enjoy.

It's up to the courts to decide what is or isn't covered and when. House refused to take it to SCOTUS and decided to impeach the President without "evidence". They blame the lack of evidence on Trump hiding behind Executive Privilege, but all they had to do was take it to SCOTUS to get it. Yet, they refused to do so. Why?