JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,756
- 2,220
This guy is such a simple minded moron, and an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, and that is saying something as that is a very high bar.
Adam Schiff: White House Stonewalling Will Be Considered Obstruction Of Justice
Just because Nancy Pelosi says it is an impeachment inquiry does not make it an impeachment inquiry. The latter involves a full vote of the House to launch, and not just Pelosi having her PMS for the day.
So, in short, the subpoenas are of questionable authority without the minority members cooperating, and so far the President has not been given any procedural rights in these rogue 'inquiries'. Adam Schiff-head, who does not understand the difference between Executive Privilege and Obstruction is to be trusted with being even handed and objective or even merely competent? No way.
This will go to SCOTUS and Trump upheld for the millionth time.
Adam Schiff: White House Stonewalling Will Be Considered Obstruction Of Justice
Just because Nancy Pelosi says it is an impeachment inquiry does not make it an impeachment inquiry. The latter involves a full vote of the House to launch, and not just Pelosi having her PMS for the day.
Several experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations. Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that âthe Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations. From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might withâhold in a legislative investigation.â Others are more skepticalâlike Alan Baron, a former attorney for the House judiciary committee on four judicial impeachments, who has cautioned that impeachment proceedings donât âmake all the problems go away.â ... The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee âto investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeachâ the president in question. In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House. First, the authorizing resolutions outlined procedures for issuing subpoenas. Second, the measures laid out a process for taking staff depositions.
Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member âacting jointly.â If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances âmaximum flexibility and bipartisanship.â... It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committeeâs deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the presidentâs counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive. Attorney James D. St. Clair represented Nixon before the House judiciary committee during the impeachment proceedings, essentially arguing that Nixonâs statements looked bad but were not criminal. Although St. Clair was not a government employee and was acting as Nixonâs private attorney, he insisted at the time that he was representing the office of the presidency rather than Nixon personally: ''I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally âŚ. I represent him in his capacity as president.'' He made his final arguments before the House judiciary committee in July 1974 as it prepared articles of impeachment against Nixon. During the House judiciary committeeâs proceedings to consider impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, Clintonâs private attorney David Kendall questioned Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for an hour."
Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member âacting jointly.â If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances âmaximum flexibility and bipartisanship.â... It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committeeâs deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the presidentâs counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive. Attorney James D. St. Clair represented Nixon before the House judiciary committee during the impeachment proceedings, essentially arguing that Nixonâs statements looked bad but were not criminal. Although St. Clair was not a government employee and was acting as Nixonâs private attorney, he insisted at the time that he was representing the office of the presidency rather than Nixon personally: ''I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally âŚ. I represent him in his capacity as president.'' He made his final arguments before the House judiciary committee in July 1974 as it prepared articles of impeachment against Nixon. During the House judiciary committeeâs proceedings to consider impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, Clintonâs private attorney David Kendall questioned Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for an hour."
So, in short, the subpoenas are of questionable authority without the minority members cooperating, and so far the President has not been given any procedural rights in these rogue 'inquiries'. Adam Schiff-head, who does not understand the difference between Executive Privilege and Obstruction is to be trusted with being even handed and objective or even merely competent? No way.
This will go to SCOTUS and Trump upheld for the millionth time.