Adam 'Pencil Neck' Schiff-head Thinks Executive privilege is Obstruction, lol

[JimBowie1958]

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.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
​

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 “the 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 with‐hold in a legislative investigation.” Others are more skeptical—like Alan Baron, a former attorney for the House judiciary committee on four judicial impeachments, who has cautioned that impeachment proceedings don’t “make all the problems go away.” ... The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” 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 “acting jointly.” 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 “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”... 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 committee’s deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the president’s 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 Nixon’s statements looked bad but were not criminal. Although St. Clair was not a government employee and was acting as Nixon’s 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 …. 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 committee’s proceedings to consider impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998, Clinton’s 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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Opinion | The Democrats' impeachment rules vote isn't a real effort to sanction Trump

If the federal judges hearing the two cases against the Trump administration’s claims of privilege demand proof that an impeachment inquiry exists, there isn’t any to provide them. Unlike the impeachment proceedings against Nixon and Bill Clinton, the House has not voted to institute a proceeding....

Second, the committee’s judicial strategy to investigate before an official impeachment investigation entails months of delay — perhaps up to the 2020 elections — with an uncertain outcome....

For instance, the committee showed no urgency when McGahn disregarded its subpoena to testify on May 21; it waited more than seven weeks before filing a lawsuit to compel his testimony. So if the committee was in no hurry to press the issue, there is no clear reason why a judge should give priority to this lawsuit; the court has not ruled yet and may not for weeks. A time-consuming appeal will then assuredly follow, with the ultimate outcome delayed well into 2020....

Third, the Judiciary Committee’s actions to implore the courts to enforce its subpoenas is an abdication of the authority vested in Congress by Article I of the Constitution. In 1974, faced with the president stonewalling congressional subpoenas in its impeachment inquiry, the committee rejected the proposition that it needed the courts to validate its constitutional authority regarding impeachment.

In explaining the Judiciary Committee’s approval of Article III impeaching Nixon for refusing to comply with the committee’s subpoenas, its final report stated that it was “inappropriate to seek the aid of the courts to enforce its subpoenas to the president.” The report added, “This conclusion is based on the constitutional provision vesting the power of impeachment solely in the House of Representatives and the express denial by the Framers of the Constitution of any role for the courts in the impeachment process."​

 

[Stratford57]

And again, Ukrainian fingerprints.

The Duran:

Who is Schiff’s patron, Igor Pasternak? He is a Ukraine globalist, military industrialist who was curiously spotted in Maidan, Kiev in 2014 for “diplomatic reasons” during the US/CIA sponsored coup.

Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine’s strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security.

What drives Adam Schiff’s never ending Russia hysteria?

When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff’s well documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine.

Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff’s anti-Russian narrative is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers

Taste of Ukraine Reception for Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29) | Political Party Time

Adam Schiff's collusion with oligarch, Ukrainian arms dealer, exposed

 

[Thunk]

There are very VERY few people in this world that I would like to hock a loogie on simply because the way their face looks...but adam schiff is one of those people!

 

[22lcidw]

To the cornfield with him! Your a bad man!

 

[JimBowie1958]

There are very VERY few people in this world that I would like to hock a loogie on simply because the way their face looks...but adam schiff is one of those people!

Doesn't he look like a guy who could make his own diamonds, if you follow me here.

 

[Thunk]

Doesn't he look like a guy who could make his own diamonds, if you follow me here.

Yup, just place a piece of coal on his chair. You'll have a diamond in no time flat!

But what really gets to me is them koo koo koogely eyes!

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Shiff caught lying to the camera

Congress must send him to prison if not crooked congress will be sent to prison

 

[JimBowie1958]

Adam Schiff 'Could Have Been More Clear' About Contact with 'Whistleblower' | Breitbart

An official with the House Intelligence Committee was forced to clarify Chairman Adam Schiff’s remarks on Sep. 17 that “[w]e have not spoken directly with the whistleblower” in light of evidence the committee had done so.
The New York Times reported Wednesday afternoon that Schiff “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint.”

As Breitbart News and others noted earlier on Wednesday, Schiff had claimed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Sep. 17 that “we” had never spoken directly to the so-called “whistleblower.” But the “complaint” sent by the so-called “whistleblower” was dated more than a month before Schiff’s MSNBC appearance — and the Times report claimed that “[t]he C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide” days before sending the letter.
​

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed 'We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower'

 

[GreenAndBlue]

Adam Schiff 'Could Have Been More Clear' About Contact with 'Whistleblower' | Breitbart

An official with the House Intelligence Committee was forced to clarify Chairman Adam Schiff’s remarks on Sep. 17 that “[w]e have not spoken directly with the whistleblower” in light of evidence the committee had done so.
The New York Times reported Wednesday afternoon that Schiff “learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer’s concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint.”

As Breitbart News and others noted earlier on Wednesday, Schiff had claimed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Sep. 17 that “we” had never spoken directly to the so-called “whistleblower.” But the “complaint” sent by the so-called “whistleblower” was dated more than a month before Schiff’s MSNBC appearance — and the Times report claimed that “[t]he C.I.A. officer approached a House Intelligence Committee aide” days before sending the letter.
​

Flashback: Adam Schiff Claimed 'We Have Not Spoken Directly with the Whistleblower'

So he was caught lying