Adam Schiff Has No Authority To Issue Subpoenas On Impeachment Inquiry

[The Purge]

Now he makes it up as he gets deeper and deeper into treason!

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff claimed that a quid pro quo agreement between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is not necessary for Trump's request that the foreign government investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden to be an impeachable offense.

Schiff, 59, has been one of the driving forces behind the impeachment inquiry that began last month after an unnamed CIA official filed a whistleblower complaint alleging wrongdoing by the president during his phone call with Zelensky. However, Schiff's ties to the whisteblower have given political opponents, including Trump, ammunition to question his actions.

"We have discovered in short order not only the contents of that call, but also the preparatory work that went into the call. The effort to condition something the Ukrainian president deeply sought, and that was a meeting with the president to establish that this new president of Ukraine had a powerful patron in the president of the United States that was of vital importance to Ukraine, was being conditioned on digging up dirt on the Bidens," Schiff stated on Sunday's episode of CBS's Face The Nation.



(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Lesh]

So the current congress killed impeachment... But Nancy goes ahead anyway without approval of the body... That is tantamount to Treason.

That's tantamount to unsubstantiated bullshit

 

[Faun]

You should go tell him that. I don' think he knows it because he just issued another batch of subpoenas.

It's not my opinion, it's the federal courts opinion, did you bother to read the provided link? Subpoenas are not valid unless they are issued in matters within the committees jurisdiction.

.

Since the committee has jurisdiction over presidential oversight, where do you see a problem?

Where is that on the list?

Who cares about your silly list. The house, as part of congress, has oversight authority.

The House does not oversee the President of the United States, dumbass. They are equal branches. A middle schooler could tell you that, dumbass!

Dumbfuck....

Here's what oversight looks like in the U.S. Constitution....

• The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

• The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.

​

 

[OKTexas]

None of that has anything to do with the topic.

.

Maybe you should read it again. It's directly on topic.

Wrong again commie, the intel committee signing subpoenas for agencies that are not within their jurisdiction are not valid by court precedents. That is the topic.

Here's a question for you, what committee has jurisdiction over the pentagon?

.

Pure bullshit. As of 2015 that is completely inaccurate.
That was when the REPUBLICANS changed the rules

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

 

[Crepitus]

You should go tell him that. I don' think he knows it because he just issued another batch of subpoenas.

It's not my opinion, it's the federal courts opinion, did you bother to read the provided link? Subpoenas are not valid unless they are issued in matters within the committees jurisdiction.

.

Since the committee has jurisdiction over presidential oversight, where do you see a problem?

Where is that on the list?

Who cares about your silly list. The house, as part of congress, has oversight authority.

The House does not oversee the President of the United States, dumbass. They are equal branches. A middle schooler could tell you that, dumbass!

I'm yeah, actually they do. It's called "checks and balances".

You constitutionalists really should read it some day.

 

[OKTexas]

It's not my opinion, it's the federal courts opinion, did you bother to read the provided link? Subpoenas are not valid unless they are issued in matters within the committees jurisdiction.

.

Since the committee has jurisdiction over presidential oversight, where do you see a problem?

Where is that on the list?

Who cares about your silly list. The house, as part of congress, has oversight authority.

The House does not oversee the President of the United States, dumbass. They are equal branches. A middle schooler could tell you that, dumbass!

I'm yeah, actually they do. It's called "checks and balances".

You constitutionalists really should read it some day.

Tell us what Article, Section and Clause where "checks and balances" are mentioned.

.

 

[Faun]

Maybe you should read it again. It's directly on topic.

Wrong again commie, the intel committee signing subpoenas for agencies that are not within their jurisdiction are not valid by court precedents. That is the topic.

Here's a question for you, what committee has jurisdiction over the pentagon?

.

Pure bullshit. As of 2015 that is completely inaccurate.
That was when the REPUBLICANS changed the rules

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

 

[OKTexas]

Wrong again commie, the intel committee signing subpoenas for agencies that are not within their jurisdiction are not valid by court precedents. That is the topic.

Here's a question for you, what committee has jurisdiction over the pentagon?

.

Pure bullshit. As of 2015 that is completely inaccurate.
That was when the REPUBLICANS changed the rules

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

Pure bullshit. As of 2015 that is completely inaccurate.
That was when the REPUBLICANS changed the rules

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

 

[OKTexas]

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

Try reading the OP and the link, I even gave you the section to look at, it has all the citations.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

Try reading the OP and the link, I even gave you the section to look at, it has all the citations.

.

OK. So who do you think has jurisdiction over impeachment investigations?

 

[OKTexas]

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

Try reading the OP and the link, I even gave you the section to look at, it has all the citations.

.

OK. So who do you think has jurisdiction over impeachment investigations?

According to wiki the judiciary.

.

 

[Care4all]

The judiciary committee will be in charge of the impeachment, Pelosi ordered all committees to do the investigating within their committees that fall under their committee oversight, then pass the info over to the judiciary committee for them to decide on articles of impeachment...

Whether there was an impeachment inquiry or not, the intelligence committee would be investigating the whistle blower urgent complaint.

Whether there was an impeachment inquiry or not, the ways and means committee, would be investigating Trump' s taxes....

Then send info to the judiciary committee for any articles of impeachment.

 

[Faun]

Pure bullshit. As of 2015 that is completely inaccurate.
That was when the REPUBLICANS changed the rules

Really, when did they change the court precedents?

.

They changed House rules regarding subpoenas. And the Constitution clearly gives the House authority to conduct its own chamber.

You stupid commie, if you had read the link I provided you'd know the house rules had nothing to do with how the courts ruled.

.

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the House determines that. Dayum, you're one ignorant con.

 

[Claudette]

I, for one, think the Dem leadership has lost their fucking minds.

 

[BULLDOG]

LOL

Brain-dead con, why are you swinging your purse at me just because you're too dumb to understand the Constitution?

Article I, Section 5

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.​

The House determines who among its members has subpoena power. The courts only get involved in cases where the House doesn't abide by their own rules.

Something you would have known had you understood your own link which, in contrast to your bullshit that it has nothing to do with House rules, actually cites House rules as the governing determination of who has subpoena power and who can be subpoenaed.

Furthermore more, your citation is decades old and antiquated. In 2015, the Republican-led House changed the rules on subpoenas. Republicans are now suffering from the very changes they themselves put in place when they wanted to go after the Obama administration....

GOP made it easier to subpoena presidential administrations in 2015. Now Democrats have that power.

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

Try reading the OP and the link, I even gave you the section to look at, it has all the citations.

.

OK. So who do you think has jurisdiction over impeachment investigations?

According to wiki the judiciary.

.

And the judiciary committee will have the final call on any impeachment articles that might be presented to the House.There is no reason why they are the only committee that can investigate.

 

[BlindBoo]

Where do you guys come up with this stuff.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44247.pdf

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

 

[Lesh]

Pelosi knows the rules.

You don’ t

And the notion that Trump would comply with anything , if only it were done the way he wants, is absurd

 

[OKTexas]

You illiterate fool, it's not about subpoena power, it's about areas of jurisdiction. The power to subpoena is limited by the committees area of jurisdiction, that's what the court said. Even a pathetic goober such as yourself should be able to understand that.

.

I am unaware of a court ruling concerning the validity of House subpoenas. Link?

Try reading the OP and the link, I even gave you the section to look at, it has all the citations.

.

OK. So who do you think has jurisdiction over impeachment investigations?

According to wiki the judiciary.

.

And the judiciary committee will have the final call on any impeachment articles that might be presented to the House.There is no reason why they are the only committee that can investigate.

And there's no reason the minority can't call witnesses, but the commies are blocking them form doing it. I simply pointed out a technicality that could bit them in the ass.

.

 

[Seawytch]

Pelosi knows the rules.

You don’ t

And the notion that Trump would comply with anything , if only it were done the way he wants, is absurd

It's just another delaying tactic.