Trump Trial Defense Makes Likely Monster Mistake: House Intel Was Doing A Report, Not Impeachment!

[mascale]

Supposing everyone has the Saturday defense of John Donald Trump--of the Morning Business Tweets--correct: Then White House Lawyers have taken an Opinion of one Assistant Attorney at DOJ: And made it a centerpiece. To enforce a Subpoena, the House has to create it, and there was no House Authorization to initiate proceedings--most of the year--to Impeach.

The problems surfacing--in any "Common Sense" interpretation: Is that evidence was required regarding whether to go forward or not. That is, to even start such proceedings of an Impeachment: There needed to be a report of some basis. The House Speaker could not simply declare such basis, with any expectation of an outcome, even upheld legal. The last three words of that last sentence have become the Trump Defense.

It looks even more flimsy when anyone points to the actual document that the Standing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sent to Judiciary Committee. House Intel did not create an Impeachment basis. It created a report for the House to Consider: "The Trump-Ukraine Impeach Inquiry Report."

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed. That it did do, subsequent the House Vote for Impeachment. The report explains all the obstructions put up by the White House: Block the Lawful requests, oversight and subpoenas of any House Permanent Select Committee. Any House Select Committee has the same authority, in creating reports.

Just Sayin'

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Had Moses explained his sources, for example: How differently would Deut 23: 19-20, been regarded, (those being better called, "The House and Lineage of Pharaoh!")

 

[miketx]

Fake news again.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Funny thought Pelosi said he was peached forever

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Supposing everyone has the Saturday defense of John Donald Trump--of the Morning Business Tweets--correct: Then White House Lawyers have taken an Opinion of one Assistant Attorney at DOJ: And made it a centerpiece. To enforce a Subpoena, the House has to create it, and there was no House Authorization to initiate proceedings--most of the year--to Impeach.

The problems surfacing--in any "Common Sense" interpretation: Is that evidence was required regarding whether to go forward or not. That is, to even start such proceedings of an Impeachment: There needed to be a report of some basis. The House Speaker could not simply declare such basis, with any expectation of an outcome, even upheld legal. The last three words of that last sentence have become the Trump Defense.

It looks even more flimsy when anyone points to the actual document that the Standing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sent to Judiciary Committee. House Intel did not create an Impeachment basis. It created a report for the House to Consider: "The Trump-Ukraine Impeach Inquiry Report."

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed. That it did do, subsequent the House Vote for Impeachment. The report explains all the obstructions put up by the White House: Block the Lawful requests, oversight and subpoenas of any House Permanent Select Committee. Any House Select Committee has the same authority, in creating reports.

Just Sayin'

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Had Moses explained his sources, for example: How differently would Deut 23: 19-20, been regarded, (those being better called, "The House and Lineage of Pharaoh!")

Not even going to pretend I understood the above so lets start with this...what exactly does making this "MONSTER MISTAKE" mean is going to happen now?

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump's defense team tore the house dems arguments apart in just 2 hours...it was such an ass kicking that the fake news media is crying for "real witnesses"...whatever they mean by that.....its over...acquitted by the end of the week....acquitted for life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Supposing everyone has the Saturday defense of John Donald Trump--of the Morning Business Tweets--correct: Then White House Lawyers have taken an Opinion of one Assistant Attorney at DOJ: And made it a centerpiece. To enforce a Subpoena, the House has to create it, and there was no House Authorization to initiate proceedings--most of the year--to Impeach.

The problems surfacing--in any "Common Sense" interpretation: Is that evidence was required regarding whether to go forward or not. That is, to even start such proceedings of an Impeachment: There needed to be a report of some basis. The House Speaker could not simply declare such basis, with any expectation of an outcome, even upheld legal. The last three words of that last sentence have become the Trump Defense.

It looks even more flimsy when anyone points to the actual document that the Standing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sent to Judiciary Committee. House Intel did not create an Impeachment basis. It created a report for the House to Consider: "The Trump-Ukraine Impeach Inquiry Report."

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed. That it did do, subsequent the House Vote for Impeachment. The report explains all the obstructions put up by the White House: Block the Lawful requests, oversight and subpoenas of any House Permanent Select Committee. Any House Select Committee has the same authority, in creating reports.

Just Sayin'

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Had Moses explained his sources, for example: How differently would Deut 23: 19-20, been regarded, (those being better called, "The House and Lineage of Pharaoh!")

Not even going to pretend I understood the above so lets start with this...what exactly does making this "MONSTER MISTAKE" mean is going to happen now?

Don't waste your time. This poster does not speak English, and uses an online translation service to convert his/her posts to English, so it reads like unintelligible gibberish. You won't get a response that makes any sense.

 

[JGalt]

The House failed to even do a legitimate "report." All they came up with was innuendo, second-hand information, and "he said/she said", thrown in with some speculation, fear-mongering, quotes taken out of context, and blatant lies.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Supposing everyone has the Saturday defense of John Donald Trump--of the Morning Business Tweets--correct: Then White House Lawyers have taken an Opinion of one Assistant Attorney at DOJ: And made it a centerpiece. To enforce a Subpoena, the House has to create it, and there was no House Authorization to initiate proceedings--most of the year--to Impeach.

The problems surfacing--in any "Common Sense" interpretation: Is that evidence was required regarding whether to go forward or not. That is, to even start such proceedings of an Impeachment: There needed to be a report of some basis. The House Speaker could not simply declare such basis, with any expectation of an outcome, even upheld legal. The last three words of that last sentence have become the Trump Defense.

It looks even more flimsy when anyone points to the actual document that the Standing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sent to Judiciary Committee. House Intel did not create an Impeachment basis. It created a report for the House to Consider: "The Trump-Ukraine Impeach Inquiry Report."

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed. That it did do, subsequent the House Vote for Impeachment. The report explains all the obstructions put up by the White House: Block the Lawful requests, oversight and subpoenas of any House Permanent Select Committee. Any House Select Committee has the same authority, in creating reports.

Just Sayin'

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Had Moses explained his sources, for example: How differently would Deut 23: 19-20, been regarded, (those being better called, "The House and Lineage of Pharaoh!")

Why do so many people such as yourself still think that the impeachment process is governed by our legal system? It is not. The democrats could have simply said “we think Trump is bad, and we are going to impeach him.” And the senate could say “we agree he is bad, and we vote to remove him.” And that would be it. Trump would be out and there is not a single thing he could do about it. STOP THINKING OF THIS AS A LEGAL PROCEEDING. IT IS 100% a political proceeding. The impeachment is political. The impeachment trial is political. It is all political.

 

[mascale]

Since exoneration is impossible, for the Trump Administration, then the niceties of the process make the historical record more noticeable.

The Intel "Report" was clearly only as legitimate as it could be made!

The opening remarks of the Trump Defense will go down in history, far more red than a nose,
dears!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(OY!)

 

[Oddball]

Supposing everyone has the Saturday defense of John Donald Trump--of the Morning Business Tweets--correct: Then White House Lawyers have taken an Opinion of one Assistant Attorney at DOJ: And made it a centerpiece. To enforce a Subpoena, the House has to create it, and there was no House Authorization to initiate proceedings--most of the year--to Impeach.

The problems surfacing--in any "Common Sense" interpretation: Is that evidence was required regarding whether to go forward or not. That is, to even start such proceedings of an Impeachment: There needed to be a report of some basis. The House Speaker could not simply declare such basis, with any expectation of an outcome, even upheld legal. The last three words of that last sentence have become the Trump Defense.

It looks even more flimsy when anyone points to the actual document that the Standing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence sent to Judiciary Committee. House Intel did not create an Impeachment basis. It created a report for the House to Consider: "The Trump-Ukraine Impeach Inquiry Report."

Report | Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed. That it did do, subsequent the House Vote for Impeachment. The report explains all the obstructions put up by the White House: Block the Lawful requests, oversight and subpoenas of any House Permanent Select Committee. Any House Select Committee has the same authority, in creating reports.

Just Sayin'

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Had Moses explained his sources, for example: How differently would Deut 23: 19-20, been regarded, (those being better called, "The House and Lineage of Pharaoh!")

 

[mascale]

Lots of House Committees were doing the oversight that is lawful and constitutional.

Pentagon and OMB Subpoenaed in House Impeachment Inquiry

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Pharaoh's House was also based on Legend, in history: From which more legend was alleged: Deut 23: 19-20!)

 

[Muhammed]

The Republicans in fact that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed.

 

[kyzr]

The OP is wrong. The "impeachment inquiry" headed by Schiff was not authorized properly by a full House vote, and neither were the subpoenas that they want to impeach Trump over. This trial is a few days away from being over.

 

[Lysistrata]

trump's supporters insist on conflating an investigation with a trial, and then screaming "unfair"! Anyone who has any familiarity with our system, or who even has watched a true-crime show in TV knows that the cops first do an investigation, including interviewing witnesses, to determine whether there enough evidence there that a case against a particular individual should go forward to a charge. The interviews of witnesses do not involve having an attorney representing the suspect present when the police interview a witness. Only after charges are brought and a trial begins, does the charged person have a right to confront a witness on the stand.

The committees conducting the investigation were acting as the investigating "cops" in this instance.

 

[mascale]

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1

Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

The House used its investigatory privileges in the First Congress (1789–1791). Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, the superintendent of finances during the Continental Congress and a financier of the American Revolution, asked Congress in 1790 to investigate his handling of the country’s finances in order to clear his name of potential impropriety. The House referred Morris’s request to a select committee, setting a precedent for future investigations, while the Senate had President George Washington appoint special commissioners and report back to that body. Representative James Madison of Virginia said that the “House should possess itself of the fullest information in order to doing justice to the country and to public officers.”

Two years later, the House authorized a special committee to investigate the military defeat of General Arthur St. Clair. This was the first time the House investigated an official under the President’s direct supervision. Several Representatives debated whether the House had authority to conduct such an investigation at all. Initially, Representative William Giles of Virginia moved a resolution to request that President Washington launch an investigation. But the House amended the resolution to create a select committee, authorized “to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.” Washington consulted his Cabinet to discuss compliance with the House’s investigation. They agreed upon rules of disclosure that formed the early basis of what is now known as “executive privilege,” or The President’s prerogative to use private documents and unvarnished advice to formulate policy decisions.

Subpoena Power and Contempt
The House has compelled the attendance of witnesses since 1795, when it investigated an attempt to bribe Members. Indeed, early cases of congressional subpoena and contempt powers focused on the abuse or discredit of the House itself. Robert Randall, a real estate speculator, had tried to purchase what is now Michigan from the federal government and share the proceeds with Members of Congress who approved the sale. As a result, Randall was the first individual held in contempt of Congress. The House Sergeant-at-Arms was authorized to arrest him and bring him before the House, where he was reprimanded and placed in a local jail for a week.

Subpoena power for routine legislative matters evolved after an 1827 debate authorizing the Committee on Manufactures to “send for persons and papers.” The committee, seeking more information on reforming the tariff of 1824, wanted to conduct its own investigation given that voluntary testimony and memorials to the committee had been “in many instances opposed to each other, and contradictory as regards facts.” One Representative denounced the action as an “inquisition” and such power generally as “odious, and oppressive, in the highest degree.” Representative Edwin Livingston of Louisiana said it was better to have an independent investigation than rely on voluntary testimony by “those interested to deceive.” Livingston said, “all our laws…would be better, more stable, more wise” if the House conducted its own investigations.

The House reformed and routinized its subpoena and contempt powers during the 19th century. Initially, it had authorized the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest those disregarding the orders of the House and bring them before its Membership. After an 1857 case involving a reporter for the New York Times who was held in contempt for not divulging his sources for a report concerning potential bribery of House Members, Congress passed the forbearer to the current law on contempt (2 USC §194). In that law, the failure of a witness to answer “any question pertinent” to a congressional investigation would prompt an investigation by the Department of Justice, as well as potential fines and jail time.

Current Practice
Hearings are most commonly held for three reasons: to consider pending legislation; to investigate issues that may require legislation in the future; and, to investigate and oversee federal programs. They reflect the most important issues of the day and what occupies congressional attention. This means that Congress holds hearings on a variety of issues, from steroid abuse in professional sports to the use of weather satellites. Hearings have also been used to further the rights of minority groups. Congressional investigations not only help legislators make better policy decisions, but they are central to the system of checks and balances. Investigatory hearings can uncover presidential abuses of power and corruption, such as the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s or Watergate in the 1970s. But hearings have also been used for less noble purposes, such as the blacklisting of private citizens during the “un-American activities” hearings in the 1950s. While the power to investigate is broad, the Supreme Court has since ruled that Congress must confine itself to “legislative purposes” and avoid the strictly private affairs of individual citizens.
_____________________
The Republicans in fact contend that in the Inquiry there is all the evidence that was needed for House Judiciary to proceed.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!
(New Testament offered Matthew 25: 14-30, without authorization, even from the sitting and other Holy Fathers, for example(?)!)

 

[kyzr]

THE HOUSE IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PROTOCOLS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL "IMPEACHMENT" WHEN THEY IMPEACH.
What country are you from?

 

[mascale]

And so protocols were undertaken, and Impeachment Articles voted. In previous impeachments, the Grand Juries, even, were not regarded illegal. They were clearly not authorized impeachment proceedings, is noted historically. They are regarded reports. The Intel report is more transparent about the intent, is all--more than any of the Grand Jury proceedings. The Administration was given opportunity to take note--Due Process.

The slime contention that the Committee should have been secret, attempting even murder of all Trump family members: Is not even a Democrat House Members contention.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(If the baby was found in a basked in the Nile, it could still be allowed to live, even!)

 

[kyzr]

And so protocols were undertaken, and Impeachment Articles voted. In previous impeachments, the Grand Juries, even, were not regarded illegal. They were clearly not authorized impeachment proceedings, is noted historically. They are regarded reports. The Intel report is more transparent about the intent, is all--more than any of the Grand Jury proceedings. The Administration was given opportunity to take note--Due Process.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(If the baby was found in a basked in the Nile, it could still be allowed to live, even!)

We can argue and its just talk.
Trump's defense team will argue these points to the senate jurors and we'll see if they remove, or they acquit.

 

[mascale]

It is better to point out the Secretive Slime contention that no transparency be permitted, that "Closet Clandestine" and secret assassinations be honored instead.

The Intel hearings and report were open and public: The Trump Administration even subpoenaed to appear!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Pharaoh had not been asked to appear, in other matters (Deut 23: 19-20))

 

[kyzr]

You can whine all you want, the trial will be over this week and you can support your candidate to put up against Trump.

 

[mascale]

The Mark Of The Beast has become the Administration, already over. Alleging that secret assassinations--by GOP--are a part of the legacy doesn't even support the Saudi assassination of the reporter in Turkey.

The Democrats have reams of text showing offers of Due Process: Even visible to Republican and Independent voters.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(When Moses spoke ex cathedra, even!)