Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They need to drop Article II

 

[MarathonMike]

Good point! Of course it doesn't matter because the Democrats are making it up as they go along.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

No evidence and they need to drop 50% of their "case" against Trump


Awesome!

 

[NightFox]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

Right. they can impeach him for, literally, being a poo-poo head.

Fortunately words mean things, and the specifics of the charge cannot hold water; that they impeach him for it only serves to diminish their credibility and competence to govern.

In that, I beg them to continue ahead, full speed.

 

[colfax_m]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

 

[mudwhistle]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

Course the whole case could go to the Supreme Court and be thrown out.

Cheeks meet balances

 

[NightFox]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

Right. they can impeach him for, literally, being a poo-poo head.

Fortunately words mean things, and the specifics of the charge cannot hold water; that they impeach him for it only serves to diminish their credibility and competence to govern.

In that, I beg them to continue ahead, full speed.

Uh-huh, legally the HoR is perfectly within its Constitutional Authority to pass and then issue Article II, there is no legal problem whatsoever with it.

Does Article II make sense with respect to being a predicate for removing Donny from Office? the Senate will ultimately decide that.

As far as diminishing their "credibility and competence"; they're scumbag politicians so they didn't have either of those attributes in abundance to begin with.

 

[BlindBoo]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate. Former Republicans are falling all over themselves to embrace and profit from the Trumpublican corruption.

 

[MarathonMike]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

Right. they can impeach him for, literally, being a poo-poo head.

Fortunately words mean things, and the specifics of the charge cannot hold water; that they impeach him for it only serves to diminish their credibility and competence to govern.

In that, I beg them to continue ahead, full speed.

Uh-huh, legally the HoR is perfectly within its Constitutional Authority to pass and then issue Article II, there is no legal problem whatsoever with it.

Does Article II make sense with respect to being a predicate for removing Donny from Office? the Senate will ultimately decide that.

As far as diminishing their "credibility and competence"; they're scumbag politicians so they didn't have either of those attributes in abundance to begin with.

What little credibility and competence the Democrats may have had, they wadded it up and flushed it down the toilet.

 

[NightFox]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

Course the whole case could go to the Supreme Court and be thrown out.

Cheeks meet balances

Ummm.. no it couldn't, SCOTUS doesn't have Constitutional Recourse when it comes to modifying the impeachment and removal from office process. The only role they're going to play is the Chief Justice presiding at the Senate Trial.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate. Former Republicans are falling all over themselves to embrace and profit from the Trumpublican corruption.

I accept your concession of the points made.

 

[colfax_m]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If you think that there is a crime of contempt of congress would you please provide the citation or statute.

You can't.

It doesn't exist.

 

[The Original Tree]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Furthermore, They Denied The President Due Process because they refused to wait until The Courts Arbitrated the Validity of The Subpoenas, and on whether or not if they involved The President's Right to Executive Privilege.

 

[jc456]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

it's exactly why the founders made this the way they did for this very partisan thing. it's really a shame though, a disgrace to the demofks.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Furthermore, They Denied The President Due Process because they refused to wait until The Courts Arbitrated the Validity of The Subpoenas, and on whether or not if they involved The President's Right to Executive Privilege.

Well yes - that's the point.
The House cannot soundly claim the President ignored a legal subpoena when the subpoena has not been ruled legal.