What's new

House Intel Committee Rules Allow And Specify Subpoenas

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
261
Points
85
House Committees do Oversight and Investigations, and House Resolutions create them, like for House Intelligence Committee. Rule 7 of the Intelligence Committee procedures is in the link.

Rules of Procedure | Intelligence Committee

Claiming that the House Intelligence had no valid authority to issue subpoenas is not in the rules. Then to the extent that the Committee found evidence that merited attention of the House in its entirety: It further had authority to issue a report, and specify the basis for making the report. In the matter of John Donald Trump of the famous Morning Business: The Report was offering basis for the House to consider the vote for a more formal Impeachment Inquiry.

During all those proceedings, no one offered the defense now recently claimed by White House: That the subpoenas of the House Intelligence Committee were not germane, and had nothing to do with anything that had happened initiated by the Executive Branch.

It is called Oversight, and in the matter: Led to a report for the House to consider. The rules allow for the Committee to so-report. It was not an authorized Impeachment Committee, but had the rules to create hearings and make a report.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Moses appears to have had mostly authority from Pharaoh: To initiate subjugation of the World in Deut 23: 19-20, per Acts 7. A Memorial Day of that has happened, Again: In the context of Holocaust.)
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
13,142
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
261
Points
85
Ken Starr has lost at impeachment already, having no particular grasp of the matter. Every House Member knows that, and knows that what it does for a lot of its work is called, "Oversight." That has basis in investigations. Those have the authorized subpoena powers in place, like at Intel. There is a Resolution in the rules which cites the authority,

Two losers do not make a valid contrary opinion.

Then note the contention, Republicans contend the process unfair on process grounds. Yet the Democrats were telegraphing a possible outcome of the Intel hearings, throughout. House Intel members caught the drift of a likely High Crime, misdemeanor, or bribery aggrandizement, maybe even treason. Because there is Constitutional Impeachment--like voted last year--they are easily derelict if they fail at powers they also have in place.

That is called fair warning, even.

There are lots of court cases supporting House subpoena powers. The White House did not go to court!
The brand new law or case is not done ex post facto, and White House hasn't even filed a suit as you read this! There is no White House defense on the basis of un-lawful subpoena powers and warnings.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Would there even have been a Holocaust Memorial Day, had Moses been Impeached (Deut 23: 19-20, specifically condemning foreigners of Israel to economic subjugation--slavery widespread known about at the time?)
 
Last edited:

colfax_m

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6,803
Reaction score
623
Points
95
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
13,142
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
 

colfax_m

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6,803
Reaction score
623
Points
95
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
13,142
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
 

colfax_m

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6,803
Reaction score
623
Points
95
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
25,040
Reaction score
4,777
Points
280
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should recall the Chief Justice and inform him he is participating in an invalid impeachment trial.
 

colfax_m

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6,803
Reaction score
623
Points
95
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
Perhaps the Supreme Court should recall the Chief Justice and inform him he is participating in an invalid impeachment trial.
Lol.
 

kyzr

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
13,142
Reaction score
2,844
Points
280
Location
The AL part of PA
Impeachment is the "sole power of the House", the WHOLE HOUSE. Resolution 660 was required to issue valid subpoenas to the WH. If you don't believe me or Ken Starr then the courts would need to decide. The House has no means of enforcing anything.
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.


Impeachment is the "sole power of the House"
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
So the House says one thing and the WH says another?! Wonder who can break the tie and settle the dispute????
 

colfax_m

Silver Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
6,803
Reaction score
623
Points
95
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
So the House says one thing and the WH says another?! Wonder who can break the tie and settle the dispute????
The Constitution doesn’t require a tie breaker.
 
OP
M

mascale

VIP Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
261
Points
85
Sparing everyone the details: Better states the White House Defense ruse.

Trump's lawyer mainly took offense with Speaker Pelosi's "Announcement" of an "Impeachment Inquiry" as Speaker of The House. The Letter to Pelosi cited the House Impeachment votes of the two previous centuries: Which had happened. It is likely that the "Impeachment" word was bandied about, each time. White House Lawyer released no reports or transcripts--not even videos or Facebook links(?)--but did leave footnotes.

So House rules have actually evolved in that time frame.

President Bill Clinton became the first President in U.S. history to testify before a Grand Jury. So it was not a House Inquiry, a House Oversight Inquiry, a House Committee Hearing, or a response to a House Subpoena. None of that invalidated the 18 boxes of supportive materials that Starr used to set up the House vote for Impeachment. The Clinton Impeachment evidence was unprecedented, but not thought unconstitutional. Starr even used the "Impeachment Word," prior to the vote. "Common Sense" was allowed be applied!

In the matter of Trump--reasoning forward--the absence of good-faith testimony is in glaring contrast with the Clinton investigation(s). The main investigation was not in the House, but was not thought unconstitutional. In the matter of Trump, The intent of the Speaker was clearly set forth, the likely outcomes of the Intel Committee inquiry were clearly set forth. The Report of the Intelligence Committee was even titled with the "Impeachment Word." They were in no manner different from the use of the "Impeachment Word," of the Clinton precedent.

In the matter of Trump, the rules of subpoena and investigation had been followed. The Committee became every bit more analogous to the Grand Jury proceedings in the matter of Bill Clinton, and in the interim the House had Resolutions to authorize subpoenas within the Intelligence Committee. The Grand Jury proceeding was not construed unconstitutional. There is nothing to support the lawful Oversight rules of House Intelligence Committee.

Trying to make the process unfair, so as to create an "Unfairness" allegation: Is not in precedent anywhere in Law or rules of Legislatures.

Even Starr, 1998, had used the "Impeachment Word," prior to a vote of the House.

_________________________________
In four hours of closed-door testimony, conducted in the Map Room of the White House, Clinton spoke live via closed-circuit television to a grand jury in a nearby federal courthouse. He was the first sitting president ever to testify before a grand jury investigating his conduct. That evening, President Clinton also gave a four-minute televised address to the nation in which he admitted he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky. In the brief speech, which was wrought with legalisms, the word “sex” was never spoken, and the word “regret” was used only in reference to his admission that he misled the public and his family.

Less than a month later, on September 9, Kenneth Starr submitted his report and 18 boxes of supporting documents to the House of Representatives. Released to the public two days later, the Starr Report outlined a case for impeaching Clinton on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power, and also provided explicit details of the sexual relationship between the president and Ms. Lewinsky. On October 8, the House authorized a wide-ranging impeachment inquiry, and on December 11, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment. On December 19, the House impeached Clinton.

On January 7, 1999, in a congressional procedure not seen since the 1868 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, the trial of President Clinton got underway in the Senate. As instructed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (William Rehnquist at this time) was sworn in to preside, and the senators were sworn in as jurors.

Five weeks later, on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty,” and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was “profoundly sorry” for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Moses had not used the "Holocaust Word," in the matter of Deut 23: 19-20, even!)
 
Last edited:

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
33,689
Reaction score
3,574
Points
1,130
Turns out the House does have a means of enforcement.
How did the House enforce their invalid subpoenas?
An invalid impeachment? Enjoy!
The subpoenas weren’t invalid. The impeachment wasn’t invalid.
1. The subpoenas are called invalid by the WH/DOJ and the dems didn't take it to court, so they are invalid until the courts say otherwise.
2. The Articles are unconstitutional, according to Dershowitz and Starr:
Article-1 "Abuse of Power" is NOT a "High Crime", its not even a crime.
Article-2 "Obstruction of the House" was voided by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoenas for tax records. Trump does have due process rights to litigate whatever the fuck he wants to.
The White House has no authority to declare a subpoena invalid. The House does not need permission from the courts to engage in their constitutional authority. That would make them a subservient branch to the Judiciary and Executive.
So the House says one thing and the WH says another?! Wonder who can break the tie and settle the dispute????
too late sparky - Goldilocks has already been impeached by the House.

just throw out a BUT HILLARY and move on.

:itsok:
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top