Impeachment Trial... Questions phase

[bripat9643]

You mean like Obama?

Yes there is, turd. I have already quoted it

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

That is not a law, dope.

From your link:
"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

Who's the dope?
Is the constitution not the supreme law of the land, dope.
There's precedent and under our legal system based on English common law, precedent carries weight under the law.
This ain't France, shitforbrains. And if you need to ask about that, don't you'll just look all the more stupid.

LOL...
There's tons of precedent stating that the president must comply with congressional subpoenas as well, dope.

Name one example of where they refused to turn over anything.

Eric Holder and Obama refused to hand over any documents related to Fast and Furious

 

[Jitss617]

How do you know?

Because I’m a genius

So you don’t know .. I bet Bolton would have came forward and told you yes truno talked about many things had lots of ideas.. what’s your point

you're an idiot then. If his lawyer said that and it wasn’t true the. That lawyer would be disbarred

How do you know

Ok, enough trolling for you... I’m out of food.

So you don’t know. To late now

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They didn't, dope. Trump's legal team made up excuses for them not to comply with subpoenas. EP was not one of them.

"Making excuses" means showing the reason the subpoenas weren't legal. Laws are just "excuses" if they get in the way of the Dim agenda.

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

Yes there is, turd. I have already quoted it

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

That is not a law, dope.

From your link:
"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

You left this part out, moron:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
​

Why should anyone believe the first part is binding if the second part isn't?

None of it's binding. It's not a law and it's certainly not in the House rules.

 

[sartre play]

Are we watching the same trial?

 

[BluesLegend]

Certain committees already have independent subpoena authority. They have for some time. Certainly those subpoenas issued after the impeachment resolution are not "invalid".

LOL impeachment requires a full vote of the HOUSE fact and backed up by all previous impeachments. It's not our fault House Dems are stupid.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They didn't, dope. Trump's legal team made up excuses for them not to comply with subpoenas. EP was not one of them.

"Making excuses" means showing the reason the subpoenas weren't legal. Laws are just "excuses" if they get in the way of the Dim agenda.

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

What is the remedy when the Congress and Executive disagree?

They go to court for a ruling. YOUR House Clowns didn’t do that. Why not?

The remedy is impeachment for obstruction.

So any time the executive branch objects to a subpoena, then the House has cause to impeach him?

No administration has refused every subpoena. Not one.

If that is not willful obstruction, I don't know what would be.

 

[the other mike]

If Jeffries isn't CIA, I'm Santa Claus.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Certain committees already have independent subpoena authority. They have for some time. Certainly those subpoenas issued after the impeachment resolution are not "invalid".

LOL impeachment requires a full vote of the HOUSE fact and backed up by all previous impeachments. It's not our fault House Dems are stupid.

They had a full vote of the House to open impeachment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And Cannot Be Delegated To Committees And Other Nonsense Unless By A Vote And Other Nonsense!

Sure it is. We all know that congress has the authority to issue subpoenas.

And the Executive Branch has the authority to challenge them, Short Bus Rider.

Not all of them in one fell swoop. That has never been done. The authority of congress to issue subpoenas is well established.

And Cannot Be Delegated To Committees And Other Nonsense Unless By A Vote And Other Nonsense!

Says who?

"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

Only if the following is true, numskull:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

Irrelevant nonsense. The House makes it's own rules.
Show us the votes for the House investigations during the Obama admin.

 

[The Original Tree]

The Biden’s are looking mighty sleezy don’t they?

"Making excuses" means showing the reason the subpoenas weren't legal. Laws are just "excuses" if they get in the way of the Dim agenda.

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

Yes there is, turd. I have already quoted it

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

That is not a law, dope.

From your link:
"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

You left this part out, moron:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
​

Why should anyone believe the first part is binding if the second part isn't?

None of it's binding. It's not a law and it's certainly not in the House rules.

 

[The Original Tree]

Rules and Other Nonsense!

And Cannot Be Delegated To Committees And Other Nonsense Unless By A Vote And Other Nonsense!

And the Executive Branch has the authority to challenge them, Short Bus Rider.

Not all of them in one fell swoop. That has never been done. The authority of congress to issue subpoenas is well established.

And Cannot Be Delegated To Committees And Other Nonsense Unless By A Vote And Other Nonsense!

Says who?

"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

Only if the following is true, numskull:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

Irrelevant nonsense. The House makes it's own rules.
Show us the votes for the House investigations during the Obama admin.

 

[bripat9643]

"Making excuses" means showing the reason the subpoenas weren't legal. Laws are just "excuses" if they get in the way of the Dim agenda.

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

Yes there is, turd. I have already quoted it

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

That is not a law, dope.

From your link:
"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

You left this part out, moron:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
​

Why should anyone believe the first part is binding if the second part isn't?

None of it's binding. It's not a law and it's certainly not in the House rules.

Then neither is your quote, moron.

You just admitted that you're blowing hot gas out your ass.

 

[The Original Tree]

Votes and other Nonsense

Certain committees already have independent subpoena authority. They have for some time. Certainly those subpoenas issued after the impeachment resolution are not "invalid".

LOL impeachment requires a full vote of the HOUSE fact and backed up by all previous impeachments. It's not our fault House Dems are stupid.

They had a full vote of the House to open impeachment.

 

[bripat9643]

Certain committees already have independent subpoena authority. They have for some time. Certainly those subpoenas issued after the impeachment resolution are not "invalid".

LOL impeachment requires a full vote of the HOUSE fact and backed up by all previous impeachments. It's not our fault House Dems are stupid.

They had a full vote of the House to open impeachment.

After the subpoenas were issued, moron. That makes them invalid.

 

[The Original Tree]

I am! Every time a Democrat speaks I fart!

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

Yes there is, turd. I have already quoted it

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;​

That is not a law, dope.

From your link:
"Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas."

You left this part out, moron:

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[9] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber;
​

Why should anyone believe the first part is binding if the second part isn't?

None of it's binding. It's not a law and it's certainly not in the House rules.

Then neither is your quote, moron.

You just admitted that you're blowing hot gas out your ass.

 

[bripat9643]

"Making excuses" means showing the reason the subpoenas weren't legal. Laws are just "excuses" if they get in the way of the Dim agenda.

That is not a valid reason. There is no law , rule or regulation that requires a full vote in the house to issue subpoenas. Pure nonsense.
The president doesn't get to decide how the House conducts investigations or impeachment.

What is the remedy when the Congress and Executive disagree?

They go to court for a ruling. YOUR House Clowns didn’t do that. Why not?

The remedy is impeachment for obstruction.

So any time the executive branch objects to a subpoena, then the House has cause to impeach him?

No administration has refused every subpoena. Not one.

If that is not willful obstruction, I don't know what would be.

That's because never before have they all been illegal. The House can only subpoena impeachment witnesses after a full vote of the House to start an impeachment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Huh?
How does one "follow up" on a claim that was never made?

The claim was the subpoenas were invalid.

Get up to speed.

The discussion was about executive privilege, dope.

Schiff never found out HE DIDNT FOLLOW UP

EP would be invoked to the issuing body, dope.

That’s the process .. helloooo mcfly

It's not. EP is invoked to the body that issues the subpoena. Either that body accepts the exemptions and redactions or they challenge them in court.

That is the process.

 

[The Original Tree]

Our favorite WHISTLEBLOWER, who Schiff does not know,led a failed Russia hoax during 2016

 

[basquebromance]

"I like how the mic goes dead between questions at the senate trial, lest anyone get caught on a hot mic talking about grabbing p@$$y."

 

[The Original Tree]

Why aren’t you challenging The President in Court?

The claim was the subpoenas were invalid.

Get up to speed.

The discussion was about executive privilege, dope.

Schiff never found out HE DIDNT FOLLOW UP

EP would be invoked to the issuing body, dope.

That’s the process .. helloooo mcfly

It's not. EP is invoked to the body that issues the subpoena. Either that body accepts the exemptions and redactions or they challenge them in court.

That is the process.