The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress.

If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would.

Given they got zero documents that they subpoena'd.. and yet documents were delivered to citizens that used the FOIA process, obstruction is guaranteed to be on the list. I saw a potential list that included obstruction of congress and obstruction of justice. Obstruction was on the list for Nixon and Clinton as well even though they did turn over documents freely, while not turning over others.

Technically, it all depends on the specific committees rules. Under those rules they may or may not delegate sole authority to the chair. So the committee could be operating under majority vote, 2/3rd, chairman plus ranking minority.. just chairman or who the hell knows as they can each do whatever they feel like. Not sure how to read the table in there. It almost seems like the chair, majority vote or some authorized member can authorize subpoenas for Intelligence and Judiciary. In both committees the ranking minority member has to be "consulted" it seems as well.

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

The DOD is part of the executive branch. The subpoena was issued to someone from the DOD, thus the "executive". The DOD also used "executive privilege" in their bitch letter.

DOJ is part of the executive branch. Subpoenas were issued to them to get unredacted grand jury testimony from the Mueler report as part of the impeachment inquiry. The executive made the same sort of arguments and they've lost the case on multiple points. Course it's not going to be completely resolved until some time next year but it will most likely come down to the main point of whether or not the private information can be made available and nothing to do with whether the subpoena or request is legal or not.

Says the person who will not admit he was wrong about there being no subpoenas issued at all or that there is a high degree of at least circumstantial proof that the the Rudy/Pompeo subpoenas exist given they've said they do. That's some awesome high level reasoning and logic coming from you.

Impeachment inquiry investigation was announced Sep 24th but they had already been looking into things based on the whistle blower complaint. They started issuing subpoenas. The call record ones appear to be around Sep 30th.

AT&T has to comply with the laws and the Supreme court has ruled on things like this. I'm sure they had their lawyers look things over and there's no point of fighting it if they would lose. They have to spend their own money as opposed to the government which wastes every ones money even when they know they'll lose.

Not sure how it can be considered spying when the subpoenas get issued through committees that are made up of both parties. I also don't think that gathering evidence of past acts would in anyway be considered spying either.

Those four constitutional lawyers today all sucked. The three, although the middle guy was a bit less so, were all gung ho that it's absolutely impeachable, do it, do it now and between that and her stupid attempts at being funny like the Baron "joke" just made them come across as biased and disingenuous at best... And the other guy's attitude that they should just spend years fighting things out in court making impeachment completely useless just made it easy to discount anything he had to say. So glad I watched all that.. yeah right..

You've claimed they didn't issue any "real" subpoenas prior to Oct 31st. You've made blanket statements about that. You were just shown one proving you're wrong and you can try and twist it how you wish but that doesn't change the fact..

Yeah. I'm not going to bother with that "legal" thing again. Not my problem if you didn't comprehend what I was referring to at the time. I will give you that it was a poor choice of word on my part but given the context of the conversation at the time it should be been obvious what I meant anyway.

DOD letter of the 22nd bitching about her subpoena...
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

Her subpoena, dated Oct 21st for her to show up on the 23rd. Just so you don't miss that, that was before that 31st requirement you magically added one day in order to give yourself more "outs".
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdf

Her transcript from her deposition on the 23rd.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D012.pdf

Can you shut up now about subpoenas? I'm sure though that you'll come up with some new bullshit issue about it all.

No one can answer your questions. Stop trying to figure out why things happen in this market or predict what may happen. Learn how to make money from what has always been the case, that these markets fluctuate up and down wildly. Once you do that, you'll be able to make money far more consistently with far more wins than losses.

You clearly have reading comprehension issues if you think that's what I was saying. Try again.

Didn't make any conclusions and don't have any at this point. You just like to twist things to mislead etc in order to suit your agenda.

What I did do is quickly skim over them but haven't dug into them to see what's really there. Either way, I'm not the one posting things that say they contain something they may not. I didn't see anything about those things during my skim through them which is why I didn't say anything definitive about it at the time. I could have done what some of  you do is just make claims about things that then wouldn't be backed up with fact, and then refuse to admit I was wrong or could be wrong. Cause it's all about spreading propaganda as opposed to any truth right?

Are you on drugs or something? What the hell are you talking about? My boss? WTF.

My "point", is that you just seem to post propaganda as opposed to actually validating it. Did you go and look at the actual documents to see if the article was accurate or not? They're available. I've downloaded them but haven't had the time to dig into them yet. What about you? Do you even care about the truth or just to spread stuff that could be misinformation cause it suits your bias?

So you turn it into assuming I have certain viewpoints so you can deflect from the substance and just ignore it. Perhaps you didn't comprehend what I actually said.

Did you actually look at the pages yourself? Or did you just believe what you read. They're available. Go ahead and look at them.

I love having a lot of different sources for information and I'll read anything as long as it's well done and not over the top in terms of bias. So when you guys started talking about zerohedge, I checked it out... One of the articles I looked at I was thinking would be good. It was a 3 part article. First part was ok.. Then they veered off to a completely different topic in the last 2 parts in order to bash those they were biased against... I read probably a dozen other things where they were attacking people personally and promoting nothing but political bias without any solid substance. And that's the "reputable" source of news you guys post.

This should be fun to go through.

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

So the original source of that Biden article is on Interfax-Ukraine... A news site owned by the Russian company Interfax. Interesting thing is that the story seems to have comes from MP Derkach. He seems to be tagged on that site for a variety of similar things about Biden that seemed to have started in, big surprise, October. Just a tad suspect given he's all of a sudden making these sorts of statements. As far as I can tell, his family has been part of the "power structure" there for a long time.

He probably gets confused because impeachment is considered a "judicial proceeding", derived from the senate trial. It's the reason why, as in the case of the Clinton impeachment and as is happening now with getting access to the Muelar report etc, the exclusions of some ruling 6e applies to being able to get unredacted documents and grand jury testimony when doing an impeachment inquiry etc. You know. I know far too much about all this crap now.

The prosecutor was investigating the owner Zlochevsky and not Biden's Son. That's just a lie that the conspiracy theory people try and spread in order to twist things to their purposes. Never mind how they twist the timing and other facts to suit their purpose.

Burden of proof is yours even more so since you can prove it. Please don't try and throw out your phony "logic" argument. As someone with an actual scientific background I know you're just full of shit and that since you can prove it, the burden is even more so yours. So put up or shut up.

Why don't you provide the government documents that show who the clerk is, what they do and the rules etc associated with it. Oh yeah. You refused to do that.