[POLL] Trump Impeachment Poll: Who's Fault Is It?

[suchmoon]

If it is not saying impeachment can be a criminal trial, why exactly does it exclude impeachment from the normal due process of criminal trials? Wouldn't that be totally pointless? I never claimed ALL impeachments were criminal trials, so your point is moot.

Then what's the problem with Trump's impeachment not being a criminal trial? You're kinda all over the place with your itch to prove... something.

I am not stretching anything, except for maybe your mama's booty hole.

Wrong board for your mommy issues.

[TECSHARE]

Yes, impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. And so all the things like facing your accuser, due process and the like, simply don't apply which also means they write their own form of subpoena. Impeachment is basically like a grand jury proceeding and indictment. Trump will have his turn to defend himself etc if he gets impeached (indited) and it goes to the senate for "trial". So what's your point?

As for issuing his own subpoenas etc, I get the impression it has nothing to do with impeachment, but which committee is doing things. If I was Pelosis I'd probably do the same thing just so he couldn't turn it into a circus and just get it done and then, assuming they want to go through with it, get it into the hands of the senate as soon as possible and let them have their shit show.

I really don't get the whole "real impeachment" thing. Congress can do things how they want. The right just throws out "prior presidential" impeachments as precedent but what about all the other impeachments. The constitution seems pretty crystal clear to me, congress has sole power and can run things however they want. If he gets impeached, then maybe he should try and take it to the supreme court and get a ruling on it or something. If it's such a big deal, then maybe they should have written some laws or do some constitutional amendments to set out exact procedures to follow. But really, do you think either side wants to really do that? They all love the show they get to put on far to much. I must say though, I'm a bit surprised at how little the Dems are making this a show. I thought it would be a hell of a lot more. Almost makes me think they're actually serious about it.

Funny that you would post links to pretty much all right wing sources and then talk about other peoples confirmation bias. I also noted that most of them showed a hell of lot of "red" on newsguard for "This website severely violates basic standards of credibiilty and transparency". I find that humorous since it's not exactly tough to do things in a way to get some green from that tool so the overall rating shows green. Even breitbart shows up as green (despite two categories I would consider very important being red for them)

You don't have ANY fucking clue what you are talking about, so save us both some time and just shut the fuck up. You are joining in halfway through this conversation, not bothering to read anything, and just parroting what your hive mind buddies are saying.

The subpoenas don't exist, they are requests with no force of law. Of course you know this because you didn't just skip reading the actual "subpoenas" and jump right into parrot mode now did you? Oh Pelosi wants to prevent a shit show? Well clearly she is doing a fine job! If she wanted it over as soon as possible, she would just call a vote, no one is stopping her, but as I explained and you promptly ignored, she can't do that because if would expose widespread corruption within the Democrat party.

You don't really get this whole thing, period. You have no problem having strong opinions about it though now do you? Again, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about and just want to join the collective parrot symphony. I explained all of these things you are criticizing using the ACTUAL supposed subpoena documents as well as actual subpoena forms. The additional articles are just there to demonstrate I am by far not the only one saying this. OF COURSE they are all "right wing" do you really think CNN or The Huffington Post would report on this even if they knew it was true? OF COURSE NOT. Attacking the source or the lean of the source is not a valid argument. Your appeal to authority fallacy in sourcing Newsguard is not a valid argument either.

Also, you will notice, you didn't actually refute anything I said, you just repeated past talking points, made several logical fallacies, and declared your beliefs as facts with no substantiation. You are contributing absolutely NOTHING to this conversation, so unless you do in the future I am probably just going to ignore you, because it doesn't make any sense to put this much effort into replies to some one who doesn't bother to read anything, refute anything, and just vomits up what everyone else is saying understanding none of it.

Then what's the problem with Trump's impeachment not being a criminal trial? You're kinda all over the place with your itch to prove... something.

Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.

The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.

[suchmoon]

Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.

The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.

I did read it and I couldn't figure out what exactly you're so angry about because you keep jumping around, mostly arguing with yourself. That's why I asked. Let's try again.

Congress can impeach the President. Are you disputing this?

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Are you disputing this?

[TECSHARE]

Just because you jumped into the conversation midway and didn't bother to read or understand everything discussed doesn't make me all over the place,it just makes you a lazy person with an agenda.

The whole point of the criminal proceeding discussion was to prove the point that the "subpoenas" had no force of law and were not actual subpoenas. The Nixon impeachment was referenced and I made the point his subpoenas were based on a criminal proceeding, which he article of impeachment was based upon for him being in contempt of it. I will let your mom know you said hi.

I did read it and I couldn't figure out what exactly you're so angry about because you keep jumping around, mostly arguing with yourself. That's why asked. Let's try again.

Congress can impeach the President. Are you disputing this?

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Are you disputing this?

Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune.

[TwitchySeal]

I think Trump just needs to accept the consequences of the 2018 election.  Then TECSHARE will also.

[suchmoon]

Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune.

While I'd love to see you dance, that would be off topic here. So I take it you're not really disputing that the Congress can impeach, can subpoena, and impeachment is not governed by criminal trial rules.

[TECSHARE]

I think Trump just needs to accept the consequences of the 2018 election.  Then TECSHARE will also.

Go back and read the thread Suchgoon, I am not dancing to your parrot tune.

While I'd love to see you dance, that would be off topic here. So I take it you're not really disputing that the Congress can impeach, can subpoena, and impeachment is not governed by criminal trial rules.

That's right, keep topic sliding and no one bother responding to the rock solid evidence I gave of these "subpoenas" being nothing but  deceptively worded requests for information.

[Viper1]

not bothering to read anything, and just parroting what your hive mind buddies are saying.

How could I be parroting if I didn't read anything as you seem to think. Bit of false reasoning on your part it seems.

The subpoenas don't exist, they are requests with no force of law. Of course you know this because you didn't just skip reading the actual "subpoenas" and jump right into parrot mode now did you?

I read the actual subpoena. I looked at that "form". But I also went and read a bunch of stuff about what a congressional subpoenas is, what it means, how courts treat them etc etc etc. You seem to be the uneducated one in this as all your talking points are straight from the right wing media and those that traffic in "conspiracy theories".

Oh Pelosi wants to prevent a shit show? Well clearly she is doing a fine job! If she wanted it over as soon as possible, she would just call a vote, no one is stopping her, but as I explained and you promptly ignored, she can't do that because if would expose widespread corruption within the Democrat party.

From my understanding, the only vote she has to call is the actual impeachment one since, nothing is laid out in the constitution except that congress can do it how they want. Why do you have such a hard time seeing that. Seems that you simply want to hold onto your opinion as it suits your bias.

You don't really get this whole thing, period. You have no problem having strong opinions about it though now do you? Again, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about and just want to join the collective parrot symphony. I explained all of these things you are criticizing using the ACTUAL supposed subpoena documents as well as actual subpoena forms. The additional articles are just there to demonstrate I am by far not the only one saying this. OF COURSE they are all "right wing" do you really think CNN or The Huffington Post wold report on this even if they knew it was true? OF COURSE NOT. Attacking the source or the lean of the source is not a valid argument. Your appeal to authority fallacy in sourcing Newsguard is not a valid argument either.

How about you give me balanced legal arguments from actual legal sources from both sides so I can then make up my own mind. You won't though as you seem to only reference opinion crap that suit your purposes. You'll just make some personal attack as justification for not doing that when in fact you can't.

Also, you will notice, you didn't actually refute anything I said

I did. Ranting and raving like a lunatic claiming I don't know anything while not providing any solid information to back up your claims does not make you right. It just shows that you're unwilling to have a rational debate about these things.

The real funny thing is that you seem to have reading comprehension issues. I actually agreed with you on several points. But for some reason you are unwilling to admit that congressional subpoenas are different than "legal" ones. I was going to post links about what they are and what "powers" they have but I wanted to see if you would go and research it yourself. You didn't. You don't care about facts. You don't care about expanding your knowledge. You only provide information that confirms your opinion. Makes me think at this point that you simply seek to rant at people, call them names and the like cause they don't believe everything you do and that's all you care about. You only want to "win" like a true keyboard warrior.

[Viper1]

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you.

The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast.

The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that.

[TwitchySeal]

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you.

The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast.

The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that.

Yeah.  This is what I was getting at.  It's best to keep things short and succinct with TECHSHARE in my experience to avoid triggering a Hillary/Comey/Libtard rant.

[KingScorpio]

there should also be a option, "he won't be impeached and it will backfire"

after trumps presidency americans will have to face the weaknesses and shortcommings of the isolated structure of their geographic society.

no more euro-christian immigrant boosters, no snakes from the entire world want to tear usa appart.

[TwitchySeal]

there should also be a option, "he won't be impeached and it will backfire"

after trumps presidency americans will have to face the weaknesses and shortcommings of the isolated structure of their geographic society.

no more euro-christian immigrant boosters, no snakes from the entire world want to tear usa appart.

"he won't be impeached" is the first option.  It also has the most votes.

[TECSHARE]

Congress has subpoena power too, and not just in impeachment proceedings. Are you disputing this?

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution". Many times a court won't hear cases regarding these subpoenas because it's a political thing and not legal. I suspect they only get involved if it's actually about the powers given out in the constitution. i.e. you refuse to provide information to a group who has the power to get that info under the constitution so they can do their job, then they would hear the case and rule against you.

The problem is that because of the overlap of terminology, people assume it's all just like the legal system with law backing it up. It's not. They're a completely different beast.

The result of not complying could be different but for both, "obstruction" is a typical one which is exactly what the congressional subpoena he was talking about says in it. Don't provide the documents, then you can be "charged" with obstruction. In this case it would get added to the impeachment. I did hear something else about what they could do, some sort of special "jail". But I haven't researched that at this point. It's the first time I've ever heard that there is something like that.

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong?

Quoting because of topic sliding:

According to NBC News, this is the full text of the "subpoena":

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6454557/2019-10-04-EEC-Engel-Schiff-to-Mulvaney-WH-Re.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/read-subpoena-house-democrats-sent-white-house-trump-ukraine-documents-n1062766


The so called "five chairs letter" referenced within it:

https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/FiveChairsLetter8.22.pdf


"Subpoena" sent to Mike Pompeo:

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf


A sample subpoena legal form for the jurisdiction of The District of Columbia:

https://oah.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/oah/publication/attachments/OAH-402-General-Subpoena.pdf


If you read the source material, you will see some very distinct legal terminologies that give a subpoena force of law completely absent from these "subpoenas", which in reality are just carefully worded requests for information. Pelsosi could in theory issue subpoenas from the various sub-councils, but this would be ineffective because until there is a vote to engage in an official impeachment inquiry, the two branches of government stand on equal levels of authority and the president is well within his rights to exercise executive privilege. If the full house were to vote, and it was passed, this protection under executive privilege would be severely limited, however it would also grant the president the authority to issue his own subpoenas.

Pelosi knows this full well, and knows if she does this, Trump is going to take a massive shit all over the Democrat party by exposing all of their own corruption and getting it on public record for everyone to see. As I previously explained, they are boxed in. If they vote to impeach, they give Trump the power to bring his own evidence. If they fail to impeach they piss off their own base. Hence they are engaging in a strategy of PRETENDING to impeach and PRETENDING to issue subpoenas in order to play this out as a political and media battle rather than a legal battle, IE an actual impeachment. This strategy satiates her base, confuses most of the public who don't have the time or inclination to bother to look this close, and creates "bad optics" for Trump, but has ZERO AUTHORITY under law.

Half of the house engaging in "impeachment" is not constitutional nor is it due process. If the accused has no ability to defend themselves and the accuser makes all of the rules, that is not due process. If the accuser ignores all previous precedent and constitutional balance of powers between the branches of government, that is not due process. This is all a made for TV movie, not a legal proceeding, and you all lined up to buy tickets because it serves your confirmation bias. Just don't forget your $15 tub of popcorn rubes.


Some more reference material:

https://www.westernjournal.com/ex-fed-prosecutor-mccarthy-despite-dem-antics-no-impeachment-inquiry-happening/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/08/white-house-tells-pelosi-your-fake-impeachment-subpoenas-have-no-real-legal-authority/

https://canadafreepress.com/article/subpoenas-not-valid-since-there-is-no-impeachment-inquiry

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/impeachment-inquiry-house-must-vote-or-its-just-democratic-stunt/

https://www.lucianne.com/2019/10/07/house_sends_more_carefully_wordedbr_impeachment_demand_letters_not_brsubpoenas__omb_and_pentagon_17139.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/02/pelosis_sidestep_on_impeachment_vote_cuts_both_ways__141391.html

[TwitchySeal]

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already.

Subpoenas issued by congress technically aren't the same as subpoenas issued by a court for a civil or criminal investigation.

Congress has a different set of rules to follow.

It's not the same.

[TECSHARE]

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already.

Subpoenas issued by congress technically aren't the same as subpoenas issued by a court for a civil or criminal investigation.

Congress has a different set of rules to follow.

It's not the same.

Does that make them "not legal subpoenas?" LOL. Please... PLEASE argue this.

[Viper1]

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong?

"Standing committees in both houses of the United States Congress have the authority to send out subpoenas for legitimate lawmaking and investigation purposes. This compels the production of testimony or records, and failure to respond constitutes contempt of Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

"violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or a committee thereof to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/399/

"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] 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; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation."

"in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

Guess they have some law backing them up.

As for your claim that it's just a "letter" and so has no standing.. Here's some of the 54 letters that republicans issued when investigating Clinton.. I suppose that if one doesn't comply with the request they'd escalate to something more official. Interestingly, as I was looking through the list of stuff the republicans had issued, even those "subpoenas" didn't use that form you posted. Seems like the only thing that's required is for it to state it's a subpoenas and be signed by specific people.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(3) Ryan to DNI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(4) Ryan to FBI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(47) Chaffet to Comey 07-06-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-28-2016 Chaffetz to Eichner re Combetta and Suazo.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-22-2016 Chaffetz to MacDougall re Pagliano.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating
(have to remove the first part of the url in order to access the documents on that list)

The "letter" you're saying is fake, says it's a subpoena. I don't remember seeing that in any of the letters I looked through from the republicans though but maybe some did. For example, the letter from Ryan to Comey did not say it was a subpoena.

Oh.. Here's a subpoena the republican used
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70) Chaffetz Subpoena to Pagliano 09-16-2016.pdf

Not the same form. The form you posted though, is only a "sample" of what is used when "A party in a case may seek a witness to appear or documents to be produced at a hearing.". What's going on is not a hearing.

https://oah.dc.gov/publication/general-subpoena-form-sample-only

"A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing

So. Got some real legal stuff to back up your opinion it's "fake"? Or are you just going to rant and call me names?

[TECSHARE]

Lol their subpoenas are different and not the same as legal subpoenas. Just shut the fuck up already. The Constitution is the ultimate law of the land moron. Too bad you are completely clueless about all of this. Also I see Nutillduuuhhhh, TwitchySeal, and SuchGoon are all avoiding addressing the fake subpoenas now... did some one realize they were wrong?

"Standing committees in both houses of the United States Congress have the authority to send out subpoenas for legitimate lawmaking and investigation purposes. This compels the production of testimony or records, and failure to respond constitutes contempt of Congress."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena

"violation of 2 U.S.C. § 192, which makes it a misdemeanor for any person summoned as a witness by either House of Congress or a committee thereof to refuse to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/365/399/

"As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] 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; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation."

"in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

"Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/192

Guess they have some law backing them up.

As for your claim that it's just a "letter" and so has no standing.. Here's some of the 54 letters that republicans issued when investigating Clinton.. I suppose that if one doesn't comply with the request they'd escalate to something more official. Interestingly, as I was looking through the list of stuff the republicans had issued, even those "subpoenas" didn't use that form you posted. Seems like the only thing that's required is for it to state it's a subpoenas and be signed by specific people.

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(3) Ryan to DNI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(4) Ryan to FBI 07-05-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(47) Chaffet to Comey 07-06-2016.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-28-2016 Chaffetz to Eichner re Combetta and Suazo.pdf
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/09-22-2016 Chaffetz to MacDougall re Pagliano.pdf

https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-republicans-issued-more-than-70-subpoenas-and-letters-investigating
(have to remove the first part of the url in order to access the documents on that list)

The "letter" you're saying is fake, says it's a subpoena. I don't remember seeing that in any of the letters I looked through from the republicans though but maybe some did. For example, the letter from Ryan to Comey did not say it was a subpoena.

Oh.. Here's a subpoena the republican used
https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70) Chaffetz Subpoena to Pagliano 09-16-2016.pdf

Not the same form. The form you posted though, is only a "sample" of what is used when "A party in a case may seek a witness to appear or documents to be produced at a hearing.". What's going on is not a hearing.

https://oah.dc.gov/publication/general-subpoena-form-sample-only

"A United States congressional hearing is the principal formal method by which United States congressional committees collect and analyze information in the early stages of legislative policymaking."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_hearing

So. Got some real legal stuff to back up your opinion it's "fake"? Or are you just going to rant and call me names?

There you go, now at least you are making an effort. You are still in over your head though...

I am going to address your criticisms point by point, so pay attention.

First of all, I never denied they have the authority to issue subpoenas, in fact I have already stated they could. Regarding 2 U.S.C. § 192, "under inquiry" has a definition. "Under inquiry" requires a formal legal process, otherwise congress could lock people up for refusing to answer any questions, and they clearly don't have that authority. In this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference.

Regarding "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable. The question is if the legislative branch can force the executive branch into compliance when they have equal amounts of authority under constitutional checks and balances. This is of course assuming an actual subpoena is issued. Until the full house votes to engage in this inquiry, all you have is a unilateral declaration from within the house that has no extra authority over the executive branch.

They have oversight authority, that doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process. This is why everyone is pressing them to put it to a vote, because this is not just precedent, it severely restricts executive privilege, but also gives the executive branch the authority to produce their own evidence. This whole secret hearings and unilateral declarations is not operating within the constitutional checks and balances, due process, or standing precedent of past impeachment processes.

You people defending these actions are insane. Do you realize what you are advocating for? Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot? Suddenly these rules will become very relevant to you I am sure, but tell me more about my blind allegiance to Trump. Do you have any idea the kind of chaos you are unleashing upon this nation in your blind frothing rage induced compulsion to get Trump at all costs? Is creating possibly years or decades of civil unrest and possibly civil war worth it? You aren't thinking very far ahead.

"House Republicans Issued More Than 70 Subpoenas and Letters"

All of your links, while superficially very impressive I am sure, are again, just letters. None of your broken links are actual subpoenas. Notice they use words like "request" not "demand", "compelled", "commanded", or "ordered". Just saying it is a subpoena doesn't magically make it a subpoena. A subpoena is a legal process which has specific requirements and penalties for noncompliance. They REFERENCE several subpoenas, but they are not themselves subpoenas. That is except for one...

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

As you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot?

[Viper1]

"under inquiry" has a definition. "Under inquiry" requires a formal legal process, otherwise congress could lock people up for refusing to answer any questions, and they clearly don't have that authority.

Give me legal documents that backs that up as opposed to just saying it's so. But before you do, you should read some of the other stuff I'll be posting as none of that would back up what you're saying.

"lock up" people for refusing to answer questions. They could be locked up for obstructing justice if they wanted to do that.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-18.htm

As long as the subpoena meets the requirements set out in stuff I had listed before, and the investigation (note the difference), is within their authority, they can do so. While people are calling it an inquiry, it's simply operating as an investigation at this point. I suspect that if they decide to go to court over some issues, at that point they'd have a vote for an "inquiry" in order to "strengthen" their position.

I should note that in this document you actually posted and then cherry picked from, they talk about some of the same things. Perhaps you should read it again.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

You might also want to give this a good read

https://constitutionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/WhenCongressComesCalling.pdf

Should also note that with Nixon, a resolution was passed in Oct 1973 for the judicial committee to investigate whether there were grounds for impeachment. They needed to do that in order to give them the authority to do so and have subpoena powers. Today however, committees have been given far more powers and authority, a lot of which the Republicans brought about. The impeachment inquiry was not voted on until Feb 1974. We're in the first part and they may decide to do the second part as well. Clinton was a different thing all together because the impeachment was derived from the investigation done by Starr.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

In this case "under inquiry" means calling a vote to engage the legal authority of the full house, not just Nancy Pelosi making a statement at a press conference.

Five different committees initiated inquiries into bengasi without any vote. They did it all on their own because it's simply not required.

As for all your other stuff.. That's just your opinion. For example, you're parroting the same right wing talking points regarding past impeachments. Again. Did you even read that article you posted? The right you parrot only ever points to the presidential impeachments and conveniently ignores all the others. Allowing the presidents lawyers to sit in and question. Allowing the republicans to issue subpoenas. That was a "courtesy" and not any sort of requirement. It was purely done for optics. You're arguing politics and not legal. Back up your stuff with actual legal documents.

Something else to note. It really doesn't matter if the other side can issue subpoenas. The majority can over rule them if they want and they can also limit what questions Trumps lawyers could ask as well in order to keep it focus and on track. It is simply not a trial. The trial takes place in the senate and it should be noted that the senate can do what they want as well.

Do you really think that allowing impeachment to become a unilateral, one sided, secretive political process that not only ignores due process and the constitutional balance of powers is a good idea? What happens when it is "your guy" and the shoe is on the other foot?

You can blame the republicans for a lot of this since they're the ones that opened up the door to committees having broad powers. I seem to remember everyone saying the same thing about them doing that. But that's what it is now and everyone has to live with it. That entire paragraph was nothing more than you pleading for me (and others reading it), to agree with your opinion cause it's "wrong" as far as you're concerned. You're making a political argument and not one based on anything legal.

By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.

Bottom line, you're just making arguments based on opinion because you want it to be a circus so it will drag on for months and then you all can make the argument that there's no use he gets impeached cause the election is so close. And all this other stuff you and the republicans are spewing is so that if he does get impeached etc then you all can claim he was railroaded and it was illegal and on and on. At least be honest about what you're really trying to do.

Funny thing I heard the other day. The thought was that Trump doesn't want a second term and will actually do things like he's doing so he gets impeached. Then he can spend the rest of his time claiming he got "everything" done he said he would and then play the victim and gain a hell of a lot of support to any new ventures he starts like his own media company.

Most of the other stuff in your response was just opinion and wishful thinking. i.e.

Re:  "Wilkinson v. United States" and "Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund" these cases are not applicable.

Show me the legal arguments that makes the case as opposed to your opinion cause it doesn't fit what you want to happen.

doesn't mean they get to unilaterally dictate the entire process

Well yes, yes they do. It says so in the constitution. If you have legal arguments to back up your opinion, then post them because everything I read says they do. Maybe you might want to give some of this a read as well.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45769

As you can clearly see, the letters the house issued are not subpoenas, but just letters REQUESTING information using deceptive language. I had plenty of "real legal stuff" to back up my opinion previously, but you are too cool to read it and decided to make this redundant argument which ultimately just proved your own argument wrong. Again, as I said from the start, you will notice some distinct differences between this and the "subpoenas" (request letters) issued by the house committee. So are we done here parrot?

Actually no, you had a whole bunch of opinion articles and the one "real" thing you had was bullshit because it was specifically for hearings and says right on the page I posted that it's a sample meant to show some of the info that should be in the subpoena. As I stated and you can go look at it again, the "letter" you claim is not a subpoena, says right in it that it's a subpoena, outlines what inquiry that it relates to and states the potential punishment. It contains the information required just isn't on some "form".

Give me an actual legal document instead of writing paragraphs of your opinion and how you "wish" it would be, or posting opinion articles. Show me the "form" that's supposed to be used for committee investigation subpoenas. Surely there should be something on the gov site(s) if one actually exists.

[Spendulus]

....
By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.....

Umm, it most certainly is. Ever been in a Senate or House committee hearing? You just walk in, unless all the seats are taken. by people waiting all night (that's typical for the politically interesting hearings, but most are not).

Bar that and the live CSPAN (also installed in all those rooms) and you've got the very definition of SECRETIVE.

As for the rest of your argument with Tecshare I don't have a clue what you are trying to get at. Vaguely, sort of, that everything Pelosi is doing is okay? Is that your POV?

[Viper1]

....
By the way, it's not "secretive". The republicans on the committees are in those interviews. They have the same amount of time to asked questions and the proceedings will be made public.....

Umm, it most certainly is. Ever been in a Senate or House committee hearing? You just walk in, unless all the seats are taken. by people waiting all night (that's typical for the politically interesting hearings, but most are not).

Bar that and the live CSPAN (also installed in all those rooms) and you've got the very definition of SECRETIVE.

Ok, if you say so. My perspective is that if I can read a transcript or whatever after the fact then I don't view it as secret. Fact is, I prefer they do things behind closed doors cause as soon as they do it for the cameras, it just becomes a circus wasting everyones time. The only thing that matters is seeing the transcripts after the fact.

As for the rest of your argument with Tecshare I don't have a clue what you are trying to get at. Vaguely, sort of, that everything Pelosi is doing is okay? Is that your POV?

What is she doing that isn't ok? Care to provide some information. And I don't mean "opinion" as to what may or may not be wrong. I mean actually legally wrong. Cause as far as the political optics of it, one can sit here and point fingers at both sides on a whole lot of different things over the years cause they all suck.

Tecshare has made a bunch of claims, all so far based on opinion. We're discussing those claims.