• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
They're in contempt in the same way a tree falling in the forest with no one around to hear it makes a sound.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately true. My understanding, limited as it is, is that Congress would have to take them to court and have a judge tell them (Barr and Ross) to comply with the subpoena. Then, when they don't, the judge can determine they are in contempt of COURT, then penalties can be applied. One to 12 months in jail and/or up to $100,000.

I don't know if Congress has taken the contempt citation to court yet.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
Unfortunately true. My understanding, limited as it is, is that Congress would have to take them to court and have a judge tell them (Barr and Ross) to comply with the subpoena. Then, when they don't, the judge can determine they are in contempt of COURT, then penalties can be applied. One to 12 months in jail and/or up to $100,000.

I don't know if Congress has taken the contempt citation to court yet.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Congress has the ability to enforce subpoenas, outside of the courts.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
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.
...
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

If that's true, then Congress certainly has the authority to "play hardball"... to issue subpoenas and if Trump or his minions fail to respond, to have them arrested.

(I will of course defer to anyone with more legal expertise than myself.)
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, I think Congress has the ability to enforce subpoenas, outside of the courts.

From: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
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.
...
Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

If that's true, then Congress certainly has the authority to "play hardball"... to issue subpoenas and if Trump or his minions fail to respond, to have them arrested.

(I will of course defer to anyone with more legal expertise than myself.)
Click to expand...

You pretty much nailed it. Journey v Mackracken 294 U.S. 125 (1935)
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Democrats to subpoena Gordon Sondland, after the State Department blocked his voluntary testimony

Sondland had interacted directly with Trump around the time of the Ukraine phone call, and was the man who told Ron Johnson that the phone call had involved quid pro quo.

This is how Trump responded on twitter: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181560708808486914
Click to expand...

What I love about this is the way Trump refuses to let Sondland testify under oath at the same time he uses the unsworn testimony of his "tweet" (actually a text message Sondland sent Taylor- the message that is at the center of the question)- he'll use the message to proclaim his innocence but refuse to let anyone ask questions about it. In Trump-land, you can eat your cake and have it too.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
No, it was right the first time. Democrats in the House keep slowly plodding through the motions, each time pretending that this time, THIS time, their chamber will be shown the respect it deserves. If they understood that Trump is going to block everything, they'd have had a subpoena in hand for what's his name's deposition. You're not allowed to testify now? Okay, here's some paperwork, we order you to testify... now.

The Trump administration has obstructed and intimidated every single witness so far. There is every indication they will continue to do so, even with subpoenas, even with impeachment. They need to understand that and plan for it, not simply act outraged every time Lucy pulls the football away and back up for another run at it.
Click to expand...
No, I had it right. Just because Trump is huffing and puffing and making up fake talking points like an imaginary rule the whole House has to vote before proceeding with an Impeachment, and trying to gaslight his base doesn't mean ****.

The longer Trump drags it out, the closer to the election it gets and the more nervous the Senate Republicans are getting.

Why you think the Democrats aren't going to write up Articles of Impeachment because Trump is huffing and puffing is beyond me.

Keep in mind Trump appears successful while he fails at everything given enough time. He's failing at being POTUS and that's par for the course.
 
turingtest said:
What I love about this is the way Trump refuses to let Sondland testify under oath at the same time he uses the unsworn testimony of his "tweet" (actually a text message Sondland sent Taylor- the message that is at the center of the question)- he'll use the message to proclaim his innocence but refuse to let anyone ask questions about it. In Trump-land, you can eat your cake and have it too.
Click to expand...

It's not just one message, it is a series of messages and how the series shows a clear consciousness of guilt. It is how Sondland broke off his text conversation and resumed it 5 hours later with a message with an entorely different tone. A text that looks like was written by a lawyer. Why did Sondland break off the conversation and call the President? Trump keeps touting that text while ignoring the other texts. It appears as if Sondland was conspiring with the President and others to get their stories straight.
 
DkCreative said:
Does anyone know what kind of dirt they were looking for? Obviously they had to have a hunch of something before risking everything.
Click to expand...


Yep, congratulations, that's exactly what you're supposed to assume, just like all those crimes detailed in Hillary's email.
 
I channel-surfed past the 700 Club this morning and saw Pat Robertson repeating the GOP/Trump talking point that the whole House (as opposed to a committee) has to vote before starting the Impeachment investigation.

Typical of these liars, he claimed he talked to "two legal scholars" that agree with him.

His audience I'm sure just eats those lies up.

I guess God has forgiven Trump's mistake of withdrawing from Syria.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I channel-surfed past the 700 Club this morning and saw Pat Robertson repeating the GOP/Trump talking point that the whole House (as opposed to a committee) has to vote before starting the Impeachment investigation.

Typical of these liars, he claimed he talked to "two legal scholars" that agree with him.
Click to expand...


This is the same show that had a "trained martial artist" say that you can kill someone with a single well-placed blow from a baton, so the fact that the police hit Rodney King so many times proved that they weren't really trying to hurt him.
 
acbytesla said:
It's not just one message, it is a series of messages and how the series shows a clear consciousness of guilt. It is how Sondland broke off his text conversation and resumed it 5 hours later with a message with an entorely different tone. A text that looks like was written by a lawyer. Why did Sondland break off the conversation and call the President? Trump keeps touting that text while ignoring the other texts. It appears as if Sondland was conspiring with the President and others to get their stories straight.
Click to expand...

Yep. But it's the one isolated message that Trump wants to use, as (unsworn) testimony for his innocence, out of a whole that needs to be explored under oath and that may show guilt. And that's a pattern Trump (and his defenders) seem to follow, taking evidence, including his own words/actions, out of a properly-considered whole and pretending that the piece-meals proclaim innocence. "Great and unmatched wisdom?" "He was joking!"- ignoring all the times he has said things that reveal an unmatched superiority complex. "He asked foreign countries (Ukraine and China) to investigate Biden for corruption." "Well, shouldn't the President be allowed to ask people to investigate possible corruption, even if those people are in another country?"- ignoring that the only "corruption" he seems concerned with is what he attributes, without any actual investigation, to a man who is, I'm sure by coincidence, a political rival.

All this wide-eyed innocence coming from Trump supporters just is not very convincing.
 
I Am The Scum said:
Belz, theprestige

I don't care if you two resolve your issues in private messages, another thread, or a seedy motel room that charges by the hour. As long this nonsense stops getting dragged into other threads multiple times, I'll be happy. Please just stop.
Click to expand...

Belz..., please don't correct people when they make errors or tell untruths, it's disruptive. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom