Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[CaughtInThe]

I'll Donald Trump had to do was not be a crook and an idiot and he wouldn't have to be acting like Nixon now.

 

[MTAtech]

Yes. When the House of Reps decides.
Not when the speaker decides.
Not when committee chairman decide.
When the House decides.
The House hasn't decided.

The White House claims the House must hold a full vote to render the inquiry operative, but this is simply baseless.

The Constitution imposes few limits on how the House exercises this “sole Power.” Instead, it implicitly gives the House the tools it needs to investigate (namely, subpoenas and contempt citations) — and it expressly vests the House with authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” The House thus enjoys near-total control over the procedures by which it activates and wields the impeachment power.
...
The lesson is clear. Consistent with its “sole Power of impeachment” and its prerogative to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” the House can launch impeachment investigations in many ways. It most often does so through its judiciary committee, either based on the committee’s own actions or a resolution directed to the committee; it may also pass — but isn’t required to — a resolution directing the committee to investigate grounds for impeachment.

That constitutional precedent allows only a single conclusion: The committee is engaged in impeachment proceedings and is entitled to access the grand jury material that it has requested.

Trump doesn't get to determine what's a valid inquiry no more than a criminal defendant gets to determine whether the court is valid.

 

[sjmay]

Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

Wikipedia is your friend. Pretty well sourced. Start with the first paragraph.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Ok, so crimes committed WAY WAY WAY Before Trump's campaign....so how is that connected?

 

[Hatuey]

Ok, so crimes committed

Before you start blabbering, here is the first paragraph:

The two*criminal trials*of*Paul Manafort*are the first cases brought to trial by the*special counsel's investigation*into*Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort served as campaign chair for the*Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign*from June 20 to August 19, 2016.[1][2]

How are you confused by their relationship to Trump? I told you already. First one is free. Charging for the next one.




Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[sjmay]

Before you start blabbering, here is the first paragraph:



How are you confused by their relationship to Trump? I told you already. First one is free. Charging for the next one.




Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

And again what CRIMES WERE CONNECTED...holy **** man.....cmon...

Yes, he was charged and convicted of crimes...THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN..... but your simple mindedness can't or won't comprehend that.

 

[Jay Falcon]

And again what CRIMES WERE CONNECTED...holy **** man.....cmon...

Yes, he was charged and convicted of crimes...THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN..... but your simple mindedness can't or won't comprehend that.

Actually, the connection to Trump's campaign is painfully clear to everyone except blind Trump loyalists such as yourself, to whom Trump can do no wrong. You are the kind of supporter who would watch Trump shoot someone live on television and blame the victim.

 

[Hatuey]

And again what CRIMES WERE CONNECTED...

To Russia? This was already shown.

Please see Trials of Paul Manafort link. Literally , the first paragraph lays out why continuing his line of questioning is stupid.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Hatuey]

Actually, the connection to Trump's campaign is painfully clear to everyone except blind Trump loyalists such as yourself, to whom Trump can do no wrong. You are the kind of supporter who would watch Trump shoot someone live on television and blame the victim.

No, no, no. He's an objectively biased observer and participant! Duh.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[sjmay]

To Russia? This was already shown.

Please see Trials of Paul Manafort link. Literally , the first paragraph lays out why continuing his line of questioning is stupid.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

He was convicted of crimes he commited WAY before the Campaign....you realize this right? He was the campaign manager for 60 days....he committed crimes YEARS AGO, but because he was a campaign manager for 60 days, you want to connect Manafort's conviction to Trump's Campaign,

That;s just as inane as saying Obama was corrupt because Tony Rezko got convicted.....

Don't worry, I will wait while you look that one up....

 

[Athanasius68]

Then they have to say that under oath.

Not if it violates separation of powers and executive privilege.

 

[Athanasius68]

You have not presented any evidence of anything. Where in the Constitution or House Rules does it say they have to take a vote in order to have an impeachment investigation?

The House takes actions through votes. All these committees subpoening documents and witness are doing so via votes or through a unilateral action of a chairman-- which is allowed in some circumstances.
They are doing so in the areas for which they by rule and statute are authorized to do so.

So whats the basis for then to delve into an impeachment inquiry? Nothing. The constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment. It doesn't say the speaker of the house or committee chairman.The House, and the House alone, decides whether it will impeach.
Once they decide to impeach, they can figure out the details however they want. But until then, no go.

 

[Athanasius68]

The reason there was a vote on impeachment inquiry resolution in the case of Nixon and Clinton was to get the power to subpoena.



BUT the cons gave the dems a gift in 2015. They changed the rules to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas.



No need for an impeachment inquiry vote. Thanks cons.

That rule change doesnt change the Constitution. And the Constitution is clear-- the House has sole power of impeachment.

 

[Athanasius68]

My grandmother used to say, "it is better to be quite and have people wonder whether you are a fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."

You just don't know how grand juries work. So, let me educate you from a passage on Findlaw.
"No lawyer, except for the prosecutor," means there is no defense attorney.

Unlike a regular jury, that decides guilt or innocence, grand juries to decide whether probable cause exists to support criminal indictment.

Yes.And the accused can testify before a grand jury. There is no requirement for the accused to have legal rep at any point.
It's not smart of course.

 

[Visbek]

The House takes actions through votes. All these committees subpoening documents and witness are doing so via votes or through a unilateral action of a chairman-- which is allowed in some circumstances.

Nope, it's just "allowed." Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow a committee chair to issue subpoenas without consulting minority party members of the committee. Ooops.

So whats the basis for then to delve into an impeachment inquiry? Nothing.

They don't need a "basis." If the Committee decides to investigate something, then they are investigating something. Nothing else is needed.

The constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment. It doesn't say the speaker of the house or committee chairman.The House, and the House alone, decides whether it will impeach.

...yes, and again the Constitution has no requirements for investigations prior to an impeachment vote.

Once they decide to impeach, they can figure out the details however they want. But until then, no go.

No, dude. The House can do pretty much what it wants before the impeachment vote. After that, the Senate holds a trial. The House's powers are not completely unlimited -- e.g. they can't force someone to self-incriminate -- but their powers to investigate are pretty broad.

I.e. Cipollone is full of crap. No formal vote is required; the POTUS doesn't get to "face his accusers" during the investigative phase, and so on. All he's doing is priming the House to add charges of obstruction.

 

[Visbek]

The reason there was a vote on impeachment inquiry resolution in the case of Nixon and Clinton was to get the power to subpoena.

Just to be clear, the House always had the power to issue subpoenas. They had self-imposed limits on committee chairs issuing them, which were removed in 2015 (as you pointed out), but they always had that power. I don't think there were any House rules that removed that limit after a formal vote to proceed on an impeachment inquiry.

 

[sjmay]

Nope, it's just "allowed." Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow a committee chair to issue subpoenas without consulting minority party members of the committee. Ooops.



They don't need a "basis." If the Committee decides to investigate something, then they are investigating something. Nothing else is needed.



...

Does the bolden go for any committee, or just the ones that are favored by you?

Sounds like that was the argument Trump was making, I want to investigate this (Biden) so I will.....

And the whole outroar was, but you don't have any evidence etc etc.....and now.....because the left wants to do something, they don't need a basis ? Interesting theory

 

[HAL9000]

The House takes actions through votes. All these committees subpoening documents and witness are doing so via votes or through a unilateral action of a chairman-- which is allowed in some circumstances.
They are doing so in the areas for which they by rule and statute are authorized to do so.

So whats the basis for then to delve into an impeachment inquiry? Nothing. The constitution says the House has sole power of impeachment. It doesn't say the speaker of the house or committee chairman.The House, and the House alone, decides whether it will impeach.
Once they decide to impeach, they can figure out the details however they want. But until then, no go.

Blah blah blah... the Senate has the power to confirm Supreme Court Justices but McConnell delayed any vote confirming one for more than a year.

 

[Athanasius68]

Nope, it's just "allowed." Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow a committee chair to issue subpoenas without consulting minority party members of the committee. Ooops.



They don't need a "basis." If the Committee decides to investigate something, then they are investigating something. Nothing else is needed.



...yes, and again the Constitution has no requirements for investigations prior to an impeachment vote.



No, dude. The House can do pretty much what it wants before the impeachment vote. After that, the Senate holds a trial. The House's powers are not completely unlimited -- e.g. they can't force someone to self-incriminate -- but their powers to investigate are pretty broad.

I.e. Cipollone is full of crap. No formal vote is required; the POTUS doesn't get to "face his accusers" during the investigative phase, and so on. All he's doing is priming the House to add charges of obstruction.

Yet again-- the Constitution is clear. The House, not the committee, not the speaker, has sole power of impeachment.
If the house wishes to conduct oversite , that's ok. It's not an impeachment inquiry-- absent the House excercising it's sole power.

 

[sjmay]

Yet again-- the Constitution is clear. The House, not the committee, not the speaker, has sole power of impeachment.
If the house wishes to conduct oversite , that's ok. It's not an impeachment inquiry-- absent the House excercising it's sole power.

You realize people have NO idea what you are talking about,

They are making the assumption that the House of Reps is whatever committee head is talking to the camera at that point is, or they assume Pelosi is the entire house etc....

 

[Athanasius68]

Blah blah blah... the Senate has the power to confirm Supreme Court Justices but McConnell delayed any vote confirming one for more than a year.

Yes the Senate had the power to confirm-- or not to confirm.
McConnell and the Judiciary Committee do not have the power to confirm or not to confirm.

The House has the power to impeach- or not to impeach.
The speaker and/or commitee chairman do not have that power.

 

[Athanasius68]

You realize people have NO idea what you are talking about,

They are making the assumption that the House of Reps is whatever committee head is talking to the camera at that point is, or they assume Pelosi is the entire house etc....

I don't know how else to explain it. These guys would not say that the speaker or committees have absolute power to do what they wish, but that's almost what they are arguing here.

 

[sjmay]

I don't know how else to explain it. These guys would not say that the speaker or committees have absolute power to do what they wish, but that's almost what they are arguing here.

It's not almost...it's exactly what they are arguing, but they are too dishonest to come out and say it.

 

[HAL9000]

Yes the Senate had the power to confirm-- or not to confirm.
The House had the power to impeach- or not to impeach.
The speaker and/or commitee chairman do not have that power.

Right, and when it comes time to vote for articles of impeachment, the House will vote on them. I already showed you the list yesterday showing all the times that there have been inquiries started without full House votes.

 

[nitroexpress]

Let see the tradition and precedent that was set in the Andrew Johnson impeachment to start this process/ Please begin there.

Had to reach way back for that one huh? But of course we know, current is more relevant. Johnson's ordeal was bi-partisan and Pelosi's is not.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Republicans don't understand that impeaching Donald Trump doesn't make Hillary Clinton president.

What do they mean by 'oveturned'. With Trump removed from office, Pence would still be president.

He's like Gerald Ford with even less carisma.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

No comparison. Gerald Ford may have been boring to some but he had integrity.