Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[roguenuke]

Meaningless?

Interesting way to back out of a point you lost.

There was nothing lost there. The grand jury is made up of the person's (being accused) peers. You were asking a vague question that I answered, and you were really just trying to make your own statement. The fact that it is done that way rather than simply allowing prosecutors to take anyone to trial may be due to not wanting the government to have absolute power, give citizens a check in the system. But that in no way proves anything I stated as incorrect.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

 

[bubbabgone]

That is against the law, bubba. Looks more like you destroyed your own alleged reverence for the law.

But
(1) it didn't happen and
(2) those 21 legal scholars can't simply make such a declaration as though it did happen.

That's what pretty much destroyed their alleged reverence for the "law and the Constitution".
You know, due process and all that silly stuff they teach in Law school.

 

[TomFitz]

Because it is still of your peers. The Presidents peers would be the Legislators of our country.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

He’s just another Trumpster walking the talking points he has been fed.

It’s an irrelevant question anyway. The Constitution spells out who the judge and jury are in an impeachment trial.

I’m sure that Trumpster media will argue that the Constitution is unfair to their would be king. The rule of law does not matter to anyone in the Trump White House, and its media knows that once Trump is gone, so are the easy money ratings.

 

[bubbabgone]

Congress has impeached nearly 20 individuals, and started proceedings on others. Most of those impeachment proceedings did not start with a full House vote to authorize a formal inquiry. So yes, you're cherry-picking.



Justice William Douglas
Judge Harry Claiborne
Judge Alcee Hastings
Judge Walter Nixon

And no, neither the Constitution nor US Code nor House Rules lay out any special procedures that require a formal vote by the entire House to start an inquiry.

And again: Precedent is NOT BINDING on the House. It is the HOUSE RULES that are binding, and I literally pointed you right to those rules.

On a side note, I find the hypocrisy of conservatives rather thrilling, as they are perfectly happy to abandon precedent in genuinely binding situations whenever it suits them. The most obvious (but certainly not the only) example is Roe v Wade, which conservatives would love to directly overturn, even as they are insisting that the House follow a non-existent and non-binding precedent when it comes to Trump's impeachment.

The bottom line is:
• Trump very likely committed impeachable offenses by soliciting foreign governments to interfere with US elections, more than once
• Trump very likely is committing impeachable offenses by obstructing this process
• The current process in Congress is 100% legitimate, is within the guidelines set by the Constitution, is abiding by US law, and is following the rules of the House of Representatives
• Trump is almost certainly going to be impeached by the House

Also, see
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190712/109768/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-GerhardtM-20190712.pdf
and
How Congress Can Access the Legal Powers of Impeachment Without a Formal Inquiry

Sorry not sorry, but you don't have a leg to stand on.

You're squirming again.
The question was about impeachments of Presidents.
Pick an impeachment precedent that you believe isn't irrelevant. One that closely mirrors what's happening today.

Here's a recent precedent.

The Democrats are employing a far different procedure than the accord the parties arranged two decades ago when lawmakers weighed the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.

Democrats paid few compliments to the House Majority GOP in December 1998, when the party opened a formal impeachment inquiry into Clinton based largely on his tryst with a White House intern.

But Democrats at the time acknowledged the two parties cooperated significantly when it came to setting the rules for the inquiry, even though most Democratic lawmakers objected to impeachment.

The Clinton impeachment inquiry opened in December 1998 with a bipartisan agreement that the rules would be based on those used in 1974 during the impeachment investigation into President Richard M. Nixon. Those rules provided the minority with some rights, including the power to call witnesses and to seek authority to issue subpoenas.
...
Conyers at the time praised a largely bipartisan process to develop many of the rules for the impeachment inquiries.
“You know as well as I,” Conyers told Hyde, “that whatever action this committee takes must be fair, it must be bipartisan, for it to have credibility. The American people deserve no less, and history will judge us by how well we achieve that goal.”

Democrats have abandoned bipartisan format of Clinton impeachment

Is it inaccurate? Why is it irrelevant today? Why was it a good idea then but a bad idea now?

Stick to the topic. Can you do that.

 

[bubbabgone]

If you’re going to protest the idea of “cherry picked president”, you shouldn’t base your argument on a completely dishonest spin piece like this.

The Trump (and Trump noise machined) claim is that the inquiry is illegitimate because the full hose has not voted to launch an investigation.

They keep telling their audience that the House needs to vote to begin an investigation into impeachment and agree on the rules for such an investigation.

Your “president” is no such thing, although it is cleverly written (or more likely edited) to form that false impression in your mind.

There was NO full house vote to initiate an impeachment investigation in the House in 1998.

That’s because, contrarary to the White House line, the GOP went right from the Starr Report, to articles of Impeachment without any investigation at all, or with a vote for the full House.

There was bipartisan cooperation on the rules the committee uses to draft the articles, as this article states.

But this article was intended to mislead you into believing that the full house voted on opening an Impeachment inquiry and that they agreed on rules for such an inquiry.

Neither occurred, although the Exampiner and much of right wing media has false claimed otherwise.

Susan Ferricio is a much better reporter than to come up with deliberately misleading trash like this. But her employers are not.

What I quoted was about the Clinton impeachment.
Can it be called a precedent?
Was the article accurate or not?

 

[Torus34]

Electoral College is how we do it. We don't have a popular vote.

Thank you for taking time to respond.

Regards.

 

[Visbek]

You're squirming again.

Pot, kettle, black :roll:

The question was about impeachments of Presidents.

No, the question is about how Congress conducts impeachments. Again! There is no special process for Presidents. It's the same process for all impeachments.

Why is it irrelevant today?

It is irrelevant, for at least the 6th time, because:

• Nothing in the Constitution requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in US law requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in the House rules requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Precedents are not binding
• Bonus point! Numerous officials are in fact talking to the House committees, despite the White House telling them not to, meaning they hired lawyers smart enough to understand the law

I'd also add, as I'm sure someone has pointed out by now: The letter is offered in bad faith. If the House had taken a full vote, or takes a vote right now, Cipollone would still immolate his legal reputation by drumming up some pretext to refuse to cooperate.

Are you done Black Knighting yet?

 

[Jay59]

• Nothing in the Constitution requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in US law requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in the House rules requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Precedents are not binding
• Bonus point! Numerous officials are in fact talking to the House committees, despite the White House telling them not to, meaning they hired lawyers smart enough to understand the law

I would not be sure about this. It has not been tested in court.

Precedents are not binding, but they exist for a reason. It behooves to explain in detail why they are being overturned. The obvious answer would be that they have nothing so they don't care about showing the forms of due process.

Are you done Black Knighting yet?

Pot, kettle, black :roll:

 

[bubbabgone]

Pot, kettle, black :roll:



No, the question is about how Congress conducts impeachments. Again! There is no special process for Presidents. It's the same process for all impeachments.



It is irrelevant, for at least the 6th time, because:

• Nothing in the Constitution requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in US law requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Nothing in the House rules requires a full House vote to start an impeachment inquiry
• Precedents are not binding
• Bonus point! Numerous officials are in fact talking to the House committees, despite the White House telling them not to, meaning they hired lawyers smart enough to understand the law

I'd also add, as I'm sure someone has pointed out by now: The letter is offered in bad faith. If the House had taken a full vote, or takes a vote right now, Cipollone would still immolate his legal reputation by drumming up some pretext to refuse to cooperate.

Are you done Black Knighting yet?

So .......... to sum up, since you can't explain the reason why this particular House majority has deviated from existing Presidential impeachment precedent you have to resort to "Because they can."
The actual reason why they wanted to can't be anything you'll ever acknowledge, but at least you're not denying they have no reasonable excuse anymore.
As the saying goes, "You made your bed now lie from<sic> it".

 

[Visbek]

I would not be sure about this. It has not been tested in court.

I'm sure.

The Constitution is very clear that the House makes its own rules. So is pretty much every legal expert in the US. So are the federal judges who are working related cases, who shoot down the White House's claims of incredibly broad executive powers (e.g. Donald Trump loses appeal to stop House subpoena of his tax documents - CNNPolitics)

You might also want to keep in mind that the Trump administration has a terrible record in the courts -- they lose over 90% of their cases, whereas most administrations win 70%.

In other words: at this point, you have to either not be paying attention, or extremely partisan, or a tiny bit stupid, to place a great deal of faith in the *cough* novel arguments presented by the White House counsel.

Precedents are not binding, but they exist for a reason. It behooves to explain in detail why they are being overturned.

LOL

Nothing is being "overturned," and your use of the term shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. It is only in the judicial branch that precedents actually matter, and where previous rulings are overturned.

You can see that right in the part of the House Rules I quoted. The rules don't stipulate a specific process, rather it is a list of examples of options from the past.

The House can do whatever it wants, as long as it abides by the Constitution, US law and House rules.

The obvious answer would be that they have nothing so they don't care about showing the forms of due process.

LOL

They already have the POTUS asking foreign powers to subvert national elections for his personal gain. That's more than enough to start the inquiry.

 

[Visbek]

since you can't explain the reason why this particular House majority has deviated from existing Presidential impeachment precedent you have to resort to "Because they can."

lol

No, I simply didn't answer the question because it's not relevant. You might as well ask "why did they open the inquiry on a Thursday, when they previously always started on a Monday?"

You are welcome to tie yourself into Partisan Pretzels trying to find more excuses, but it doesn't matter. The inquiry is legit, period. Let us know when you actually care about the Constitution, kthx.

 

[Threegoofs]

lol

No, I simply didn't answer the question because it's not relevant. You might as well ask "why did they open the inquiry on a Thursday, when they previously always started on a Monday?"

You are welcome to tie yourself into Partisan Pretzels trying to find more excuses, but it doesn't matter. The inquiry is legit, period. Let us know when you actually care about the Constitution, kthx.

Care about the Constitution? LOL.

He doesn’t even care that his President is selling out the US by withholding aid to an ally currently under invasion just to get some fake political dirt on an opponent.

 

[Trippy Trekker]

lol

No, I simply didn't answer the question because it's not relevant. You might as well ask "why did they open the inquiry on a Thursday, when they previously always started on a Monday?"

You are welcome to tie yourself into Partisan Pretzels trying to find more excuses, but it doesn't matter. The inquiry is legit, period. Let us know when you actually care about the Constitution, kthx.

Care about the Constitution? LOL.

He doesn’t even care that his President is selling out the US by withholding aid to an ally currently under invasion just to get some fake political dirt on an opponent.

The main precedents I remember from the Clinton Impeachment Inquiry revolved around rampant infidelity and obvious partisanship among many of the main players.

 

[MTAtech]

lol

No, I simply didn't answer the question because it's not relevant. You might as well ask "why did they open the inquiry on a Thursday, when they previously always started on a Monday?"

You are welcome to tie yourself into Partisan Pretzels trying to find more excuses, but it doesn't matter. The inquiry is legit, period. Let us know when you actually care about the Constitution, kthx.

They either can't see that the letter was merely a self-serving declaration, with little to know legal theory, or don't want to know.

The purpose of the White House stance is twofold:
1) delay the House actions.
2) set up that the White House can dictate terms to the House. If the House concedes, there just will be more terms the White House requires to comply.

The issue here is whether the House has oversight capability over the White House. That's the overriding issue. The White House is making the completely unfounded assertion that the White House isn't subject to oversight. Even conservative judges will see that as absurd.

 

[bubbabgone]

lol

No, I simply didn't answer the question because it's not relevant. You might as well ask "why did they open the inquiry on a Thursday, when they previously always started on a Monday?"

You are welcome to tie yourself into Partisan Pretzels trying to find more excuses, but it doesn't matter. The inquiry is legit, period. Let us know when you actually care about the Constitution, kthx.

 

[Threegoofs]

They either can't see that the letter was merely a self-serving declaration, with little to know legal theory, or don't want to know.

The purpose of the White House stance is twofold:
1) delay the House actions.
2) set up that the White House can dictate terms to the House. If the House concedes, there just will be more terms the White House requires to comply.

The issue here is whether the House has oversight capability over the White House. That's the overriding issue. The White House is making the completely unfounded assertion that the White House isn't subject to oversight. Even conservative judges will see that as absurd.

The drive to not understand something seems to be intensified when one is invested in rabid partisanship.

And some people around here are really, really determined to never understand the basis for the impeachment inquiry.

 

[Jay59]

I'm sure. The Constitution is very clear that the House makes its own rules. So is pretty much every legal expert in the US. So are the federal judges who are working related cases, who shoot down the White House's claims of incredibly broad executive powers (e.g. Donald Trump loses appeal to stop House subpoena of his tax documents - CNNPolitics)

Another evasion. House rules do not define anything relevant.

You might also want to keep in mind that the Trump administration has a terrible record in the courts -- they lose over 90% of their cases, whereas most administrations win 70%. In other words: at this point, you have to either not be paying attention, or extremely partisan, or a tiny bit stupid, to place a great deal of faith in the *cough* novel arguments presented by the White House counsel.

Since you are not an Appeals Justice, we will have to see.

Nothing is being "overturned," and your use of the term shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. It is only in the judicial branch that precedents actually matter, and where previous rulings are overturned. You can see that right in the part of the House Rules I quoted. The rules don't stipulate a specific process, rather it is a list of examples of options from the past. The House can do whatever it wants, as long as it abides by the Constitution, US law and House rules.

Yet another evasion. I already said that precedents are not binding. They do matter.

They already have the POTUS asking foreign powers to subvert national elections for his personal gain. That's more than enough to start the inquiry.

The transcript says otherwise. Notice how all the so-called whistleblowers are going back into the woodwork? That line of attack has already been junked.

 

[Moot]

But
(1) it didn't happen and
(2) those 21 legal scholars can't simply make such a declaration as though it did happen.

That's what pretty much destroyed their alleged reverence for the "law and the Constitution".
You know, due process and all that silly stuff they teach in Law school.

An inquiry is not a trial, bubba. After the inquiry and the House votes to impeach and it goes to trial in the Senate..THEN there will be due process...and all that silly stuff.

 

[bubbabgone]

An inquiry is not a trial, bubba. After the inquiry and the House votes to impeach and it goes to trial in the Senate..THEN there will be due process...and all that silly stuff.

Pay attention. We're talking about the 21 signatories of their letter. They assumed guilt.

 

[Visbek]

Another evasion. House rules do not define anything relevant.

You're missing the point, which is that the Constitution has almost no requirements for an impeachment process, meaning there is no Constitutional basis to demand a full House vote on a formal inquiry. Egads.

Yet another evasion. I already said that precedents are not binding. They do matter.

If they're not binding, then legally they don't matter.

We might say they matter from a political perspective, but any such claim is transparently made in bad faith. The only people who are proclaiming that "the inquiry is not legit because it isn't handled the same way as in the past!" would not view any inquiry into Trump as legitimate anyway.

The transcript says otherwise. Notice how all the so-called whistleblowers are going back into the woodwork? That line of attack has already been junked.

Dude. The transcript is screamingly obvious that Trump was asking for personal favors, and asking Ukraine to specifically target his political rivals, and said he was sending his personal attorney -- not a State Department staffer, not a team of experts on political corruption, but his own lawyer -- to work on the issue. Everyone knows it, too -- except for Trump and those who regurgitate every single excuse he spews for his own crimes and failures.

The idea that whistleblowers are "going back into the woodwork" is absurd. Their work is done, as they clearly brought attention to impeachable behavior. It's been less than a week since the existence of a 2nd whistleblower was made public. It is Congress delaying whistleblowers' testimony, out of concern of retaliation.

Meanwhile, Kurt Volker and Marie Yovanovitch testified last week; Fiona Hill testified yesterday; George Kent is testifying today; Sondland is scheduled to speak Thursday; Semyon Kislin is cooperating. All of that despite the White House trying to tell people not to cooperate. There are not a lot of people shutting up right now.

 

[Jay59]

You're missing the point, which is that the Constitution has almost no requirements for an impeachment process, meaning there is no Constitutional basis to demand a full House vote on a formal inquiry. Egads.

If they're not binding, then legally they don't matter. We might say they matter from a political perspective, but any such claim is transparently made in bad faith. The only people who are proclaiming that "the inquiry is not legit because it isn't handled the same way as in the past!" would not view any inquiry into Trump as legitimate anyway.



Dude. The transcript is screamingly obvious that Trump was asking for personal favors, and asking Ukraine to specifically target his political rivals, and said he was sending his personal attorney -- not a State Department staffer, not a team of experts on political corruption, but his own lawyer -- to work on the issue. Everyone knows it, too -- except for Trump and those who regurgitate every single excuse he spews for his own crimes and failures.

The idea that whistleblowers are "going back into the woodwork" is absurd. Their work is done, as they clearly brought attention to impeachable behavior. It's been less than a week since the existence of a 2nd whistleblower was made public. It is Congress delaying whistleblowers' testimony, out of concern of retaliation.

Meanwhile, Kurt Volker and Marie Yovanovitch testified last week; Fiona Hill testified yesterday; George Kent is testifying today; Sondland is scheduled to speak Thursday; Semyon Kislin is cooperating. All of that despite the White House trying to tell people not to cooperate. There are not a lot of people shutting up right now.

Then why the secrecy? Why not have public hearings and opposition questions? Why not allow the forms of due process? Trump called it a kangaroo court and Schiff is acting as if Trump was right. It's yet another storm in a teapot.

 

[Athanasius68]

[

QUOTE=Visbek;1070749924]You're missing the point, which is that the Constitution has almost no requirements for an impeachment process, meaning there is no Constitutional basis to demand a full House vote on a formal inquiry. Egads.



If they're not binding, then legally they don't matter.

We might say they matter from a political perspective, but any such claim is transparently made in bad faith. The only people who are proclaiming that "the inquiry is not legit because it isn't handled the same way as in the past!" would not view any inquiry into Trump as legitimate anyway.

Not necessarily. The laws regarding release of Grand Jury material to Congress permits this to occur during an impeachment inquiry.
But-- if any committee can declare an impeachment inquiry in lieu of normal oversight work, it wold seem to defeat the purpose.
Congress understood there the entire House needed to vote for impeachment, not simply a committee.

Dude. The transcript is screamingly obvious that Trump was asking for personal favors, and asking Ukraine to specifically target his political rivals, and said he was sending his personal attorney -- not a State Department staffer, not a team of experts on political corruption, but his own lawyer -- to work on the issue. Everyone knows it, too -- except for Trump and those who regurgitate every single excuse he spews for his own crimes and failures.

Actually, most of the transcript concerns the present investigation into the origins of the Russia probe-- a quite lawful DOJ investigatuon for which there i a prosecutor and a Grand Jury.

 

[Visbek]

Then why the secrecy? Why not have public hearings and opposition questions? Why not allow the forms of due process?

:roll:

When there's open testimony, Trump and his followers complain. When there is testimony behind closed doors, Trump and his followers complain.

The House is engaged in due process. The job of the House right now is to gather evidence, so it can decide whether to impeach the President. This is analogous to police investigating a crime. During that process, the accused does not get to sift through the evidence, and sit next to the police officers when a witness is interrogated. (Not to mention that the White House already has access to the documents that the House wants the various departments to turn over.)

The POTUS will have an opportunity to present an actual defense if (or, more likely, when) he is impeached and the Senate holds an actual trial.

More important, though, is that all of these demands and talking points are made in bad faith, because Trump does not want any oversight at all. Thus, even when he's investigated by Republican prosecutors who are overseen by House Republicans, he still bitches and squeals about how it's "unfair."

And even more important than that is how all of this is just a bunch of bull**** to distract from the key facts:

• Trump solicited multiple foreign governments to interfere in US elections
• Trump, driven by conspiracy theories, had Giuliani engage in a shadow foreign policy
• Trump, driven by conspiracy theories, had officials engage in foreign policies to benefit himself and his election process, often resulting in those officials working well outside of their briefs (e.g. Sondland, ambassador to the EU, working over Ukraine... which is not a member of the EU)
• Trump is basically ordering the Executive Branch to obstruct justice by refusing to cooperate with the inquiry (and yeah, that's an impeachable offense in its own right)

 

[Visbek]

Not necessarily. The laws regarding release of Grand Jury material to Congress permits this to occur during an impeachment inquiry.

There are no specific laws that allow the release of Grand Jury materials when Congress is investigating an impeachment. Congress was requesting materials from the Mueller investigation long before it launched a formal impeachment inquiry; and if there wasn't a formal declaration of an impeachment inquiry, those cases would be continuing.

But-- if any committee can declare an impeachment inquiry in lieu of normal oversight work, it wold seem to defeat the purpose.

There is no special subpoena power connected with any impeachment inquiry. None.

Actually, most of the transcript concerns the present investigation into the origins of the Russia probe-- a quite lawful DOJ investigatuon for which there i a prosecutor and a Grand Jury.

You're obviously reading the wrong transcript.

The transcript we are talking about is the call between Trump and Zelensky. Part of that was Zelensky kissing Trump's ass; then, when Zelensky starts to ask for Jupiter missiles, Trump says "do us a favor" and asking Zelensky to basically turn over DNC servers that he falsely believes are being held in Ukraine, and then demanding he dig up dirt on the Bidens, and saying he's going to have Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky to "get to the bottom of it." Zelensky topped it off by literally saying "last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower." Anyone who actually cares about the United States should be deeply disturbed by the entire call.

Maybe you ought to actually read documents before commenting on them.

 

[Jay59]

:roll: When there's open testimony, Trump and his followers complain. When there is testimony behind closed doors, Trump and his followers complain.

The House is engaged in due process. The job of the House right now is to gather evidence, so it can decide whether to impeach the President. This is analogous to police investigating a crime. During that process, the accused does not get to sift through the evidence, and sit next to the police officers when a witness is interrogated. (Not to mention that the White House already has access to the documents that the House wants the various departments to turn over.) The POTUS will have an opportunity to present an actual defense if (or, more likely, when) he is impeached and the Senate holds an actual trial.

More important, though, is that all of these demands and talking points are made in bad faith, because Trump does not want any oversight at all. Thus, even when he's investigated by Republican prosecutors who are overseen by House Republicans, he still bitches and squeals about how it's "unfair." And even more important than that is how all of this is just a bunch of bull**** to distract from the key facts:

• Trump solicited multiple foreign governments to interfere in US elections
• Trump, driven by conspiracy theories, had Giuliani engage in a shadow foreign policy
• Trump, driven by conspiracy theories, had officials engage in foreign policies to benefit himself and his election process, often resulting in those officials working well outside of their briefs (e.g. Sondland, ambassador to the EU, working over Ukraine... which is not a member of the EU)
• Trump is basically ordering the Executive Branch to obstruct justice by refusing to cooperate with the inquiry (and yeah, that's an impeachable offense in its own right)

Those are not facts. Some of them are not even defensible opinions.