Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[EnigmaO01]

Why aren't they voting? Now!! :lamo

Trump is calling their bluff like a mother****er...lol

Trump's going...lmao

Now you're just trolling.

Can't wait to hear you cry like a baby when Trump steps down.

 

[bongsaway]

Nice letter, means nothing legally. Next.

 

[bubbabgone]

A) Impeachment is literally a matter described in the Constitution. It can't be unconstitutional to use it.
B) If impeachment succeeds, Mike Pence would be president, not Hillary Clinton -- which would be overturning the 2016 election.
C) It is alleged that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses. It is therefore the duty to have an impeachment inquiry.
D) The House of Representatives actions are the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. Grand juries do not allow the accused to defend themselves before indicted. They get that opportunity at trial.
E) The target of an investigation doesn't get to decide the rules of the proceedings.

All of Trump's lawyer's arguments have no merit. That's what happens when they grasp for straws because it's all they have.

Read the link and the footnotes.

 

[Hatuey]

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.

 

[ElChupacabra]

A) Impeachment is literally a matter described in the Constitution. It can't be unconstitutional to use it.
B) If impeachment succeeds, Mike Pence would be president, not Hillary Clinton -- which would be overturning the 2016 election.
C) It is alleged that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses. It is therefore the duty to have an impeachment inquiry.
D) The House of Representatives actions are the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. Grand juries do not allow the accused to defend themselves before indicted. They get that opportunity at trial.
E) The target of an investigation doesn't get to decide the rules of the proceedings.

All of Trump's lawyer's arguments have no merit. That's what happens when they grasp for straws because it's all they have.

What's interesting to me is that this administration would be much more effective participating if they truly feel this is a "witch hunt". If the Democrats are lying, then mounting a full frontal assault would expose the "lies" and vindicate Trump and the rest of his team. By not participating, they're sowing the seeds of doubt; something I find much more harmful because it prolongs the issue and forces the question: "what do you have to hide?". I don't think their position of the investigation not having any merit is strong enough to keep the questions at bay.

 

[apdst]

Your linke doesn't support your contention that the dems have been trying to impeach Trump 3 days after he came into office. I merely says that many contend he has committed impeachable actions for some time now since being in office.

If what you say is true Pelosi would have pulled the trigger long ago. Didn't happen until recently.

Go make your fairy tales somewhere else. No one is buying them.

You're right. I stand corrected. The Democrats were talking impeachment before he was sworn in. :lamo

From My SourceVarious people and groups assert that U.S. president Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity both before and during his presidency, and talk of impeachment began before he took office.

 

[SCrider]

A) Impeachment is literally a matter described in the Constitution. It can't be unconstitutional to use it.
B) If impeachment succeeds, Mike Pence would be president, not Hillary Clinton -- which would be overturning the 2016 election.
C) It is alleged that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses. It is therefore the duty to have an impeachment inquiry.
D) The House of Representatives actions are the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. Grand juries do not allow the accused to defend themselves before indicted. They get that opportunity at trial.
E) The target of an investigation doesn't get to decide the rules of the proceedings.

All of Trump's lawyer's arguments have no merit. That's what happens when they grasp for straws because it's all they have.

it's does not matter to his cult members. They will just agree with whatever Trump says.

 

[ocean515]

I do think when they hear that the House decides the rules for impeachment they kinda sorta read too much into what that means.

It will likely always baffle me how people, regardless of politics, struggle with "bigger picture" concepts.

Imagine the kind of totalitarian police state that would exist, if the government could simply investigate and accuse anyone, force them to testify under oath, and provide no protections and right to question the process or the counter the accusations.

I don't get the disconnect, and probably never will.

 

[apdst]

Now you're just trolling.

Can't wait to hear you cry like a baby when Trump steps down.

If he does, it will guarantee 8 years of the Pence administration.

 

[Pound4abrown]

It tickles me to no end that this Admin is now crying foul about rules and precedent. I mean ****ing precedent. The absolute hubris of them talking about process and precedent.
If there was a god they would all be stricken mute for even bringing this up after all the processes and precedents they have mangled and defiled
So much of this can go **** itself.

 

[apdst]

It will likely always baffle me how people, regardless of politics, struggle with "bigger picture" concepts.

Imagine the kind of totalitarian police state that would exist, if the government could simply investigate and accuse anyone, force them to testify under oath, and provide no protections and right to question the process or the counter the accusations.

I don't get the disconnect, and probably never will.

Yeah, but that exactly what the Leftists want.

 

[SLC]

hi! You might be interested to know that mr. Benito mussolini used the phrase, 'drain the swamp'. And so it goes.

Regards.

Ps. A quote used without attribution carries with it a whiff of plagiarism, i'm a-thinkin'.

link?

 

[Pound4abrown]

Well, the House best hurry up and vote to send it to the Senate. What are they waiting for?

You in a hurry to watch him get impeached?
Or just in a hurry to watch Mitch fumble the constitutional ball in the Senate?
Either way, you can have patience, it will do you some good.

 

[Pound4abrown]

And that's exactly what proves this is not about the law, its about poor widdle twump's delicate feelings. Distorting the purpose of the inquiry is all they can do. they cant argue the facts.

And if this line of bullspit was true, it would be putting Hillary in the oval office, which is clearly is not. So it isn't about "overturning" an election, but holding to task the POTUS for his mis-deeds in the office.

 

[roughdraft274]

"In a letter to House leaders, White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote that House Democrats’ recent actions violate “the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.” He criticized the impeachment inquiry as attempt to overturn the 2016 presidential election results and to influence the upcoming 2020 campaign. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...-ab4b-9d591a5fda7b/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1








https://www.washingtonpost.com/cont...-ab4b-9d591a5fda7b/?wpisrc=nl_politics&wpmm=1

I know it goes without saying in this administration, but this letter is absolutely astounding. I'm flabbergasted that an actual lawyer would write a letter with such glaring falsehoods and with such an unprofessional phrasing. It reads like a very poorly worded op-ed piece of an obscure blog with no editor.

I mean, right off the bat he begins talking about due process and "the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel." None of this has to do with an impeachment inquiry. If they pass articles of impeachment and it goes to the senate, that's the actual trial. But complaining about not being able to call your own witnesses during the investigative stage is like trying to stop the cops from investigating you for a crime because you haven't called your own witnesses yet. You don't do that til trial. If the white house believes there is evidence that the house of reps skipped over during the inquiry, they can bring it up during the trial in the senate. It's just unbelievable that the white house counsel either doesn't understand that or is so dishonest and willing to tarnish his name by putting out something that someone even vaguely familiar with the law would know is wrong.

 

[apdst]

Nice letter, means nothing legally. Next.

It isn't supposed to. This is Trump triple-dog-daring the Democrats to vote on impeachment and the Democrats are going to tuck tail.

 

[Athanasius68]

A) Impeachment is literally a matter described in the Constitution. It can't be unconstitutional to use it.
B) If impeachment succeeds, Mike Pence would be president, not Hillary Clinton -- which would be overturning the 2016 election.
C) It is alleged that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses. It is therefore the duty to have an impeachment inquiry.
D) The House of Representatives actions are the equivalent of a grand jury indictment. Grand juries do not allow the accused to defend themselves before indicted. They get that opportunity at trial.
E) The target of an investigation doesn't get to decide the rules of the proceedings.

All of Trump's lawyer's arguments have no merit. That's what happens when they grasp for straws because it's all they have.

A. This is true. As long it is used as per the Constitution.

B. Trump- not Pence- was elected president in 2016.

C. Which is fair enough.

D. This is true as far as an impeachment is concern.
The Constitution requires the that the House has sole power of impeachment. The House has yet to decide to exercise that power. Thus there presently is no impeachment inquiry.

E. Defendendents to have rights in a grand jury proceeding-- as prescribed by law.

 

[apdst]

You in a hurry to watch him get impeached?
Or just in a hurry to watch Mitch fumble the constitutional ball in the Senate?
Either way, you can have patience, it will do you some good.

If it's so certain, what are they waiting on?

 

[bongsaway]

It isn't supposed to. This is Trump triple-dog-daring the Democrats to vote on impeachment and the Democrats are going to tuck tail.

What this is, is a lesson to trump that he doesn't control everything. After the triple dog dare he can offer them an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top and get the same results, ignored.

Nancy is running the show in the house, not donald.

 

[danielpalos]

If it's so certain, what are they waiting on?

It is a political, not criminal process. The right wing is willing to gamble their credibility to try to keep their guy in Office.

 

[SLC]

Trump is scared ****less, and so is his drooling fan base. As they all should be.

If nothing else, he will lose next year because decent, Constitution-respecting Americans reject corruption and obstruction of justice.

Naww the Dems will never get 66 votes in the Senate. While the house only requires a simple majority and can be done with only one party. The Senate requires bipartisan support to remove a President. This whole thing is a waste of time.

 

[apdst]

What this is, is a lesson to trump that he doesn't control everything. After the triple dog dare he can offer them an ice cream sundae with a cherry on top and get the same results, ignored.

Nancy is running the show in the house, not donald.

Actually, it's a lesson to the House Democrats that their power isn't absolute.

 

[apdst]

It is a political, not criminal process. The right wing is willing to gamble their credibility to try to keep their guy in Office.

Well, get on the horn and demand they vote. What are you waiting on?

 

[haymarket]

Early stages? The Democrats started talking impeachment three days after Trump was sworn in. :lamo

Yes - early stages of this current crime by Trump.

 

[bongsaway]

Actually, it's a lesson to the House Democrats that their power isn't absolute.

The dems aren't the ones claiming their power is absolute. I'm starting to think the party of the rule of law is afraid of the rule of law and should be.