Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[Hatuey]

Hatuey, have they voted? Are they planning to vote? Nope!...LOL!

How is 'triple dog daring ' them to do what they're already in the process of doing, working out? The inquiry has begun. Why are you asking them to speed it up when they may still be gathering evidence?

Lol, are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[apdst]

Trying to extort a foreign leader to investigate his presumptive 2020 rival is covered by 'high crime and misdemeanors.' The Founders understood this well. Madison argued that the Constitution needed a provision “for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the Chief Magistrate.” Waiting to vote him out of office in a general election wasn’t good enough. “He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation” -- embezzlement -- “or oppression,” Madison warned. “He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

But that isn't in there. Is it? Since that's the case: what law was broken?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

No, it doesn't. Most of the citations lead to news stories, journal articles, and Congressional records. There are very few references to "legal decisions."

He didn't even make legal arguments. He made political ones.

I'm glad you decided to speak up.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

Grand jury proceedings do not allow for targets (they aren't defendants yet) to counter the prosecution.

Declaring there is no impeachment inquiry doesn't make it so. The Speaker created such inquiry.

 

[apdst]

How is 'triple dog daring ' them to do what they're already in the process of doing, working out?

Lol, are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

They aren't in the process of doing jack ****, Hatuey!...LOL!

 

[GDViking]

When Trump says "Jump", his fan base says "How high, Master?".

And only a few are light enough to actually jump...

 

[cabse5]

I would like to see the entire House vote to formally investigate him for impeachment. I can support that because it further shoves it up the rear corridor of the fascist Trump. But why do they have to do it that way? Can you point to something in the Constitution or in the House rules which makes this a must?

It is tradition for the house to vote for impeachment inquiry AND the vote would be more like the will of the people and less like the despotic process we are now experiencing with the current impeachment inquiry in the house run by heads of committees in the house.

 

[MTAtech]

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.

Their actions are exactly what guilty parties do: deny the legitimacy of the proceedings; obstruct the proceedings; take actions to deny the proceedings the witnesses called and then, ironically ask, "what's taking so long?"

 

[Hatuey]

They aren't in the process of doing jack ****, Hatuey!...LOL!

From the man who said Manafort would be fine, and so would Flynn. We get it apdst. You guessed Donald Trump would win, and since then your ego has been raised. Too bad it's made you impervious to reality.

If they're doing nothing, why is the WH objecting to everything they do and why are you asking them to hold the vote now?

Lol. Checkmate.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[gdgyva]

I believe the process is in its early stages and much evidence has to be yet gathered through investigations. Is that not what you advocate?

yeah

but like the Mueller investigation, then one too will have NO help from the administration as long as it is committee ran alone

no formal vote...no answering of subpoenas and document requests

the committees will SOON run out of willing witnesses, and then what?

 

[GDViking]

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.

That's what they said about Nixon.

Trump is running amok and is losing support.

He has Republicans running around lying to people that there was no collusion ( even though there is more than 120 meetings between trumps people and Russian operatives) and then he proves them liars by doing again with the Ukraine first secretly and then publicly, and then he did it with china.

How can you support an open criminal without looking like a fool?

Trump is going down and more than the twenty needed will be jumping ship...

 

[Hatuey]

yeah

but like the Mueller investigation, then one too will have NO help from the administration as long as it is committee ran alone

Okay, half a dozen Trump associates were sent to prison, or were completely obliterated as a result of getting no help from Trump during the Mueller investigation. Getting no help from the WH isn't as bad as you think.

Hell, I can see why they don't want to help when everyone they defend publicly ends up in prison.


Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[MTAtech]

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

The irony. Right after inauguration Obama, Republicans were already plotting to obstruct his governing. McConnell infamously stated "Our number one priority is to make President Obama a one-term president" -- and then went off sabotaging every effort -- including those that would have boosted the economy in the near-depression. So, don't cry now when Democrats legitimately investigate criminality and actions that violate the public trust.

See also: The GOPs no-compromise pledge - POLITICO

 

[GDViking]

Eliminate the EC. Objective is clear.

May not be a bad idea, it would certainly make it more difficult for another foreign entity to fix another election...

 

[Moderate Right]

I believe that is what YOU said.

I am more than convinced there were several crimes in the Russia fiasco and he should have been impeached for those as well as indicted in Court.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Fact is, Trump has committed no crimes to get him for, that's why they have to keep on investigating until they find something.

 

[Hatuey]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Fact is, Trump has committed no crimes to get him for, that's why they have to keep on investigating until they find something.

Quick. Get the FBI on this matter.

Lol.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well... no.

The whole point is that they HAVE found enough to impeach him and need to flesh out the details.

LOL. you've been saying that for three years now. By the time you get around to the details to impeach him, his term will be over.

 

[bubbabgone]

No, it doesn't. Most of the citations lead to news stories, journal articles, and Congressional records. There are very few references to "legal decisions."

He didn't even make legal arguments. He made political ones.

The legal arguments are footnoted to decisions. I counted 3.
References to congressional records and hearings are relevant in a letter to Congress about their hearings and records.

 

[Moderate Right]

The Clinton investigations started in 1994 after Paula Jones suit. He was impeached in 1998. A whole election went by while Republicans investigated. 3 years is nothing.

Your argument is dismissed.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

By the time you get around to impeaching him, his term will be over. You guys must honestly believe that he will win in 2020, as you seem to need a Page/Sterzok insurance policy.

 

[ocean515]

May not be a bad idea, it would certainly make it more difficult for another foreign entity to fix another election...

I can't see it making it more difficult.

Probably make it easier for the New Democratic Party and their Presidential candidates to hire more operatives from foreign countries to assist in campaign operations.

 

[Harshaw]

The legal arguments are footnoted to decisions. I counted 3.

And that is very few citations, compared to how many there are. And the legal arguments aren't really legal arguments; they're more "you did this last time, so why not now?"

References to congressional records and hearings are relevant in a letter to Congress about their hearings and records.

But they're not "legal decisions."

 

[MTAtech]

But that isn't in there. Is it? Since that's the case: what law was broken?

Your dishonestly bleeds through clearly.

AP Analysis: It doesn't take a crime to impeach a president
The Constitution’s standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors” for impeachment is vague and open-ended to encompass abuses of power even if they aren’t, strictly speaking, illegal, legal scholars say.
...
“It’s meant to convey the idea that the person has badly flouted the terms of office. Even if he didn’t commit a criminal offense, did he do something that constitutes an abuse of power?” said Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University.

In 1970, then-House Republican leader Gerald Ford, defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives” would vote for.

 

[tres borrachos]

The irony. Right after inauguration Obama, Republicans were already plotting to obstruct his governing. McConnell infamously stated "Our number one priority is to make President Obama a one-term president" -- and then went off sabotaging every effort -- including those that would have boosted the economy in the near-depression. So, don't cry now when Democrats legitimately investigate criminality and actions that violate the public trust.

See also: The GOPs no-compromise pledge - POLITICO

That was different! Obama is black! Of course we had to work to make sure the black man only had one term!

 

[gdgyva]

Okay, half a dozen Trump associates were sent to prison, or were completely obliterated as a result of getting no help from Trump during the Mueller investigation. Getting no help from the WH isn't as bad as you think.

Hell, I can see why they don't want to help when everyone they defend publicly ends up in prison.


Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

was ANY of it associated with Russia and the reason the Mueller case was opened?

i am saying no subpoenas will be answered...no documents given...the circus that Pelosi wants isnt going to materialize

those items will only happens once a formal vote happens...,on the floor of the house....which will put her red state democrats in play

and puts this whole thing in a way more serious tone

 

[haymarket]

But why do they have to vote in the house to extend the impeachment inquiry? Because that vote would be more like the will of the people since all 435 members of the house (which represent all 50 states) can respond about the impeachment inquiry.

EDIT: And constituents of said representatives can contact their representative to tell them how they should vote.

So you can point to nothing in the Constitution nor House rules which mandates this?

Thats okay - because neither can Trump.