Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[Jay Falcon]

I have to wonder who is advising Nancy Pelosi....

What a fine mess the Democrats have made for themselves due to the poor leadership of a stupid woman.

A Trump cultist calling Pelosi stupid... wow. That's some extreme, next level irony right there.

 

[bubbabgone]

I have to wonder who is advising Nancy Pelosi....

What a fine mess the Democrats have made for themselves due to the poor leadership of a stupid woman.

Yes, it's tough to corral crazed animals but she kowtowed to the wildest of them from the start so she's got herself to blame.
And, not that he's any better, but bypassing Nadler at Judiciary for Schiff at Intel to run the impeachment is just more groveling to the loons in and out of the Party.

 

[Moderate Right]

Not even Putin believes that at this point...

Then what's the point of impeaching if he wouldn't be impeached until the election anyway? I mean you guys are the ones saying that it could take 4 years to get through an impeachment. That means you're terrified that Trump will win a second term in 2020.

 

[trixare4kids]

Yes, it's tough to corral crazed animals but she kowtowed to the wildest of them from the start so she's got herself to blame.
And, not that he's any better, but bypassing Nadler at Judiciary for Schiff at Intel to run the impeachment is just more groveling to the loons in and out of the Party.

I think you've nailed the problem. At least Nadler would have been more concerned with Trump and his witnesses constitutional rights and due process. Nancy might be slightly losing it due to her age. Her pat statements to the media are obviously rehearsed and don't show much depth.

I predict this will be one of the Democratic Party's biggest blunders. And the fact that we now know there is a document that supports Ukraine having already reopened the investigation into Burisma 60 days before Trump's call pretty much destroys the Dem's narrative.

 

[Visbek]

The SC said due process only applies to SOME cases of impeachment? Got a citation for that?

:roll:

Do you really not understand the difference between an inquiry and a hearing?

In Watkins, the SC wasn't talking about impeachment at all.

And again: Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Congress is not unlimited in its investigatory reach, but it does have broad powers. There are no due process violations when Congress demands that the Executive Branch turn over government documents in its possession that are relevant to an inquiry, or when it demands that a staffer appear to answer questions.

Also, see posts #194 and #195 above.

I can cite from the transcript where Trump openly asks for investigation of several examples of corruption.
Can you cite where in the transcript Trump openly asks for interference in the election?

Hello? McFly? It's the part where Zelensky says "please send us Jupiter missiles," and Trump responds with "do us a favor" and demands that the government of Ukraine get him the DNC's servers (which aren't in the Ukraine at all). After that, he demands that they investigate Hunter Biden, and tells him to cooperate with his personal attorney on the matter. He didn't ask Ukraine to crack down on corruption in general, he specifically told them to target Biden. (By the way, that's not a full transcript, it is at best a partial transcript.)

We also know that numerous staffers and attorneys in the White House basically freaked out, because they knew about the contents of the call, and how bad it was, thus they tried to bury it by putting the partial transcript on a codeword server normally reserved for highly classified materials.

Of course, that was rather pointless, as Trump publicly stated: "China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." (And yeah, that's not a general demand for China to crack down on "corruption.")

You really need to put down the Kool Aid. You may not like it, but Congress is doing its job, and has broad powers of investigation. Trump is screwing the nation by demanding that foreign governments interfere with the upcoming US election. Even Tucker Carlson (!!!) realizes that there is no way to put lipstick on this pig.

 

[Hatuey]

] i assume you mean Paul Manafort....but who the hell knows, since you are rarely specific....

Again. 12 GRU folks indicted. That connects Mueller's investigation to Russia. Half a dozen Trump associates currently sitting in prison. That connects the investigation to Trump.

How are you confused?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Moderate Right]

Collusion was absolutely proven as was quid pro quo (although not necessary as just the request was a crime).

If you have to ask about trump asking for foreign assistance you are either ignorant or playing an ignorant person on the internet.

Which is it???

There was no proven collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election. Zero. Ukranian quid pro quo was not proven either. It's in your mind that is anxious to connect any dots you can. What is wrong with a president asking for foreign assistance? Presidents do it all the time. Trump never asked any country to find dirt on anyone. Do you have proof of that?

 

[Visbek]

I think you've nailed the problem. At least Nadler would have been more concerned with Trump and his witnesses constitutional rights and due process.

Please. If Nadler were taking a key role, you'd be attacking him 24/7.

Nancy might be slightly losing it due to her age.

Please. She's not the one making unhinged Tweets and public statements on an hourly basis.

And the fact that we now know there is a document that supports Ukraine having already reopened the investigation into Burisma 60 days before Trump's call pretty much destroys the Dem's narrative.

hahahahahahaha

You actually believe John Solomon?!? hahahahahahaha

 

[MTAtech]

Of course a defendant can defend himself at a grand jury. Might not be wise, but he or she is free to do so.

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.

Grand Jury Proceedings

How a grand jury works is much more relaxed than normal court room proceedings. There is no judge present and frequently there are no lawyers except for the prosecutor. The prosecutor will explain the law to the jury and work with them to gather evidence and hear testimony. Under normal courtroom rules of evidence, exhibits and other testimony must adhere to strict rules before admission. However, a grand jury has broad power to see and hear almost anything they would like.

"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.

 

[MTAtech]

The White House’s scathing and legally dubious impeachment letter, annotated

Cipollone’s scathing letter relies on a series of politically charged and legally questionable assertions. It also reads at times as though it was written with plenty of input from Trump himself (as many White House statements do these days).

“As far as the legal basis, I think counsel’s on thin grounds here,” said former federal prosecutor Jeffrey Cramer. “But this is a political process, too.”

Below is the full document, with highlights, fact-checking and analysis — from The Fix and legal experts — in yellow.

 

[roughdraft274]

Actually ...


So in House impeachment hearings there is that participation of the minority. Not allowed in this case.

Also, as the letter indicates ...
"The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations."
This is certainly one of those, flawed as it is.

None of what you posted has to do with "the right to call your own witnesses" as I was detailing. It's an investigation. These "rights" such as cross-examination and facing your accusers don't exist in investigations. They exist during the trial stage.

 

[Hatuey]

Me waiting on gvydia to come up with something else that'll ignore the fact that he asked how the investigation that led to the indictment of 12 GRU agents was related to Russia and then switched up his question to be about its relationship with Trump, while ignoring that half a dozen Trump associates are serving or have served terms because of prosecutions directly related to Mueller's investigation.

Sigh. I guess as long as they don't catch Don Trumpblerone, no other crimes matter.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[gdgyva]

Again. 12 GRU folks indicted. That connects Mueller's investigation to Russia. Half a dozen Trump associates currently sitting in prison. That connects the investigation to Trump.

How are you confused?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

over 2 years of investigations

only people indicted truly for Russian issue were Russians which we will never see in a court of law

other people indicted or in jail were for other charges UNRELATED to Russia

is this a fair statement of facts? yes or no

have a nice day....

 

[Hatuey]

over 2 years of investigations
only people indicted truly for Russian issue were Russians which we will never see in a court of law

I guess Manafort, and Flynn were only pretend indicted and convicted because of Mueller's investigation.

Mueller's investigation:Led to indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, and convictions for a half dozen (at least) Trump associates.

Are you under the impression NONE of these folks are connected to Trump? That's crazy, but okay.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[gdgyva]

I guess Manafort, and Flynn were only pretend indicted and convicted because of Mueller's investigation.

Mueller's investigation:Led to indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, and convictions for a half dozen (at least) Trump associates.

Are you under the impression NONE of these folks are connected to Trump? That's crazy, but okay.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

well since you can answer an actual question and only deflact

goodbye

 

[bubbabgone]

:roll:

Do you really not understand the difference between an inquiry and a hearing?

In Watkins, the SC wasn't talking about impeachment at all.

And again: Impeachment is not a criminal trial. Congress is not unlimited in its investigatory reach, but it does have broad powers. There are no due process violations when Congress demands that the Executive Branch turn over government documents in its possession that are relevant to an inquiry, or when it demands that a staffer appear to answer questions.

Also, see posts #194 and #195 above.



Hello? McFly? It's the part where Zelensky says "please send us Jupiter missiles," and Trump responds with "do us a favor" and demands that the government of Ukraine get him the DNC's servers (which aren't in the Ukraine at all). After that, he demands that they investigate Hunter Biden, and tells him to cooperate with his personal attorney on the matter. He didn't ask Ukraine to crack down on corruption in general, he specifically told them to target Biden. (By the way, that's not a full transcript, it is at best a partial transcript.)

We also know that numerous staffers and attorneys in the White House basically freaked out, because they knew about the contents of the call, and how bad it was, thus they tried to bury it by putting the partial transcript on a codeword server normally reserved for highly classified materials.

Of course, that was rather pointless, as Trump publicly stated: "China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened in China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine." (And yeah, that's not a general demand for China to crack down on "corruption.")

You really need to put down the Kool Aid. You may not like it, but Congress is doing its job, and has broad powers of investigation. Trump is screwing the nation by demanding that foreign governments interfere with the upcoming US election. Even Tucker Carlson (!!!) realizes that there is no way to put lipstick on this pig.

Sooooo ... there is language that references Ukraine corruption that did influence the 2016 election and enriched the Biden family but you don't care about that anymore and you think no one else should.
That makes you look pretty bad and I can see why you're concerned that someone is looking into it.

But there is no language that references the 2020 election. Told ya.

 

[Hatuey]

well since you can answer an actual question and only deflact

Lol, this is tedious but I'm having fun.

You asked: How was it connected to Russia? I showed you that a dozen GRU agents were indicted.

You asked: How was it connected to Trump? I showed you half a dozen Trump associates sitting in prison.

Your posts are dismissed for their basic lack of facts and 'deflaction'.



Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[bubbabgone]

None of what you posted has to do with "the right to call your own witnesses" as I was detailing. It's an investigation. These "rights" such as cross-examination and facing your accusers don't exist in investigations. They exist during the trial stage.

For impeachment the precedent is as follows ...

How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

 

[sjmay]

I guess Manafort, and Flynn were only pretend indicted and convicted because of Mueller's investigation.

M.

WHAT were they indicted and convicted for, and WAS it connected to Trump?

Rather simple question....

 

[TomFitz]

POTUS and his lawyers can "prove " their case before the Senate.

Yes, they can.

But this wasn’t for the benefit of instructing the Speaker or Adam Schiff.

It was made for the Fox Noise audience.

 

[BWG]

lol

Read my post. I said the Constitution lays out no guidelines for an impeachment ***INQUIRY***, and I listed the few steps it does outline. In fact, there is so little said that I can easily post it here.


That's it. No due process rights. No rights to face an accuser. No requirement for a formal vote on an impeachment inquiry. No requirement for public proceedings at any point. No promise to give an opposition party the ability to issue subpoenas -- parties didn't even exist in the US at that time.

Pat Cipollone's letter might as well have been written in Comic Sans.

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

In both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment inquiry resolutions, the minority party on the investigating committee was granted the power to subpoena — something the minority party does not normally have. Subpoenas were still subject to a vote of the committee, giving the majority party a way to block them.

GOP hopes impeachment inquiry vote will give them subpoena powers - Los Angeles Times

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

House Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow many of their committee chairmen to issue subpoenas without consulting the minority party, overriding Democrats objections that likened the tactic to something out of the McCarthy era.
[...]
Before the 2015 rule change, most House subpoenas needed at least some bipartisan cover, requiring a majority vote of committee members and consultation with a panel’s ranking member. The change erased those requirements and allowed the chairmen to proceed unilaterally, although the exact rules vary by committee.

The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats - POLITICO

No need for an impeachment inquiry vote. Thanks cons.

 

[Hatuey]

WHAT were they indicted and convicted for....

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.

 

[BWG]

I never made any claims to the contrary.
Except that the HOUSE, not the speaker of the House, not committee chairman of the House, the House itself has sole power of impeachment.
That part is clear.

When the House judiciary committee (of which there are republican members) draws up articles of impeachment they will bring it before the House and all members will be given the opportunity to vote to impeach or not impeach. Thus the sole power of impeachment is fulfilled as required by the constitution.

 

[TomFitz]

well since you can answer an actual question and only deflact

goodbye

The question answers itself.

Manafort is up to his neck in Russians. He was Moscow’s man in Ukraine, promoting the Kremlin backed Yanokovich government.

He has evidently spent months coordinating a Trump Administration led effort to blackmail the new Ukrainian government into endorsing Trump’s evidence free claims about Hunter Biden.

Flynn went to jail for failing to register as a foreign agent, and for lying about it, as National Security Advisor.

As we see from current events, loyalty to the United States first an foremost, seems to be a quint idea in the Trump universe. Not when there’s influence to be peddled.

And since the country Flynn was representing, while pretending not to, is Turkey........again, current events.

 

[roughdraft274]

For impeachment the precedent is as follows ...

You can't say "this is a right and it can't be denied!" and then say "typically they did this". You wouldn't tell someone "typically you have a 1st amendment right". Because it's always, not "typically". Understand? He makes the bull**** argument, then destroys it himself. "typically" doesn't mean ****. I can wipe my ass with his "typically".