Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[haymarket]

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.

Q: Where in the Constitution or rules does it say this must be done?

A: It does not.

 

[Hatuey]

By the time you get around to impeaching him, his term will be over.

I just cited a process of impeachment happening during an election and reaching into the 4 year mark. Why are you still complaining about these last 3 years?

Again, your arbritrary time frame for valid impeachment isn't relevant to existing impeachment proceedings and never have been.

Why keep talking?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[MauiMan]

"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

Trump is going to be impeached if the White House keeps pulling this kind of crap. It only ensnares him further.

 

[haymarket]

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?

The Administration would be stonewalling regardless.

 

[apdst]

Your dishonestly bleeds through clearly.

Actually, it does:

Article 1, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

A ****ing op-ed doesn't change what The Constitution says.

 

[Hatuey]

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

That is a stupid question. A dozen of the people indicted by Mueller (out of dozens) were Russian GRU agents.

I'll dismiss the rest of your post when you start off on a bad foot. Make your first sentences count or the rest won't..

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[haymarket]

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.

He attempted to extort a foreign leader to violate the law and corrupt it to his own will and purpose. That is a crime.

 

[Athanasius68]

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.

A defendent had the right to expect his or her testimony to a Grand Jury to remain secret-- except as exempted by law.

The Constitution is clear-- the House had sole power of impeachment. There are no penumbra emanating that would cause this to be questioned in some fashion.
The speaker can't decide on her own initiative to impeach the president. As the Constitution states, sole power belongs with the House.

 

[MTAtech]

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

While some objected to a black president (e.g. birthers), modern Republicans think a Democratic president can never be legitimate.

This is what David Leonhardt wrote today, which is relevant to the topic:

The Constitution gives Congress the right to pursue impeachment. And a president inviting foreign interference in American affairs — for personal gain — clearly qualifies as a potential “high crime.”

By pretending otherwise, Trump is making a bet.

He’s betting that he can bend the Republican Party to his will and get congressional Republicans and administration officials to parrot his fictions. He’s betting that the media won’t be able to resist framing this story as “Both sides have a legitimate argument.” He’s betting that Democrats won’t be willing to engage in as tough a brand of politics as he is.

 

[Visbek]

Impeachment is a power that resides with the house, but there are procedures and constitutional laws to be followed in order to impeach (see the OP).

** bzzt ** wrong

The Constitution provides NO GUIDELINES for an impeachment inquiry, none whatsoever. It only says that the House can impeach the President and selected officials, then the Senate holds a trial which is presided over by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, and that's it. There is no requirement for any formal vote on an inquiry, and no expansion of powers once one is held.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The POTUS has no due process rights that specifically apply to an impeachment. There is no Constitutional or statutory requirement for any sort of full house vote on proceeding with an impeachment. The POTUS has no right to "face his accuser" during an impeachment. Congress already has sufficient oversight powers to demand documents without needing any warrants. The House does not get any special powers after such a vote. Precedent, which barely exists, is not binding.

Currently the House is not allowing for anyone other than Democrats to subpeona and investigate because of their unprecedented behavior (the Dems are making a power play).

News flash! That won't change based on any sort of formal vote. Right now, the investigation is run by a bunch of committees, which will submit their findings to the Judicial Committee, which will decide whether to advance a vote on impeachment to the full House.

House leadership (Pelosi and Schiff) are, I believe, intentionally making this a political issue for political, 2020 election purposes.

What are you, new? Trump is also trying to use this for political purposes. I'm all but convinced that this letter is not even trying to be legally sound, it's a political move that would not work at all in a real court.

Trump has turned the tide of this entire narrative and called out the Democrats - bring a vote on the floor of the house (Trump and the R's are making a counter move).

lol

Trump hasn't "turned" anything. He's throwing daily Twitter Temper Tantrums since day one, and this is just an extension of that tactic. Best of all, his refusal to cooperate -- issued less than a week after Trump personally vowed to cooperate with the inquiries -- is obstruction, which risks becoming yet another impeachable offense.

Last but not least: Trump's legal teams basically much suck ass. They rush their cases, don't do proper research, make awful legal claims, and are frequently undermined by Trump's public statements. As a result, the Trump administration loses over 90% of its cases in the courts; most administrations only lose 30%. And it's not partisan, either -- many of the judges who shoot down administration policies are appointed by Republicans.
Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts – Institute for Policy Integrity

 

[Hatuey]

The Republican argument is that if a cop enters a house looking for drugs, and they instead find stolen cars, it doesn't count cause you're not going to prison for what they first came looking for.

It's stupid, but it flies with certain folks.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[haymarket]

You got suckered into that one too eh? No surprise you are parroting that one too.

The votes are there. What's the hurry? Just because Trump says so?

My personal timetable would be to investigate until the Christmas recess and then use that time to write a report. Then when they return in January, have the debate on impeachment and schedule the vote for the end of January. Then allow some time for the defense to prepare and have the trial before the Senate perhaps in March and April. Then the vote.

I think that would be fair to the whole process and not rush it.

 

[Erod]

This is petering out quickly just like the first fabricated Russian hoax, the last whistleblower disaster, and the future "whistelblowers" to come.

Democrats are looking at their sad field of candidates and swinging desperately for the fence with concocted attempts to get rid of him any way possible. Because the ballot box isn't possible.

Trump has the sympathy of Americans like me, who don't like his mannerisms or tact. I recognize the totally unfair and absurdly corrupt attacks he's had to endure. I do admire his will. Most would have cratered to this constant nonsense by now.

Consider him re-elected.

The IG reports forthcoming are going to be damning, and Democrats are panicking.

 

[nitroexpress]

Q: Where in the Constitution or rules does it say this must be done?

A: It does not.

You're right. Tradition and precedent mean nothing to Pelosi/Schiff. Their agenda will come back to bite them.

 

[MTAtech]

A defendent had the right to expect his or her testimony to a Grand Jury to remain secret-- except as exempted by law.

The Constitution is clear-- the House had sole power of impeachment. There are no penumbra emanating that would cause this to be questioned in some fashion.
The speaker can't decide on her own initiative to impeach the president. As the Constitution states, sole power belongs with the House.

All grand jury proceedings are secret to the public. That's different than what you were previously arguing, that "defendants" get to defend themselves at grand juries. They don't.

 

[haymarket]

You're right. Tradition and precedent mean nothing to Pelosi/Schiff.

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

 

[W_Heisenberg]

A ****ing op-ed doesn't change what The Constitution says.

There is wide agreement amongst legal scholars about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, what an impeachable offense is, and it encompasses abuses of office such as the one Trump engaged in, and it's not just this op-ed.

The Impeachable Offense - Lawfare

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

 

[GDViking]

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.

Mueller report: ten counts of proven obstruction...

Openly and secretively asking for foreign nations help to dig up dirt on a political opponent.

Not only that but using approved federal aid as incentive to force them to cooperate.

120 plus counts of collusion ( not a crime but absolutely rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors) not to mention emoluments violations, and so many more...

This is the most corrupt president In history and those that are ignoring actual facts are either too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, too partisan to care if they support a criminal or are just flat out gullible...

 

[GDViking]

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.

Hence all the obstruction...

 

[apdst]

There is wide agreement amongst legal scholars about the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, what an impeachable offense is, and it encompasses abuses of office such as the one Trump engaged in, and it's not just this op-ed.

The Impeachable Offense - Lawfare

High crimes and misdemeanors - Wikipedia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

They can't change what The Constitution says. It literally, doesn't work like that...lol

 

[GDViking]

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.

Huh???

You keep referring to the "new democratic party" and ignore the obvious turn towards corruption the new Republican party has taken.

Party over country by any means necessary is the new right wing motto...

 

[Athanasius68]

** bzzt ** wrong

The Constitution provides NO GUIDELINES for an impeachment inquiry, none whatsoever. It only says that the House can impeach the President and selected officials, then the Senate holds a trial which is presided over by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, and that's it. There is no requirement for any formal vote on an inquiry, and no expansion of powers once one is held.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The POTUS has no due process rights that specifically apply to an impeachment. There is no Constitutional or statutory requirement for any sort of full house vote on proceeding with an impeachment. The POTUS has no right to "face his accuser" during an impeachment. Congress already has sufficient oversight powers to demand documents without needing any warrants. The House does not get any special powers after such a vote. Precedent, which barely exists, is not binding.



News flash! That won't change based on any sort of formal vote. Right now, the investigation is run by a bunch of committees, which will submit their findings to the Judicial Committee, which will decide whether to advance a vote on impeachment to the full House]

The Constitution absolutely lays out guidelines for impeachment. It says it flat out. The House has sole power.
The Senate can't investigate for impeachment. Neither can the Judiciary. They lack the power.
Neither can the speaker or committee chairman.
Only the House can do that. And they have yet to do so.

 

[Athanasius68]

All grand jury proceedings are secret to the public. That's different than what you were previously arguing, that "defendants" get to defend themselves at grand juries. They don't.

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

 

[GDViking]

Q: Where in the Constitution or rules does it say this must be done?

A: It does not.

Exactly, and every time the trump administration refuses a house subpoena is another count of obstruction...

Clinton lied about a blowjob, can any honest Republican admit this is far,far more serious???

 

[ocean515]

Huh???

You keep referring to the "new democratic party" and ignore the obvious turn towards corruption the new Republican party has taken.

Party over country by any means necessary is the new right wing motto...

Your projection is a sight to behold.