Letter from White House counsel Pat Cipollone to House leaders

[Athanasius68]

Subpoenas leave no wiggle room for " voluntary"...

Of course it does. One can absolutely fight a subpoena.

 

[GDViking]

Yes. Sole power.
In the issue of Johnson, they voted to impeach and drew up the articles later and laid out their case.

In other words they can proceed in any manner that they chose.

And those that are required to show up for questioning have no right to refuse compliance...

 

[Jay Falcon]

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

To gather more evidence and make you sweat it out. There will be plenty of both.

 

[GDViking]

Of course it does. One can absolutely fight a subpoena.

However it is illegal to ignore one as the criminals administration is doing...
And lose...

 

[Athanasius68]

In other words they can proceed in any manner that they chose.

And those that are required to show up for questioning have no right to refuse compliance...

Yes. When the House of Reps decides.
Not when the speaker decides.
Not when committee chairman decide.
When the House decides.
The House hasn't decided.

 

[Athanasius68]

However it is illegal to ignore one as the criminals administration is doing...
And lose...

Not if there is nothing to which to respond.

 

[GDViking]

To gather more evidence and make you sweat it out. There will be plenty of both.

They got a big flathead chewing on a bluegill and their sipping on a beer by lantern lite as they let him take the bait...

 

[Hatuey]

nice try

not one associated with Trump though

but nice try at a deflection when you really dont want to answer HONEST questions

Here is your stupid question again:

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

I just showed you it was. Now you're asking if any of it was associated with Trump.

Whose campaign manager is currently sitting at a Lower Manhattan prison?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[GDViking]

Not if there is nothing to which to respond.

Then they have to say that under oath.

 

[Hatuey]

So, you're saying that you believe Trump will win re-election in 2020.

Are you under the impression Trump is as likeable as Clinton?

Wow. That's bonkers.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

 

[Visbek]

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

Hello? McFly? Impeachment hearings haven't started yet. The House is still investigating and gathering evidence.

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.

Yeah, about that. The case Cippollone cited is Watkins vs United States, and certainly does not support his conclusion. At no point did the ruling determine that "due process applies to all Congressional inquiries."

In that case, Watkins testified before the HUAC, and refused to name names, on the basis that it was outside the committee's scope of inquiry. He was held in contempt of Congress, and the SCOTUS overturned it because Watkins had no way to know if answering the question put him in any sort of legal jeopardy. To wit:

Due process requires that a witness before a congressional investigating committee should not be compelled to decide, at peril of criminal prosecution, whether to answer questions propounded to him without first knowing the "question under inquiry" with the same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense....

It is obvious that a person compelled to make this choice is entitled to have knowledge of the subject to [354 U.S. 178, 209] which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. That knowledge must be available with the same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense. The "vice of vagueness" 48 must be avoided here as in all other crimes.

Good news! This investigation isn't vague. The House committees are investigating the President openly asking foreign governments to interfere with US elections.

More to the point, Watkins v United States does not in any way, shape or form determine that impeachment inquiries must provide the POTUS the exact same protections as offered during a criminal investigation. Is Congress supposed to get a warrant to obtain documents held by the Executive Branch? When police interview a witness, is the defendant's attorney allowed to be present? The demands are ludicrous and irrational. All this is doing is giving the House more grounds to impeach, now on the basis of obstruction.

Like I said above, from a legal standpoint Pat Cipollone's letter might as well have been written in Comic Sans.

 

[trouble13]

Subpoenas leave no wiggle room for " voluntary"...

The letter is basically challenging the authority of congress to issue suponeas to investigate something they do not have the authority to be investigating.

This is headed to 1 of two places. Either the house has to hold a floor vote to empower themselves to have suponea authority or it goes before a judge to determine if they have that authority without an offical resolution being passed.

At least thats the argument i think is being set up

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[haymarket]

Ok.
The House voted to impeach him, then drew up articles of impeachment.
Follow the precedent.

Vote to impeach and investigate what articles he should be impeached for.

You have not presented any evidence of anything. Where in the Constitution or House Rules does it say they have to take a vote in order to have an impeachment investigation?

 

[apdst]

To gather more evidence and make you sweat it out. There will be plenty of both.

I'm laughing; not sweating. :lamo

 

[Jay Falcon]

How stupid are you all going to feel when the House doesn't hold an impeachment vote?

How stupid fo you feel now for defending Trump?

 

[Jay Falcon]

Take a memo, secretary.

Tell the truth. You're not even old enough to vote, are you?

 

[dcsports]

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.

That's not the end of the story though. It's generally accepted that due process should be followed in the impeachment process - and the precedent is there. Granted, it's kind of a unique process, and the applicability of other constituional rights hasn't been decided - there are arguements to be made on both sides. However, there's no good reason for the House and Senate not to follow due process - if nothing else, it's one of the principles our country was built on, and the right thing to do.

As for other items.... like the requirement for a formal vote on impeachment inquiry - that's another story. the House and Senate DO have the constitutional responsibility to make their own rules, and they both have rules on the impeachment process. They've got to follow those rules.

 

[Nuber]

** bzzt ** wrong

I was clearly referencing the position of Trump's lawyer in my original statement. The OP clearly points out that there are constitutional principles at play here. As you read through my post, it should have been clear that I suspect legal action may come about because of this, as the courts may need to rule as to who is right. In other words, instead of wasting everybody's time and reposting what had already been posted, I hoped that people could understand my reference on their own.

The Constitution provides NO GUIDELINES for an impeachment inquiry, none whatsoever.

I concur. There are basic constitutional rights that the Democrats in congress seem to want to ignore as they pertain to Trump. Thus the OP.

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.

Just as the constitution does not expressly state that a formal vote is required, the constitution does not clearly state that only subcommittes in the house get the power of impeachment.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. The POTUS has no due process rights that specifically apply to an impeachment.

Funny how you stand on the technicality that a floor vote is not mandated by the constitution, yet fail to understand that ALL US citizens have fundamental process rights. (thus the constitutional reference made by the OP) Constitutional law is not only about the exact, specific words as they are spelled out; there are over 200 years of constitutional rulings to consider.

The POTUS has no right to "face his accuser" during an impeachment.

If the House tries to not allow any of the opposing opinions to be formally heard, it will be abundantly clear that the house is just playing politics for the purposes of political gain - meaning the D's think this is an election winner.

Congress already has sufficient oversight powers to demand documents without needing any warrants.

And the White House has presidential prerogative and presidential privilege. Now where do we stand? Each entity has their own tools to bring to bear - do you see the game unfolding yet?

The House does not get any special powers after such a vote. Precedent, which barely exists, is not binding.

Now we get to the nut. I agree that precedent is not binding. The D's are currently violating precedent for the purposes of politics. This is all about politics until such time as the house actually calls a floor vote, then it becomes more than politics and about the removal/censorship of a sitting president.

News flash! That won't change based on any sort of formal vote.

No, right now only D's running committees have the power to investigate and get a subpoena because of the fact that R's can't get their stuff out of committee. After a floor vote, assuming that the D's don't change the rules of impeachment from past precedent, then the supporters of the accused will gain this power amongst others.

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.

YES! A bunch of committees run and controlled exclusively by Democrats! Partisanship on display. I say bring it to a floor vote, make if formal, see the opposition documents as well as the Democrat stuff, let the President defend himself with representation. Let it play out and let the voters see who is on what side. What I am calling for here is ultimately what Trump wants to see play out - because Trump thinks the people are on his side.

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. lol

2 years or so on this forum, not a regular poster as you can see by my statistics. New on the planet, certainly not; put me down for half a century. But let me be clear if I wasn't in my original post - both the R's and the D's are making political maneuvers - I am in no way ignorant of that.

BTW - just because you offer your opinion that the letter is not legally sound, does not make it so.

 

[Visbek]

Gregg Nunziata is a lawyer, a former staffer for Marco Rubio and John Thune, and worked on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's not impressed.

 

[Visbek]

....and a federal judge yesterday stated that the House has wide latitude to determine its own investigative procedures in an impeachment inquiry.




The White House’s argument may already be in legal trouble. The chief judge of Washington's federal district court indicated earlier Tuesday in a related proceeding that she gives great “deference” to the House’s authority to devise its own impeachment procedures.

The judge, Beryl Howell, repeatedly challenged the Trump administration’s view that a formal vote is necessary to declare an impeachment inquiry — though she conceded it would be a more clear-cut call if a vote occurred. Howell is expected to rule later this month on whether the House’s impeachment probe is legitimate and warrants the release of special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury materials to Congress.
White House vows to block ‘illegitimate’ impeachment effort - POLITICO

This does not look good for Homestar Runner.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

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

Well, they can research what the framers of the Constitution meant when they said High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Do you disagree with this approach to interpreting the Constitution?

Some background:

Judicial interpretation - Wikipedia

--

What do you think High Crimes and Misdemeanors means?

 

[bubbabgone]

It's a bad argument. The authority of courts are not absolute.
But when it comes to impeachment, the authority of the house is absolute. The courts have no role.

Simply not so. As you've seen there have been decisions.

 

[gdgyva]

Here is your stupid question again:



I just showed you it was. Now you're asking if any of it was associated with Trump.

Whose campaign manager is currently sitting at a Lower Manhattan prison?
Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.

Whose campaign manager is currently sitting at a Lower Manhattan prison? i assume you mean Paul Manafort....but who the hell knows, since you are rarely specific....


The two criminal trials of Paul Manafort are the first cases brought to trial by the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Manafort served as campaign chair for the Donald Trump 2016 presidential campaign from June 20 to August 19, 2016.[1][2]

In July 2017, the FBI conducted a raid of Manafort's home, authorized by search warrant under charges of interference in the 2016 election.[3][4] Manafort and his business assistant Rick Gates were both indicted and arrested in October 2017 for charges of conspiracy against the United States, making false statements, money laundering, and failing to register as foreign agents for Ukraine. Gates entered a plea bargain in February 2018.[5][6]

Manafort's first trial on 18 criminal counts began on July 31, 2018. In that trial, Gates testified that he committed tax evasion and embezzlement crimes with Manafort.[7] Under cross examination, Gates also admitted to an extramarital relationship funded with money embezzled from Manafort.[8] Manafort was found guilty on eight counts (covering filing false tax returns, bank fraud, and failing to disclose a foreign bank account), but a mistrial was declared on the remaining ten counts due to a single juror harboring reasonable doubts.[9]

Weeks later, before a second trial on seven separate criminal counts could begin, Manafort reached a plea bargain on two of those counts (conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering).[10][11][12] As part of the agreement, he also admitted guilt to an additional seven counts left unresolved from the earlier mistrial (bank fraud and bank fraud conspiracy), forfeited several properties and accounts, and agreed to full cooperation with the prosecution.[13][14]
Trials of Paul Manafort - Wikipedia

please show me where he was "connected to Russia" other than it was from the Mueller investigation....

 

[trixare4kids]

"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 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.

 

[bubbabgone]

Hello? McFly? Impeachment hearings haven't started yet. The House is still investigating and gathering evidence.



Yeah, about that. The case Cippollone cited is Watkins vs United States, and certainly does not support his conclusion. At no point did the ruling determine that "due process applies to all Congressional inquiries."

In that case, Watkins testified before the HUAC, and refused to name names, on the basis that it was outside the committee's scope of inquiry. He was held in contempt of Congress, and the SCOTUS overturned it because Watkins had no way to know if answering the question put him in any sort of legal jeopardy. To wit:

Due process requires that a witness before a congressional investigating committee should not be compelled to decide, at peril of criminal prosecution, whether to answer questions propounded to him without first knowing the "question under inquiry" with the same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense....

It is obvious that a person compelled to make this choice is entitled to have knowledge of the subject to [354 U.S. 178, 209] which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. That knowledge must be available with the same degree of explicitness and clarity that the Due Process Clause requires in the expression of any element of a criminal offense. The "vice of vagueness" 48 must be avoided here as in all other crimes.

Good news! This investigation isn't vague. The House committees are investigating the President openly asking foreign governments to interfere with US elections.

More to the point, Watkins v United States does not in any way, shape or form determine that impeachment inquiries must provide the POTUS the exact same protections as offered during a criminal investigation. Is Congress supposed to get a warrant to obtain documents held by the Executive Branch? When police interview a witness, is the defendant's attorney allowed to be present? The demands are ludicrous and irrational. All this is doing is giving the House more grounds to impeach, now on the basis of obstruction.

Like I said above, from a legal standpoint Pat Cipollone's letter might as well have been written in Comic Sans.

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

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?