WH rejects House Judiciary's invitation to participate in impeachment hearings

[Paradoxical]

If they accept they then can't use the lie they are being left out.

I ask myself this question, if it were me and I was innocent and had the proof, I would have been in court long ago with a host of lawsuits for those who tried to hang me falsely.

I think he would accept if the whistleblower, Schiff and Biden do. Sounds fair to me. In every trial you get to depose people who are trying to kill you.

 

[Lutherf]

This whole Trump thing has been a case of, "I have absolute immunity, and I can do whatever I want. You can't talk to anyone or see any documents! I'm above the law! You don't get a say in the matter! I am the God-Emperor! Na-na na-na boo boo! "

I guess I missed this yesterday so I'll address it today.

After the Mueller report came out the Democrats stopped attacking Trump and started attacking the office of the president itself. They still blamed Trump but their arguments switched to claims of obstruction and now abuse of executive authority. While Trump could have conspired with Russia on his own he could not have "obstructed congress" or "bribed a foreign power" unless he was exercising Article II powers. That changes things quite a bit. It changes the Democrat argument, while still invoking Trump, to one of whether the executive should have these powers or not. Because of that change this "impeachment" has become a test of balance between the branches of government and it is the Legislative branch that is asserting supremacy over the Executive. If this impeachment is concluded in favor of the Legislature we will have, effectively, hamstrung the Executive and instituted what amounts to a Parliamentary system where the ONLY power the Executive has is to implement the will of the Legislature.

 

[TheParser]

A big orchid to the White House for, in effect, telling the witch hunters to go to heck.

We all know what the committee's decision is going to be, so why should the White House participate in the farce?

I personally hope that President Trump never lets the Honorable Nancy Pelosi and her ilk enter the White House again, and I hope that he refuses to give the State of the Union speech in the House chamber. As I understand it, presidents usually just used to send the speech to Congress anyway.

I saw a clip of one witness saying that there was more due process for terrorists in Iraq than there is in the Dem-controlled House for the president of the United States of America.

I know that President Trump will probably lose the election next November, but if he somehow manages to pull it off, how delicious it would be to hear the squeals of shock from the Trump haters.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Nadler: 'Dear President Chump. We have a special place reserved for you in our unlawful kangaroo court impeachment circus.'

Trump: 'Kellyanne, send the pompous buffoon word that I am too busy to waste time with his moronic Schitff show nonsense.'

Marke, why did you copy and paste a white supremacist article about George Soros and Haiti in a previous thread a week or two ago?

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I guess I missed this yesterday so I'll address it today.

After the Mueller report came out the Democrats stopped attacking Trump and started attacking the office of the president itself. They still blamed Trump but their arguments switched to claims of obstruction and now abuse of executive authority. While Trump could have conspired with Russia on his own he could not have "obstructed congress" or "bribed a foreign power" unless he was exercising Article II powers. That changes things quite a bit. It changes the Democrat argument, while still invoking Trump, to one of whether the executive should have these powers or not. Because of that change this "impeachment" has become a test of balance between the branches of government and it is the Legislative branch that is asserting supremacy over the Executive. If this impeachment is concluded in favor of the Legislature we will have, effectively, hamstrung the Executive and instituted what amounts to a Parliamentary system where the ONLY power the Executive has is to implement the will of the Legislature.

This is depressing. You can string two ends of a sentence together, but boy, have you come to all the wrong conclusions due to your misplaced loyalty for the scumbag-in-chief.

After the Mueller report came out the Democrats stopped attacking Trump and started attacking the office of the president itself. They still blamed Trump but their arguments switched to claims of obstruction and now abuse of executive authority.

Read Volume 2. They latched onto claims of obstruction because -- drum roll please -- that is what the Mueller report revealed.

While Trump could have conspired with Russia on his own he could not have "obstructed congress" or "bribed a foreign power" unless he was exercising Article II powers.

You mean Trump could not have committed an impeachable offense unless the offense was associated with his performance as President?

Yes, I agree.

Bribery is hard to do if you don't have an official government position to trade off of. Abuse of office is hard to do if you don't have an office to abuse. Treason is hard to do unless by virtue of your official position you have access to government information and government assets that an enemy would find valuable that ordinary citizens do not have.

That changes things quite a bit. It changes the Democrat argument, while still invoking Trump, to one of whether the executive should have these powers or not.

Because of that change this "impeachment" has become a test of balance between the branches of government and it is the Legislative branch that is asserting supremacy over the Executive.

No. With respect to the Ukraine scandal, the Democrats are not making this argument. Democrats are saying that the President has a duty to abide by his oath of office and use the power and authority of his office to pursue the Republic's interests, not his own private interests.

The premise of your argument is flawed, in the extreme.

And even assuming your premise was true, there is no historical, legal, or constitutional reason for Trump to forbid any and all oversight on the part of Congress. Whatever theory Democrats in Congress may have of how the executive branch should function, this aspect of our system, that Congress has oversight over the Executive is inviolable.

Congress asking for documents from the Executive branch is not an existential threat to how our Republic functions.

The Executive branch refusing any and all requests by Congress and invoking crazy, authoritarian, dictatorial claims of "absolute immunity" do represent an existential threat to how our Republic functions. And the people that hold these extreme views do not believe in the political philosophy espoused by our founding fathers. They are fascist thugs and should be removed from positions of influence. Go to North Korea. Go to Iran. We have great examples of authoritarian regimes in the present day and throughout history. They are miserable places to live. Why do you insist on installing an authoritarian regime here? It makes no sense. Do you really hate illegal immigrants, gay people, ethnic minorities, and abortion rights activists that much?

If this impeachment is concluded in favor of the Legislature we will have, effectively, hamstrung the Executive and instituted what amounts to a Parliamentary system where the ONLY power the Executive has is to implement the will of the Legislature.

The Executive should be hamstrung, in every way possible -- from being managed by a corrupt individual who would abuse the power of the Executive for his own personal interests.

Pick someone else. You don't need someone crooked like Trump to further your political policies.

 

[ludin]

White House rejects House Judiciary's invitation to participate in impeachment hearings

The White House on Friday rejected an invitation to take part in impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. In a brief letter to Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., White House counsel Pat Cipollone sharply attacked the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "completely baseless" and said House Democrats had "violated basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness."

Cipollone did not explicitly answer whether the White House would take part in the Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Monday, but a senior administration official told NBC News "the letter means that the White House will not participate in the House proceeding."

--

Trump and his supporters never cared about the process, and Trump never intended to participate in the impeachment inquiry process.

There is no point in participating in corrupt process where the people running it have declared you guilty before the hearing.

There is no point in participating in a corrupt process when 16 people say they do not have evidence and yet the people running it still say you are guilty.

This is why we deemed witch trials unconstitutional.

This is why we have due process and innocent until proven guilty written into our justice system.

 

[ludin]

Did she say "write up the articles" before or after the hearings?

Both she was saying he was guilty before the hearing.

After the hearing and no evidence was presented that showed quid pro quo I mean extortion I mean bribery I mean quick what is the next buzz word?

She still said he was guilty.
She also said that impeachment requires a bipartisan vote and she doesn't have a bipartisan vote he'll she doesn't even have all of the democrats on board.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Are you kidding me?

Pelosi, even before the hearings have concluded, instructed Nadler to write up articles. Whether Trump is guilty or not the outcome in the Hose has already been decided. The only place he can get a fair trial, maybe, is in the Senate so if hw wants a chance to defend himself that's where he has to get things. He's doing EXACTLY what someone who is innocent and wants to present a defense MUST do.

Mr. Trump need not worry about getting a fair trial in the Senate since the Senate is highly likely to vote to acquit REGARDLESS of what the evidence and the law are (the odds that more than 18 Republican Senators will vote to convict are roughly the same as the odds that the heat death of the universe is going to occur within 45 minutes of me posting this).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

"Unlawful."

See how this is going? Conservatives have convinced themselves it's illegal to impeach a president.

No - only to impeach a REPUBLICAN President.

 

[j brown's body]

There is no point in participating in corrupt process where the people running it have declared you guilty before the hearing.

There is no point in participating in a corrupt process when 16 people say they do not have evidence and yet the people running it still say you are guilty.

This is why we deemed witch trials unconstitutional.

This is why we have due process and innocent until proven guilty written into our justice system.

Isn't the state basically declaring that it believes a suspect is guilty when they bring charges against him or her. How is this different?

 

[marke]

"Unlawful."

See how this is going? Conservatives have convinced themselves it's illegal to impeach a president.

Not illegal to impeach. Illegal to attempt to impeach without due process and without any evidence of a crime.

 

[Lutherf]

Mr. Trump need not worry about getting a fair trial in the Senate since the Senate is highly likely to vote to acquit REGARDLESS of what the evidence and the law are (the odds that more than 18 Republican Senators will vote to convict are roughly the same as the odds that the heat death of the universe is going to occur within 45 minutes of me posting this).

Right. Much like there is no need to be fair in the House investigations because we all know what Trump did it is equally unnecessary to have a trial in the Senate because we all know what the Senate will do. I mean, why bother having a justice system at all if we all already know who is guilty, why they are guilty and what penalty we should impose?:roll:

 

[marke]

Marke, why did you copy and paste a white supremacist article about George Soros and Haiti in a previous thread a week or two ago?

I don't know what white supremacist article you are talking about. But I did post this:

What Does Haiti Have to Show for $13 Billion in Earthquake Aid?

 

[marke]

Marke, why did you copy and paste a white supremacist article about George Soros and Haiti in a previous thread a week or two ago?

I don't know what white supremacist article you are talking about. But I did post this:

What Does Haiti Have to Show for $13 Billion in Earthquake Aid?

 

[Atomic Kid]

What's the point of participating in the hearings if the Speaker already came out and said, "Write up articles"? This whole House thing has been a case of, "You're guilty and we're going to impeach. You don't get a say in the matter but we'll be happy to have you over as we erect the gallows".

These are simply drafts. It's like when a prosecutor presents to a grand jury a list of the chargeable offenses alleged to have committed by the target for them to determine whether or not to issue indictments. It's not a finding of guilt or punishment. So at this point the President hasn't been charged as these are not yet officially articles of impeachment. They must be put to a vote for that to happen. So if the White House truly has exculpatory evidence this would be the time for them to present it. Judging by their actions it would appear that they have none.

First they complain about not having access to the closed committee hearings which they actually had access to all along. They just chose not to show up and participate. They then complain that the inquiry is illegitimate because there was no vote. So then a vote is held, even though it wasn't necessary, and it passes. But then they complain about the rules and due process even though they're the ones that wrote the rules and knowing that due process is not applicable to impeachment inquiries. Then they ask for open hearings and the right to call witnesses and question them. So they get the open hearings and right to call and question witnesses and they then proceed to call hardly any witnesses and instead of 'questioning witnesses' they attempt to impugn their character and question their patriotism and all the while promoting Russian propaganda and right wing conspiracy theories in course of doing so. While also complaining about the unfairness of proceedings that exclude the President and his counsel. So they invite the President and his counsel to attend the hearings and examine the evidence and the opportunity to present their own and what do they do? They appear to decline. These are not the actions of people with any intentions of acting in good faith.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not illegal to impeach. Illegal to attempt to impeach without due process and without any evidence of a crime.

The Historical Origins of Impeachment

A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and ...


The Constitution Says ‘Bribery’ Is Impeachable. What Does That Mean?

and

Proceedings of the United States senate and the ... v.3. Archbald, R. W. defendant. (Robert Wodrow), 1848-1926

all provide the elements of a two word answer to your assertion.

The first word is "Bull". Can you guess the second word?

By the way, do you know what "due process" ACTUALLY means?

Spoiler

It means the process due to a person AS PROVIDED BY LAW. IF traffic officers were empowered, by law, to summarily execute people that they stopped because they were exceeding the speed limit by more than 40 mph, THEN a person who had been executed by a police officer after the police officer had clocked them at 60 mph over the speed limit WOULD have "been afforded due process".

 

[Lutherf]

These are simply drafts. It's like when a prosecutor presents to a grand jury a list of the chargeable offenses alleged to have committed by the target for them to determine whether or not to issue indictments. It's not a finding of guilt or punishment. So at this point the President hasn't been charged as these are not yet officially articles of impeachment. They must be put to a vote for that happen. So if the White House truly has exculpatory evidence this would be the time for them to present it. Judging by their actions it would appear that they have none.

First they complain about not having access to the closed committee hearings which they have access to all along. They just chose not to show up and participate. They then complain that the inquiry is illegitimate because there was no vote. So then a vote is held, even though it wasn't necessary, and it passes. But then they complain about the rules and due process even though they're the ones that wrote the rules and knowing that due process is not applicable to impeachment inquiries. They they ask for open hearings and the right to call witnesses and question them. So they get the open hearings and right to call and question witnesses and they then proceed to call hardly any witnesses and instead of 'questioning witnesses' they attempt to impugn their character and question their patriotism and all the while promoting Russian propaganda and right wing conspiracy theories in course of doing so. While also complaining about the unfairness of proceedings that exclude the President and his counsel. So they invite the President and his counsel to attend the hearings and examine the evidence and the opportunity to present their own and what do they do? They appear to decline. These are not the actions people with the intentions of acting in good faith.

I see. So the way you see it Nancy is just being prudent in getting her people to practice writing articles of impeachment to sort of get them used to the job. Well, I guess that makes sense...somewhere in the multiverse.

 

[Olddemocrat]

what's the point of participating in the hearings if the speaker already came out and said, "write up articles"? This whole house thing has been a case of, "you're guilty and we're going to impeach. You don't get a say in the matter but we'll be happy to have you over as we erect the gallows".

nonsense!!!

 

[Olddemocrat]

I guess I missed this yesterday so I'll address it today.

After the Mueller report came out the Democrats stopped attacking Trump and started attacking the office of the president itself. They still blamed Trump but their arguments switched to claims of obstruction and now abuse of executive authority. While Trump could have conspired with Russia on his own he could not have "obstructed congress" or "bribed a foreign power" unless he was exercising Article II powers. That changes things quite a bit. It changes the Democrat argument, while still invoking Trump, to one of whether the executive should have these powers or not. Because of that change this "impeachment" has become a test of balance between the branches of government and it is the Legislative branch that is asserting supremacy over the Executive. If this impeachment is concluded in favor of the Legislature we will have, effectively, hamstrung the Executive and instituted what amounts to a Parliamentary system where the ONLY power the Executive has is to implement the will of the Legislature.

Have you read the constitution?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Right. Much like there is no need to be fair in the House investigations because we all know what Trump did it is equally unnecessary to have a trial in the Senate because we all know what the Senate will do. I mean, why bother having a justice system at all if we all already know who is guilty, why they are guilty and what penalty we should impose?:roll:

"House Investigations" are very much like "Grand Jury Investigations" and there is absolutely no requirement that "Grand Jury Investigations" be "fair". After all, the Grand Jury only hears ONE side of the case (and hears that side WITHOUT any chance of a rebuttal).

PS - Did you know that all countries except two have abandoned "Grand Juries". One of those countries is the United States of America - the other is Liberia.

Liberia is the 120 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries - The United States is the 22 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries.

Liberia has an aggregate freedom score of 62/100 - the US has an aggregate freedom score of 86/100.

However, you comment overlooks that basic tenet of (popular) American Law which is

IF I support "X" then "X" is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** until AFTER such time as they have been indicted, have been tried, have been convicted, have exhausted all possible (regardless of how frivolous) appeals without overturning the unjustly imposed conviction, AND it has been 100% established that there was 0.00% chance of any deliberate miscarriage of justice - HOWEVER IF I do NOT support "Y" then "Y" is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** regardless of any evidence to the contrary and without any need for stupid, silly, archaic, things like indictments, trials, convictions, or anything else just as long as someone even hints that they might possibly have done something that could, potentially, under some incredibly bizarre circumstances which do not actually apply..
​

What you have to remember is this

If "X" is the President of the United States of America and was nominated by the "A" party, then the "A" party will not give a damn what "X" does while the "B" party will oppose it 100% and make every effort to show that whatever "X" does is illegal. However if that same "X" had done the same things while President of the United States of America after being nominated by the "B" party, then the "B" party would not give a damn what "X" did while the "A" party would oppose it 100% and make every effort to show that whatever "X" did was illegal.
​

You can feel free to substitute "Republican" or "Democrat" for "A" and "B" in whatever sequence you feel like using.

 

[Deuce]

There is no point in participating in corrupt process where the people running it have declared you guilty before the hearing.

It's not "declaring someone guilty" to charge them with a crime. Surely you agree.
Well, that's what impeachment is. This is the investigation step. Investigations are not a declaration of guilt.

There is no point in participating in a corrupt process when 16 people say they do not have evidence and yet the people running it still say you are guilty.

They are not personally in possession of physical evidence, no. This is not to say no evidence exists.

This is why we deemed witch trials unconstitutional.

Not relevant, witches aren't real.

This is why we have due process and innocent until proven guilty written into our justice system.

Impeachment is due process. The House of Representatives is explicitly granted these powers by the constitution, your hate for the constitution is irrelevant.

 

[Lutherf]

"House Investigations" are very much like "Grand Jury Investigations" and there is absolutely no requirement that "Grand Jury Investigations" be "fair". After all, the Grand Jury only hears ONE side of the case (and hears that side WITHOUT any chance of a rebuttal).

PS - Did you know that all countries except two have abandoned "Grand Juries". One of those countries is the United States of America - the other is Liberia.

Liberia is the 120 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries - The United States is the 22 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries.

Liberia has an aggregate freedom score of 62/100 - the US has an aggregate freedom score of 86/100.

However, you comment overlooks that basic tenet of (popular) American Law which is

IF I support "X" then "X" is **I*N*N*O*C*E*N*T** until AFTER such time as they have been indicted, have been tried, have been convicted, have exhausted all possible (regardless of how frivolous) appeals without overturning the unjustly imposed conviction, AND it has been 100% established that there was 0.00% chance of any deliberate miscarriage of justice - HOWEVER IF I do NOT support "Y" then "Y" is **G*U*I*L*T*Y** regardless of any evidence to the contrary and without any need for stupid, silly, archaic, things like indictments, trials, convictions, or anything else just as long as someone even hints that they might possibly have done something that could, potentially, under some incredibly bizarre circumstances which do not actually apply..
​

What you have to remember is this

If "X" is the President of the United States of America and was nominated by the "A" party, then the "A" party will not give a damn what "X" does while the "B" party will oppose it 100% and make every effort to show that whatever "X" does is illegal. However if that same "X" had done the same things while President of the United States of America after being nominated by the "B" party, then the "B" party would not give a damn what "X" did while the "A" party would oppose it 100% and make every effort to show that whatever "X" did was illegal.
​

You can feel free to substitute "Republican" or "Democrat" for "A" and "B" in whatever sequence you feel like using.

A prosecutor who fails to look for exculpatory evidence, fails to consider exculpatory evidence and fails to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury is guilty of malign prosecution and should be disbarred. The practices of a guy by the name of Mike Nifong might be familiar to you as such an example.

 

[MauiMan]

White House rejects House Judiciary's invitation to participate in impeachment hearings

The White House on Friday rejected an invitation to take part in impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. In a brief letter to Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., White House counsel Pat Cipollone sharply attacked the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "completely baseless" and said House Democrats had "violated basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness."

Cipollone did not explicitly answer whether the White House would take part in the Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Monday, but a senior administration official told NBC News "the letter means that the White House will not participate in the House proceeding."

--

Trump and his supporters never cared about the process, and Trump never intended to participate in the impeachment inquiry process.

That is correct—he has no counter argument or exculpatory evidence. Same tactic as Nixon, except with greater vigor!

 

[Rexedgar]

A prosecutor who fails to look for exculpatory evidence, fails to consider exculpatory evidence and fails to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury is guilty of malign prosecution and should be disbarred. The practices of a guy by the name of Mike Nifong might be familiar to you as such an example.

No Constitutional scholar here, but isn’t the HoR inquiry not really parallel to a judicial proceeding?

 

[gdgyva]

White House rejects House Judiciary's invitation to participate in impeachment hearings

The White House on Friday rejected an invitation to take part in impeachment hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. In a brief letter to Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., White House counsel Pat Cipollone sharply attacked the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "completely baseless" and said House Democrats had "violated basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness."

Cipollone did not explicitly answer whether the White House would take part in the Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Monday, but a senior administration official told NBC News "the letter means that the White House will not participate in the House proceeding."

--

Trump and his supporters never cared about the process, and Trump never intended to participate in the impeachment inquiry process.

why would he...to give them credence?

it is up to the democrats to prove wrong doing....

not up to the GOP to help them