And any f'ucking moron can read a law and say, yep, this stupid mother f'ucker is breaking the law.
Contact with HPSCI outside chain of command
- Thread starter TimWVU01
- Start date
And any f'ucking moron can read a law and say, yep, this stupid mother f'ucker is breaking the law.
Can you tell me what the House Rules of Impeachment are? I want you to lay them out line by line...
Mueller says he isn't violating the law because "dirt" has no value -- precedent..... that is how law works in this country..... a lawyer should know that.
What rules? Point them out to me. As far as I can tell, the house adopted their own rules on hearings, subpoenas, etc at the time they asked the judiciary committee “to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach” the president in question. They were not bound by any prior rules.
I found this on the past 2 impeachments:
"Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member “acting jointly.” If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances “maximum flexibility and bipartisanship.”
So not official rules, but rules passed for those specific inquiries.
Will it be as fun as watching you Trumpers now?
Here is this too:
"Indeed, until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.” And while Chairman Jerrold Nadler indicated in January 2019 that he would hold votes on any subpoenas to which Ranking Member Doug Collins objected, the rules do not specifically require that he do so. The need to seek full House authorization for expanded subpoena powers as part of an impeachment inquiry, then, is not as pressing as it was in 1974 or 1998."
I'm not sure where you are getting your talking points, er I mean info, but it appears dated.
um nope -- 2 part legal analysis... part one -- what is the value of the dirt provided by Russia in 2016 elections (Mueller conclusion no value could be placed)
part two -- if value could be placed the law requires "general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct." -- and nobody in the "Trump Tower" meeting was aware of the law.....
Completely wrong. Completely irrelevant. Doesn't matter how much you lie or spin on here.
What'll be fun is watching you Libs whine when/if this gets to the Senate and you don't find the rules to be what you want them to be.
I see your tone is shifting. Hmmmmm.
If the GOP Senate wishes to make foreign help (including Communist China) in elections a routine thing for American democracy, then they should have at it. Their rules won't bother me a bit.
We are intelligent enough and honest enough (with ourselves, unlike you trumpers) to realize he won't be removed from office. We know how this shakes out. But at least the House is doing the right thing. Just sad that you trumpers defend this moron regardless of what he does and regardless of how many times he violates law.
Regardless of what might instigate an inquiry into whether impeachment is warranted, there are normally three formal stages of congressional action. First, an impeachment inquiry is authorized, and this is most often accomplished through the adoption of a simple resolution (H.Res.___) directing the Judiciary Committee to investigate an official.
Must have missed that resolution
I see your tone is shifting. Hmmmmm.
If the GOP Senate wishes to make foreign help (including Communist China) in elections a routine thing for American democracy, then they should have at it. Their rules won't bother me a bit.
Not against the law --
the only law here is Campaign Finance Law --- which talks about foreign governments providing things of monetary value (a specific limit under the statute).
BTW -- Since SCOTUS struck down McCain-Feingold as a violation of the 1st Amendment --- even the existing portions of current campaign finance law are pretty shaky. DOJ has NOT taken up many of those cases because they don't want a SCOTUS challenge. You do realize DOJ declines prosecution of specific statutes on an almost daily basis because the "threat of the law" serves them better than potentially losing the law all together in a court challenege. The Logan Act is one of those in that category.....
Buckley v Valeo (1976) -- “Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution. The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression.”
Citizens United v FEC (2010) -- "The majority ruled that the Freedom of the Press clause of the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."
"The First Amendment is not just a right that belongs to Americans. It’s also a limit on what Congress can do. Congress can “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” but it can’t do so while “abridging the freedom of speech.” Congress can “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” but not one that “respect an establishment of religion.” Nothing about this language permits an abridgment or an establishment that only affects noncitizens or that only takes place abroad. Congress just lacks the power to do it."
Given all of above -- most federal campaign finance law is on perilous ground as it is and must thread a fine line. It requires a "test" against the 1st Amendment before determining whether the law has been broken....
see above -- acknowledged that... but in every case in US History (Johnson, Nixon, Clinton) it did involved a charge of a violation of either Federal Statute or an Act of Congress.... none of that exists here....
You think they can't find any violations to include? We already know he paid off Stormy....theres a guy doing time for it right now.
Besides that, I see clear violations right here in his Ukraine extortion. I have heard multiple former prosecutors say that this would have been a run of the mill case for them.
I mean if people believe Foreign Governments (and foreign persons) who operate inside the U.S. do NOT have 1st Amendment Rights -- (which goes against everything SCOTUS has ever said) then I guess we can ban someone from accepting political dirt from a foreign power... but I think it would not stand a SCOTUS challenge unless it was tied to a particular National Security problem and for it to be tied to a National Security problem (of which the President is the sole arbiter) then the Executive would have to make that argument -- not Congress....
So ultimately I think you have a real Constitutional problem here if you want to "ban candidates from taking political dirt from foreign governments"..... You can band monetary contributions to some extent under current law based on Buckley v Valeo "restrictions on "large campaign contributions" are justified by the state's interest in "the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions and on their actions if elected to office." The Court further defined "corruption" to mean "large contributions ... given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders." -- but again that is a monetary valuation..... good luck placing such a valuation on "dirt".....
So ultimately I think you have a real Constitutional problem here if you want to "ban candidates from taking political dirt from foreign governments"..... You can band monetary contributions to some extent under current law based on Buckley v Valeo "restrictions on "large campaign contributions" are justified by the state's interest in "the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions and on their actions if elected to office." The Court further defined "corruption" to mean "large contributions ... given to secure a political quid pro quo from current and potential office holders." -- but again that is a monetary valuation..... good luck placing such a valuation on "dirt".....
but you see -- there is no law preventing a President from "extorting" a foreign nation -- in fact he can do so and do so legally. We can argue whether he is doing it for personal gain or public interest... but that is hard to prove. If he says his interest in this matter was rampant Ukrainian corruption and ties the aid to that -- he, and only he, "is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations"
“The
President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with
foreign nations.” John Marshall 1804
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),[1] was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.
In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation's "sole organ" in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.[2] The Court reasoned that while the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such authority, these powers are implicit in the President's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.
Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President's plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.[3]
"It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution."
I asked you the other day -- what Act of Congress or what Federal Statute did he violate... you didn't respond....
No link. Where is that from? Seems outdated info with what I have posted ITT. No resolution is required. Even what you quoted says "normally". It doesn't say legally or according to house rules.
To expand -- you all do realize that foreign persons on US soil have, with very few limits, all the same Constitutional Rights you and I do. So as a free citizen, using my 1st Amendment Rights, I can dig up all the dirt on Hillary I would like (legally -- I can't steal it -- though if I did the crime would be just that stealing and no more) and provide it to Trump or anyone else.....
Thus foreign persons on US soil -- can do the same....
Foreign Governments doing so -- well actually no law prevents that unless the value of that dirt would violate campaign finance law or somehow the provision of that dirt would constitute espionage (though I am not sure how it would).
The only rights foreign persons on US soil they do NOT have are those prescribed in the Constitution (like requirements to run for President etc).
Thus foreign persons on US soil -- can do the same....
Foreign Governments doing so -- well actually no law prevents that unless the value of that dirt would violate campaign finance law or somehow the provision of that dirt would constitute espionage (though I am not sure how it would).
The only rights foreign persons on US soil they do NOT have are those prescribed in the Constitution (like requirements to run for President etc).
Is that what you do representing a client in court when their argument on the merits of the law isn't helping your case -- "sorry your honor I object because all counsel does is argue yes to no and no to yes"
This one reason why illegal immigration is so messed up -- once ON OUR SOIL -- those immigrants can NOT be denied due process (damn Constitution) so they get a hearing etc... which is why it takes a while to send them back (even where they now have immigration judges in processing facilities etc).
The goal is to prevent entrance -- to prevent that problem....
Holy Smokes, I don’t think the Leftist on here are going to be able to handle it, when yet another Dog & Pony show blows up in their face. Geez, some passionate left wingers defending this whole Impeachment circus like I haven’t seen in awhile. ...... gotta love it!
Don’t you want them to follow the right process so there is no question?
"It is illegal for Americans to solicit foreign contributions to political campaigns. Justice Department officials said they decided there was no criminal case after determining that Trump didn't violate campaign finance law by asking the Ukrainian president to investigate his political rival, because such a request did not meet the test for a "thing of value" under the law.
Justice Department officials have said they only investigated the president's Ukraine call for violations of campaign finance law because it was the only statute mentioned in the whistleblower's complaint."
Boom........told ya so......
BTW you cant accuse the President of "extortion" with a foreign country because we "extort" foreign governments everyday and everywhere as part of routine US foreign policy. We hold aid hostage for some of the most minor issues......and its been done by Presidents of both parties as leverage to meet their policy goals.
Justice Department officials have said they only investigated the president's Ukraine call for violations of campaign finance law because it was the only statute mentioned in the whistleblower's complaint."
Boom........told ya so......
BTW you cant accuse the President of "extortion" with a foreign country because we "extort" foreign governments everyday and everywhere as part of routine US foreign policy. We hold aid hostage for some of the most minor issues......and its been done by Presidents of both parties as leverage to meet their policy goals.
You’ve been very patient with these Lib Wing Nuts. These Anti / Far Left never Trumper Nuts are so blinded by ignorance and hatred they have become a laughing stock. Entertaining, but laughable.
not the final word. Barr is bought and paid for by Trump, a witness in all this and has been covering up for Trump since he came on board.
