Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:31 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163

No House of Representatives vote on Impeachment.


Are any subpoenas legally binding without a vote? Lawyers comments would be welcome. Here's a link.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com...s/#more-174154

What do Lawyers say? I think the analysis is correct.
  #2  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:39 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
The analysis is fatally flawed. For one thing, the assertion that the votes aren't there is incorrect. More importantly, the subpoena powers are in fact legally binding.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress...tween-branches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
  #3  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:42 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,358
The judge at FOX news disagrees with the OP:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/fox...talking-point/
Quote:
The hosts of “Fox & Friends” on Thursday appeared disappointed when legal analyst Andrew Napolitano gave them unfortunate news about the White House’s latest objections to House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

Specifically, Napolitano addressed the letter sent to Congress by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, which claimed that the executive branch did not have to comply with any subpoenas of documents until the House formally voted to open an impeachment inquiry.

“The Republicans changed the rules when John Boehner was the Speaker of the House allowing each individual committee to issue subpoenas without a House-wide vote,” he explained. “So those subpoenas are valid, and those people who resist them, ignore them, who put them in a drawer, do so at your peril.”

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-20-2019 at 07:42 PM.
  #4  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:54 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
The analysis is fatally flawed. For one thing, the assertion that the votes aren't there is incorrect. More importantly, the subpoena powers are in fact legally binding.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress...tween-branches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.
  #5  
Old 10-20-2019, 07:56 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
The analysis is fatally flawed. For one thing, the assertion that the votes aren't there is incorrect. More importantly, the subpoena powers are in fact legally binding.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/congress...tween-branches

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress
On the other question, shouldn't they actually vote first?
  #6  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:06 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.
Perhaps you should read Post #3.
  #7  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:07 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
On the other question, shouldn't they actually vote first?
... Why? Would that somehow lead to increased compliance from the White House?
  #8  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:31 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.
That is just a toothless moving of the goal posts. Back then the Justice Department decided not to prosecute because of executive privilege, and Trump already did neuter other subpoenas by claiming executive privilege.*

However, this time the subpoenas are related to the impeachment of the president, it may happen again that he will try to stop this by claiming executive privilege but the spectacle of seeing the Justice Department following privilege from the target as reasons to not prosecute, is bound to be more damaging to Trump and the Republicans.






* This also underscores how shitty is The Conservative Tree house as a source. The subpoenas are valid, but the source omitted the detail that in the recent past that some are still ineffective later and under some circumstances.
  #9  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:37 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.
Did the House vote on those subpoenas?
  #10  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:38 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,835
The House determines its own rules. They are spelled out nowhere in the Constitution. No matter what the White House says, the House gets to determine how to investigate and how to conduct an impeachment inquiry. Trump's bluster may impress his Twitter followers but it means nothing to a lawyer.

And the House is full of them, while Trump's idiot "lawyer" couldn't pass a first year exam.

Vox.com
Quote:
Ilya Somin, law professor, George Mason University

There is room for reasonable disagreement about many aspects of impeachment, including the fairness of the procedures used by the House. But Cipolloneís arguments simply donít pass the laugh test.
Lawfareblog.com
Quote:
As Keith Whittington and Frank Bowman have shown, the letterís constitutional and ďlegalĒ arguments are baseless. It misrepresents the constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the presidentís behalf. On the merits, it is an exceptionally weak performance. Add to this another deficiency: its glaring failure to effectively represent the institutional interests of the presidency.
NBCnews.com
Quote:
Law classmates of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent him a letter on Thursday, claiming his decision to block material and witnesses from the House impeachment inquiry "distorts the law and the Constitution," according to a copy of the letter obtained by NBC News.

"We are sorry to see how your letter to the congressional leadership flouts the traditions of rigor and intellectual honesty that we learned together," said the letter from members of the class of 1991 at the University of Chicago Law School.
JustSecurity.com
Quote:
This analysis does not attempt to catalogue all of the distortions of law and unfounded allegations in the letter, but rather to focus on two particularly pernicious aspects of it that should not get lost amidst airing of technical issues.

The White House letter distorts the nature of the impeachment inquiry and the purpose of impeachment

The letter seeks to turn the subject matter of the inquiry on its head Ė Trumpís call was plainly not ďcompletely appropriateĒ
I could go on and on. It's fun reading how astoundingly incompetent Trump's lackeys are. They can fool you, but actual experts blow them away like dandelion puff.
  #11  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:41 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Vox and lawfare? WTF are you desperate? Seriously, why haven't they had a vote? Should be easy, if you're correct.
  #12  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:45 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish?
  #13  
Old 10-20-2019, 08:45 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Vox and lawfare? WTF are you desperate? Seriously, why haven't they had a vote? Should be easy, if you're correct.
Shooting the messenger is still a fallacy. They do not need a full House vote because the Republicans under Ommpa Loompa Boener changed the rules in the House.
  #14  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:02 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Has this been done?
"The House's Role

The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry."

What was the vote?

Cite: https://history.house.gov/Institutio...t/Impeachment/

Last edited by Tempe Jeff; 10-20-2019 at 09:03 PM. Reason: Included link
  #15  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:06 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
Shooting the messenger is still a fallacy. They do not need a full House vote because the Republicans under Ommpa Loompa Boener changed the rules in the House.
No Term can be held to the agreement of a previous term. House rules. But, you already knew that. Should I respond with a derogatory term for San Francisco Nancy Pelosi?

Last edited by Tempe Jeff; 10-20-2019 at 09:07 PM. Reason: Completeness
  #16  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:10 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish?
ROFLMAO, sounds a lot like "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' Badges..." A vote would give the House Legal Authority to compel witnesses to appear. I.E. a legal proceeding.
  #17  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:10 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
No Term can be held to the agreement of a previous term. House rules. But, you already knew that. Should I respond with a derogatory term for San Francisco Nancy Pelosi?
Useless retort, because the Democrats found the change to their liking in this term, thank you very much.

And you still are not making any good impression by not dealing with your shooting the messenger move.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-20-2019 at 09:11 PM.
  #18  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:10 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Their House, their rules.
  #19  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:14 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
ROFLMAO, sounds a lot like "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' Badges..." A vote would give the House Legal Authority to compel witnesses to appear. I.E. a legal proceeding.
You seem to be failing to understand that the House already possesses "legal authority to compel witnesses to appear." This has been asked and answered, repeatedly, in this thread. This sort of behavior has a name or two.
  #20  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:15 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
Their House, their rules.
OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it's face.
  #21  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:17 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Vox and lawfare? WTF are you desperate? Seriously, why haven't they had a vote? Should be easy, if you're correct.
Says the person whose OP included a link to "theconservativetreehouse".
Yeah. OK, Buddy.
  #22  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:18 PM
Tempe Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 163
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
You seem to be failing to understand that the House already possesses "legal authority to compel witnesses to appear." This has been asked and answered, repeatedly, in this thread. This sort of behavior has a name or two.
So does obfuscation to prevent inquiry. The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
  #23  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:19 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it's face.
Again, there seem to be comprehension issues at play here, in addition to the grammatical ones.
  #24  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:21 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
So does obfuscation to prevent inquiry. The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
The Constitution does NOT require a vote. If you believe it does, you are mistaken. If you do not believe it does, you are worse than mistaken. In any event, I'll be heading off to have some dinner now. Perhaps you would be well served to do some reading of your own with regard to these issues.
  #25  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:25 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 29,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
So does obfuscation to prevent inquiry. The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
It seems that your sources are ignorant of the constitution.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...chment-process
Quote:
The extraordinary letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outlines President Trumpís numerous complaints about the impeachment process. At least as to the argument that the current inquiry is invalid because there has been no formal vote by the House of Representatives, there should be little doubt that Cipollone is wrong. No such vote is necessary because the Constitution dictates no fixed process for impeachment investigations or trials. This know from the U.S. Supreme Courtís rejection of Judge Walter L. Nixonís challenge to his impeachment more than twenty years ago.
  #26  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:33 PM
Walken After Midnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 5,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
The Constitution does NOT require a vote. If you believe it does, you are mistaken. If you do not believe it does, you are worse than mistaken.
The rules are that Republicans don't need to abide by the rules, but Democrats are expected to abide by rules that aren't even in the rules.
  #27  
Old 10-20-2019, 09:39 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
Please quote the Constitution where it requires a vote.




.

Last edited by Johnny L.A.; 10-20-2019 at 09:40 PM.
  #28  
Old 10-20-2019, 10:14 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
So does obfuscation to prevent inquiry. The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
Ooh, that's a scary response.

The Constitution doesn't require a vote. You can't show us where it does, because it doesn't. Not even Trump believes a vote is required and he's a moron, according to former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. And dumb as shit, according to former economic adviser Gary Cohn. And an idiot, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Hey, he only picks the best guys. They know what they're talking about. Unlike, you know, places like the conservative tree house.

But it does say this:

Quote:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
That ought to scare you. It scares the shit out of Trump and a bunch of Republicans in Congress. And man, that's a lot of shit.
  #29  
Old 10-20-2019, 10:23 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Champion Chili Chef
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 63,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it's face.
Would any response short of "Good Gosh And Golly-You are absolutely right!!" be acceptable to you?
  #30  
Old 10-20-2019, 10:31 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,432
Trump and Trump voters, peas in a pod. Peas in a "No, I've never actually read the constitution" pod.
  #31  
Old 10-20-2019, 10:41 PM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 61,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
The Constitution doesn't require a vote. You can't show us where it does...
Sure, he can. All he has to do is find a copy of the Constitution, copy the part where it says a vote is required, and post it here!
  #32  
Old 10-20-2019, 10:47 PM
mjmlabs's Avatar
mjmlabs is offline
A Rather Dubious Fellow Indeed
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Last Green Valley
Posts: 735
... I'll just leave this here: https://constitutionus.com/
  #33  
Old 10-21-2019, 12:11 AM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,695
Moderating:

Before this plays out Iím not sure if there is a GQ answer. Itís not directly related to an election so I wonít move it there. There seems to be a debate about what will happen so thatís where it will go. So moved.
  #34  
Old 10-21-2019, 05:10 AM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 654
As I understand it (and I can be wrong) a House vote passing articles of impeachment - charges in an indictment - sends the indictment to the Senate for trial. The White House seems to insist they can't be investigated, can't be compelled to comply with subpoenas, until AFTER the indictment, which is just plumb loco. No - investigate first, find evidence, draw up charges, THEN indict / impeach.
  #35  
Old 10-21-2019, 07:38 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by RioRico View Post
The White House seems to insist they can't be investigated, can't be compelled to comply with subpoenas, until AFTER the indictment
...and no indictment without due process evidence.
  #36  
Old 10-21-2019, 08:09 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,847
Of course there is a factual answer and there is no requirement to take a vote of the full House before proceeding with subpoenas and investigations. I am quite skeptical that the administration would suddenly start honoring subpoenas if Pelosi took that full House vote. The House can and should take failures to comply with subpoenas very seriously and take them to court, which will expedite the matter and it should go up to the Supreme Court in a matter of weeks. I suppose the next thing that the right wing will come up with is that subpoenas can be ignored because the flag in the House chamber doesn't have gold fringe or something equally silly.
  #37  
Old 10-21-2019, 08:19 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
Here's a link.
... theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Quote:

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.
Check.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
On the other question, shouldn't they actually vote first?
Let me see if I understand your question. The House has subpoena power already but some hack in the White House asserts they need to take a vote first. You assume the WH hack knows WTF he's talking about.

If that same hack had asserted that Speaker Pelosi needs to walk naked down Fifth Avenue before the subpoenas were valid, would that be your talking point?
  #38  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:05 AM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmlabs View Post
Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish?
It would cause delays and help Trump.
  #39  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:24 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
Ooh, that's a scary response.

The Constitution doesn't require a vote. You can't show us where it does, because it doesn't. Not even Trump believes a vote is required and he's a moron, according to former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. And dumb as shit, according to former economic adviser Gary Cohn. And an idiot, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former White House chief of staff John Kelly and former national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Hey, he only picks the best guys. They know what they're talking about. Unlike, you know, places like the conservative tree house.

But it does say this:



That ought to scare you. It scares the shit out of Trump and a bunch of Republicans in Congress. And man, that's a lot of shit.
(golf clap)

Tempe Jeff: before I consider further participation in this thread, are you here to learn and take on information posted by people who clearly know more than you do about this topic? Or are you just here to sneer at the stoopid libruls? If it's the latter, I see no point in bothering.
  #40  
Old 10-21-2019, 11:42 AM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong View Post
(golf clap)

Tempe Jeff: before I consider further participation in this thread, are you here to learn and take on information posted by people who clearly know more than you do about this topic? Or are you just here to sneer at the stoopid libruls? If it's the latter, I see no point in bothering.
Eh, never mind; I think I have my answer.
  #41  
Old 10-21-2019, 01:01 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it's face.
The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. That's in OUR Constitution. "They" - the members of the House - get to write the rules. That's in OUR Constitution.

The fact that you think you can interpret the rules to say what they don't say because the President of the United States ignores them, now THAT'S disturbing on its face.
  #42  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:06 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff View Post
So does obfuscation to prevent inquiry. The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?
If you show us where it says this it would go a long ways toward advancing your theory.
  #43  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:12 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
If that same hack had asserted that Speaker Pelosi needs to walk naked down Fifth Avenue before the subpoenas were valid, would that be your talking point?
If she did that she could be shot! (Not that the perpetrator would ever be charged).

Last edited by I Love Me, Vol. I; 10-21-2019 at 02:13 PM. Reason: I'm an Editor
  #44  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:13 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is offline
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
If you show us where it says this it would go a long ways toward advancing your theory.
Or completely blowing it out of the water.
  #45  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:20 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,119
For those interested in an actual answer:

On January 3, 2019, the House voted 234-197 to approve the rules for the House for the 116th Congress. This vote did two things: extended the rules for subpoenas that were in effect for the 115th Congress --
Quote:
For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X ... a committee or subcommittee is authorized ... to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary.
and also added a revised rule allowing committees to take depositions --
Quote:
During the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, the chair of a standing committee (other than the Committee on Rules), and the chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, upon consultation with the ranking minority member of such committee, may order the taking of depositions, including pursuant to subpoena, by a member or counsel of such committee.
  #46  
Old 10-21-2019, 02:51 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Moderating:

Before this plays out Iím not sure if there is a GQ answer. Itís not directly related to an election so I wonít move it there. There seems to be a debate about what will happen so thatís where it will go. So moved.
Maybe, until this all plays out there should be a temporary new forum devoted to impeachment, to be closed when the process is completed. Just a suggestion to the mods.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017