Straight Dope Message Board

[Tempe Jeff]

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. 1

[mjmlabs]

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 2

[GIGObuster]

The judge at FOX news disagrees with the OP:

https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/fox...talking-point/

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.”

3

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

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. 4

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

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? 5

[mjmlabs]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.

Perhaps you should read Post #3. 6

[mjmlabs]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

On the other question, shouldn't they actually vote first?

... Why? Would that somehow lead to increased compliance from the White House? 7

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 8

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.

Did the House vote on those subpoenas? 9

[Exapno Mapcase]

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

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 Cipollone’s arguments simply don’t pass the laugh test.

Lawfareblog.com

As Keith Whittington and Frank Bowman have shown, the letter’s constitutional and “legal” arguments are baseless. It misrepresents the constitutional law and precedent that it is pleading on the president’s 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

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

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 – Trump’s call was plainly not “completely appropriate”

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. 10

[Tempe Jeff]

Vox and lawfare? WTF are you desperate? Seriously, why haven't they had a vote? Should be easy, if you're correct. 11

[mjmlabs]

Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish? 12

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 13

[Tempe Jeff]

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/ 14

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

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? 15

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

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. 16

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 17

[Kent Clark]

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. 18

[mjmlabs]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 19

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by Kent Clark

Their House, their rules.

OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it's face. 20

[bobot]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 21

[Tempe Jeff]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

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? 22

[mjmlabs]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 23

[mjmlabs]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 24

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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

The extraordinary letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi outlines President Trump’s 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 Court’s rejection of Judge Walter L. Nixon’s challenge to his impeachment more than twenty years ago.

25

[Walken After Midnight]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

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. 26

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

The Constitution requires a vote. Are you against the Constitution?

Please quote the Constitution where it requires a vote.




. 27

[Exapno Mapcase]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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:

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. 28

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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? 29

[bobot]

Trump and Trump voters, peas in a pod. Peas in a "No, I've never actually read the constitution" pod. 30

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

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! 31

[mjmlabs]

... I'll just leave this here: https://constitutionus.com/ 32

[Loach]

Moderating:

Before this plays out I’m not sure if there is a GQ answer. It’s not directly related to an election so I won’t move it there. There seems to be a debate about what will happen so that’s where it will go. So moved. 33

[RioRico]

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. 34

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by RioRico

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. 35

[BobLibDem]

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. 36

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

Here's a link.
... theconservativetreehouse.com ...

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.

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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? 37

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by mjmlabs

Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish?

It would cause delays and help Trump. 38

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase

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. 39

[El_Kabong]

Originally Posted by El_Kabong

(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. 40

[Kent Clark]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 41

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by Tempe Jeff

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. 42

[I Love Me, Vol. I]

Originally Posted by septimus

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). 43

[running coach]

Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I

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. 44

[Ravenman]

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 --

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 --

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.

45

[Hari Seldon]

Originally Posted by Loach

Moderating:

Before this plays out I’m not sure if there is a GQ answer. It’s not directly related to an election so I won’t move it there. There seems to be a debate about what will happen so that’s 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. 46