Are any subpoenas legally binding without a vote? Lawyers comments would be welcome. Here’s a link.
What do Lawyers say? I think the analysis is correct.
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.
The judge at FOX news disagrees with the OP:
I thought Eric Holder proved that Congress is toothless when it comes to subpoenas.
On the other question, shouldn’t they actually vote first?
Perhaps you should read Post #3.
… Why? Would that somehow lead to increased compliance from the White House?
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.
Did the House vote on those subpoenas?
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.
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.
Vox and lawfare? WTF are you desperate? Seriously, why haven’t they had a vote? Should be easy, if you’re correct.
Seriously, why should they have a vote? What would that accomplish?
Shooting the messenger is still a fallacy. They do not need a full House vote because the Republicans under [del]Ommpa Loompa[/del] Boener changed the rules in the House.
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/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/
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?
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.
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.
Their House, their rules.
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.
OUR Constitution, unless you forgot. The fact you said theirs is troubling on it’s face.