# The Trump Impeachment Inquiry **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [September 24, 2019, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771 "2019-09-24T20:23:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 166
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3301 "2019-10-25T23:21:35Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > There are two connections to foreign influence in our elections (2016, 2020), and one connection to potential misuse of the codeword level server. Those seem like they have a nexus with intelligence matters and I would think it is obvious how it is connected to foreign relations and oversight. Are you truly skeptical about those? Responding out of order (again). The subpoena I looked at was officially issued under the late Chairman Cummings’s authority, under his oversight and legislative jurisdiction. “This subpoena is being issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform under the Rules of the House of Representatives in exercise of its oversight and legislative jurisdiction and after consultation with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Affairs.” [https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-04.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Mulvaney-WH%20re%20Subpoena.pdf](https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-10-04.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20to%20Mulvaney-WH%20re%20Subpoena.pdf) ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3302 "2019-10-25T23:23:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You’re not seriously arguing there’s a deficiency with the congressional subpoenas that allows for non-compliance, are you? I am, and have been since October 9 if not earlier. See posts [POST=2190429]#2296[/POST] and [POST=21937940]#3299[/POST]. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3303 "2019-10-25T23:25:49Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Well, he is arguing that Rudy… a personal lawyer… can make a “charge” of some sort, which somehow legitimizes the asking of Ukraine which Max is so, so confused about. > > But now, Max seems to be arguing, the fact this “charge” came out, literally, of Rudy’s ass and has zero corroboration is irrelevant- Rudy, somehow, “charged” Hunter and now the entire thing is legit! Puppies and cupcakes! No, you misunderstand me. I don’t think Mr. Giuliani has the authority to make a charge. It would be the Department of Justice making the charge, and Mr. Giuliani just knows what it is. I’m speculating here, but there’s a good chance that Mr. Giuliani had a hand in establishing probable cause for the investigation(s). ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3304 "2019-10-25T23:34:44Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I am, and have been since October 9 if not earlier. See posts [POST=2190429]#2296[/POST] and [POST=21937940]#3299[/POST]. The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3305 "2019-10-25T23:55:38Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019. The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas “for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties” under Rules X and XI. With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn’t have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2019, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3306 "2019-10-25T23:59:10Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The House voted to authorize committees to issue subpoenas on January 3, 2019. Doesn’t today’s court ruling (RE: releasing the Mueller report) give the impeachment inquiry judicial and legal legitimacy? The ruling was “the impeachment inquiry is underway,” shutting down the defense that “the House has not invoked their full impeachment power.” Apparently, legally, they have. Right? BTW, what’s the “reason” the GOP has for refusing to allow Congress to view the entire Mueller report? It’s supposedly so exonerating, why did it take a court legally compelling them to release it? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3307 "2019-10-26T00:01:36Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > This isn’t a policy dispute. If the SCOTUS won’t intervene when one branch openly defies the 100% legal and proper procedures of another, how can a rogue executive ever be held accountable? Through impeachment and conviction. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3308 "2019-10-26T00:02:07Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas “for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties” under Rules X and XI. > > With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn’t have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI. I take your argument as seriously as if the White House Counsel argued that the House used the wrong size paper, because the subpoena was only a “letter” and not “legal” in any way. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3309 "2019-10-26T00:03:15Z")
> [@Elusive](#): > > What, if anything, can be done about Barr? What recourse is there if our DOJ has turned against us? AG Barr may also be impeached, even before the President if Congress so wishes. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3310 "2019-10-26T00:04:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I take your argument as seriously as if the White House Counsel argued that the House used the wrong size paper, because the subpoena was only a “letter” and not “legal” in any way. I mean, you’re free to do that, we could agree to disagree. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3311 "2019-10-26T00:07:35Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I disagree, a vote or at least a formal referral is required to grant the committees jurisdiction. See my [POST=21907429]post #2296[/POST]. The relevant section is reproduced in the spoiler for convenience. As far as I can tell, Ms. Pelosi’s September 24 “formal declaration” was not in fact a formal referral, as it was given during a news conference and was not entered into the Congressional Record. Besides, even a formal referral under Rule XII has to be based on existing jurisdiction, and both precedent and my own reading indicates to me that the proper jurisdiction is in the Judiciary Committee. [If only the courts agreed with you.](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/25/judge-rules-doj-must-turn-over-mueller-grand-jury-material-to-house-democrats-000299) From Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling today: > [@](#): > > " **Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry," Howell determined, dismissing GOP arguments as unsupported.** > > Republicans had claimed that the House Judiciary Committee cannot begin impeachment proceedings without a formal vote of the House — and that even if it could, Pelosi is not empowered to simply grant that authority to the Judiciary Committee. But Howell rejected the arguments out of hand. (Emphasis mine.) [.pdf text of full ruling](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-046a-d3de-a7ee-edfabc550002) That pretty much invalidates your arguments. \ > [@Max\_S](#): > > We also have a judicial branch, specifically designed to resolve questions of law between the other two branches. It’s not like Mr. Barr is flagrantly violating a court ruling. He is interpreting the law one way, and certain committees and members of the House of Representatives are interpreting it another way. The branches are co-equal, but both defer to the judicial branch when it comes to interpreting the law. > > Perhaps you are a cynic and believe Mr. Barr will defy a court ruling. He seems very much like a rule of law guy to me, even if you don’t agree with his interpretation of the law you should see that. But we haven’t reached that crisis yet, have we? > > ~Max I think your operative word is, “yet.” Bill Barr is a terrible AG, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is exactly the opposite of a “rule of law guy,” and his arguments in the case before Judge Howell were contrary to virtually any understanding of legal precedent. They were supported by, well… not much of anything except his wish that his world view be accommodated, prompting the judge to comment, “Wow.” I can tell you from experience, that’s not a common response from a judge to a party’s arguments – unless those arguments are so specious, they deserve such a response. [DC Judge Questions DOJ’s Extraordinary Stance on Mueller Grand Jury Information](https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/08/wow-dc-judge-questions-dojs-extraordinary-stance-on-mueller-grand-jury-info/) (National Law Journal) ETA: IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3312 "2019-10-26T00:17:18Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > The rules carried over with H.Res.6, passed January 9, authorized committees to issue subpoenas “for the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties” under Rules X and XI. > > With regard to the October 4 subpoena served to Mr. Mulvaney, and subsequently rejected by Mr. Cipollone, my assertion is that the oversight committee (which issued the subpoena) doesn’t have jurisdiction (the right functions and duties) under rules X and XI. > > ~Max So you are saying Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction. Wow. What source are you using to determine the House Oversight Committee’s jurisdiction? Because this is what they say is their jurisdiction, right on their [website](https://oversight.house.gov/about/committee-jurisdiction): > [@](#): > > The Committee on Oversight and Reform is the main investigative committee in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has authority to investigate the subjects within the Committee’s legislative jurisdiction as well as “any matter” within the jurisdiction of the other standing House Committees. How does that not cover it? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3313 "2019-10-26T00:17:41Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > [If only the courts agreed with you.](https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/25/judge-rules-doj-must-turn-over-mueller-grand-jury-material-to-house-democrats-000299) > > From Judge Beryl Howell’s ruling today: > > (Emphasis mine.) > > [.pdf text of full ruling](https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-046a-d3de-a7ee-edfabc550002) > > That pretty much invalidates your arguments. I’ll read the full decision tonight, but notably that case involved the House Judiciary Committee, which is the committee I said _did_ have jurisdiction. > [@Aspenglow](#): > > I think your operative word is, “yet.” Bill Barr is a terrible AG, has repeatedly demonstrated that he is exactly the opposite of a “rule of law guy,” and his arguments in the case before Judge Howell were contrary to virtually any understanding of legal precedent. They were supported by, well… not much of anything except his wish that his world view be accommodated, prompting the judge to comment, “Wow.” > > I can tell you from experience, that’s not a common response from a judge to a party’s arguments – unless those arguments are so specious, they deserve such a response. [DC Judge Questions DOJ’s Extraordinary Stance on Mueller Grand Jury Information](https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/08/wow-dc-judge-questions-dojs-extraordinary-stance-on-mueller-grand-jury-info/) (National Law Journal) > > ETA: IANAL. I haven’t been following this case, but if Mr. Barr is filing ridiculous briefs to try and protect the president, contrary to reason and law, I might join you in disparaging him. At the present instant though, I don’t think the Attorney General has gone so far as to flat out defy a court order. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3314 "2019-10-26T00:24:10Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > So you are saying Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction. Wow. What source are you using to determine the House Oversight Committee’s jurisdiction? > > Because this is what they say is their jurisdiction, right on their [website](https://oversight.house.gov/about/committee-jurisdiction): > How does that not cover it? Wow indeed, I’m 100% wrong. I was going by the house rules ([http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf](http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/house-rules.pdf)) but apparently I didn’t read rule X through and stopped after clause 1. What a fool I make of myself here. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3315 "2019-10-26T00:26:56Z")
And there is no right to ignore a subpoena. If you don’t think it was properly issued, you can point this out to the issuer, and if they don’t agree, you can seek to quash it. That there could be some conceivable case where the person or persons seeking to enforce the subpoena don’t have standing has zero to do with the duty to obey it. It just means you might get away with contempt of Congress because of a litigation error. It would not mean that you were in the right all along. Those quotes you posted talking about votes of the House to authorize the litigation to enforce the subpoena, are about an entirely different issue. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3316 "2019-10-26T00:32:11Z")
I’m pretty sure the Administration is just making noise about the “invalid” subpoenas just to feed Trump supporters another load of BS. Call me when the White House asks a court to prevent any Executive Branch official from voluntarily testifying. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3317 "2019-10-26T00:32:27Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > And there is no right to ignore a subpoena. If you don’t think it was properly issued, you can point this out to the issuer, and if they don’t agree, you can seek to quash it. > > That there could be some conceivable case where the person or persons seeking to enforce the subpoena don’t have standing has zero to do with the duty to obey it. It just means you might get away with contempt of Congress because of a litigation error. It would not mean that you were in the right all along. Those quotes you posted talking about votes of the House to authorize the litigation to enforce the subpoena, are about an entirely different issue. I mean, it’s the DoJ who actually enforces subpoenas. So when it’s the executive branch being subpoenaed, there’s no threat of penalty unless and until a court rules that it must be enforced. Functionally, ignoring the subpoena then arguing about it in court is the same as just asking the court to quash it. Congress does have an inherent contempt power, but I don’t think that applies outside of the actual Capitol. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3318 "2019-10-26T00:45:59Z")
No, DOJ doesn’t enforce Congressional subpoenas. I’ve seen sources discussing that too, but it turns out that in practice, they don’t do it. So there’s Congress’s inherent authority, which would allow certain kinds of sanctions, but, they are somewhat limited and haven’t been used in a long long time, and then there’s the third option, which is what is used. Congress goes to court and asks the court to require compliance with the subpoena. If the court agrees, then it issues an order requiring compliance. Then, if the person still fails to comply, all of the normal processes connected to defying a court order come into play. ---
**Author:** ![eschrodinger](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschrodinger/32/122_2.png) [@eschrodinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschrodinger)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3319 "2019-10-26T01:01:37Z")
Max, do you notice how all of this discussion has nothing to do with any wrongdoing by the administration? And how, once you actually look into it, the administration’s arguments about the process keep falling apart? Can you see how those two things might be connected? There is nothing wrong with the process. But focusing on bogus arguments about it can keep people from talking or thinking about the evidence of wrongdoing that keeps coming out of that process. Like Fiona Hill’s testimony that after a weird meeting with John Bolton and Sondland et. al., Bolton, who was taken aback at the direction the meeting went in, told Hill to go see White House lawyers to establish that “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” referring to the plan to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.amp.html](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.amp.html) ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2019, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771/3320 "2019-10-26T04:08:47Z")
> [@eschrodinger](#): > > No, DOJ doesn’t enforce Congressional subpoenas. I’ve seen sources discussing that too, but it turns out that in practice, they don’t do it. So there’s Congress’s inherent authority, which would allow certain kinds of sanctions, but, they are somewhat limited and haven’t been used in a long long time, and then there’s the third option, which is what is used. Congress goes to court and asks the court to require compliance with the subpoena. I’ll have to stop you there, because a court doesn’t issue a final order without first hearing objections from the other side. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=165) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-impeachment-inquiry/840771.md?page=167)