The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[Walken_After_Midnight]

Dustin Volz, Wall Street Journal:

DoJ was wrong to deem the whistleblower complaint was not an urgent concern, IGs conclude.

They add: “Whistleblowers play an essential public service in coming forward with such information, and they should never suffer reprisal or threat of reprisal.”

Rebecca Ballhaus, Wall Street Journal:

Trump on Rudy Giuliani: “He looks for corruption wherever he goes."

[Elendil_s_Heir]

He’s never too far away from a mirror.

[Dr.Colossus]

So what’s up with Rudy Colludey lately? Haven’t heard much about him in a week or two.

[bobot]

They’ve handed the ball to Geatz to run interference for a bit while the others can regroup and scout for lawyers.

[JohnT]

@Dr.Colossus

So what’s up with Rudy Colludey lately? Haven’t heard much about him in a week or two.

Butt, Rudy G!
Rudy Giuliani butt-dials NBC reporter, heard discussing need for cash and trashing Bidens

Mark Sanchez is the happiest man in America right now. Well, he’s probably still behind Chris Christie, but still…

[Gyrate]

I bet Giuliani’s wife’s divorce lawyer pricked up his or her ears at hearing what business Rudy is doing.

[FlikTheBlue]

The scary part is those conversations make it seem as if Giuliani is a true believer in the whole Biden / Ukraine / Democrats plotting with foreigners against Trump conspiracy theories.

[Rick_Kitchen]

10/25/2019
Judge rules DOJ must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats

Judge rules DOJ must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats

[bobot]

Ruled that the stuff must be turned over by Oct. 30 if I read correctly.
Lawyers/law-knowing-folks, what’s the appeal situation here?

[Rick_Kitchen]

10/25/19
The Hill reporter John Solomon worked intimately with indicted Rudy G collaborator Lev Parnas to start the entire “Bidens did bad things in Ukraine” story.

How a Veteran Reporter Worked with Giuliani’s Associates to Launch the...

[jsc1953]

@Rick_Kitchen

10/25/2019
Judge rules DOJ must turn over Mueller grand jury material to House Democrats
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/25/judge-rules-doj-must-turn-over-mueller-grand-jury-material-to-house-democrats-000299?f

This is interesting – there’s nothing in the Mueller investigation that pertains to Ukraine. So, what are they looking for??

[Rick_Kitchen]

@jsc1953

This is interesting – there’s nothing in the Mueller investigation that pertains to Ukraine. So, what are they looking for??

The Russia connection, I would imagine.

[Procrustus]

@Rick_Kitchen

The Russia connection, I would imagine.

Yes, Trump didn’t decide to fuck with Ukraine just for his own purposes. Withhold military aid to be used to protect against a Russian invasion might serve the interest of some other country, but which one? Hard to say.

[Max_S]

@Buck_Godot

Yes the bank robbers ran out of the building with large bags of cash, but I do not make the conclusion that the only reason they did so was for financial gain. It is entirely possible that they were just testing the bank’s security.

I don’t think that’s a good analogy but if they claimed they were just testing the bank’s security, I would want to check with the bank if the alleged robbers were in fact hired to test bank security.

@Buck_Godot

The supposed crimes of the Biden’s have been looked at, and there is no “there” there.

I’m not even aware of the supposed crimes, much less the existence or nonexistence of an investigation. Are you?

This recent Giuliani butt-dial has him claiming the younger Biden illegally laundered $3 million. That’s a charge. For impeachment purposes, I don’t care if Hunter Biden actually broke the law. I only care whether the President and DoJ had probable cause to start an investigation and a reasonable basis to ask Ukraine for legal assistance.

~Max

[bobot]

@Max_S

… I only care whether the President and DoJ had probable cause to start an investigation and a reasonable basis to ask Ukraine for legal assistance.

~Max

Oh, did they do that?

[Max_S]

@Ravenman

On October 20, 1973, Nixon ordered the Saturday Night Massacre. On October 30, the House Judiciary Committee announced an investigation that would examine issues including impeachment. It was not until February 6, 1974, that the House of Representatives voted to approve a resolution stating that the Judiciary Committee “is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America.” Link. Six months later, Nixon resigned.

There were more than three months’ worth of investigations into Watergate before the House voted to authorize the impeachment hearings.

I don’t think the Judiciary Committee had any special subpoena powers until the resolution was passed. The rules have changed in the meantime and the Judiciary Committee has standing subpoena powers… but it’s the Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Relations committees doing the current pre-inquiry-inquiry. These three committees have standing power to issue subpoenas but only within their specific jurisdictions, and there lies the problem, and the White House’s excuse not to comply.

~Max

[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?

[Ravenman]

@Max_S

I don’t think the Judiciary Committee had any special subpoena powers until the resolution was passed. The rules have changed in the meantime and the Judiciary Committee has standing subpoena powers… but it’s the Intelligence, Oversight, and Foreign Relations committees doing the current pre-inquiry-inquiry. These three committees have standing power to issue subpoenas but only within their specific jurisdictions, and there lies the problem, and the White House’s excuse not to comply.

You’re not seriously arguing there’s a deficiency with the congressional subpoenas that allows for non-compliance, are you?

[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!

[Max_S]

@Aspenglow

That’s a lie. It doesn’t have to go to a vote before impeachment can be taken seriously. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring a formal vote. Speaker Pelosi’s declaration that a formal impeachment inquiry has begun is sufficient.

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.

@Max_S

Did the House of Representatives, as a matter of fact, authorize the relevant committees to subpoena the administration for the stated reason, “as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry”?

The Constitution doesn’t say that a Committee gets to decide the rules in the House of Representative. The word of one or three committee chairs, or even the Speaker of the House, does not constitute prima facie evidence that they have the full backing of the House of Representatives as an institution, especially in such a politically sensitive case as the impeachment of the President. The constitution says that the House decides its own rules, and the House rules - approved by a House vote each legislative session - say that committees can only issue subpoenas “For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties” under rules X, XI, and XII.

The cited October 4 subpoena was signed by the chairs of three committees:
[ul][li]Elijah E. Cummings, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform[/li][li]Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence[/li][li]Eliot L. Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs[/ul][/li]The subpoena was ultimately “issued by the Committee on Oversight and Reform under the Rules of the House of Representatives in exercise of its oversight and legislative jurisdiction”. That committee’s jurisdiction is specified in House Rule X, clause 1(n), reproduced in the spoiler below:

A matter is then said to be “referred” to the committee of proper Rule X, clause 1 jurisdiction by the Speaker of the House, pursuant to Rule XII, clause 2:

The question is this, did Speaker Pelosi refer the matter of impeaching the President to a committee or committees? There is some precedent in referring an investigation, in that the first attempt to impeach President Johnson was made by indirectly requesting an ad-hoc committee investigate the administration (Hinds III, § 2399, 822-823). Or are they trying (as it would appear) to fit the impeachment inquiry into their jurisdiction over the “[f]ederal civil service”? That flies in the face of precedent (re: Nixon and Clinton, cites in White House letter), which seems to imply that the House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over impeachment inquiries.

~Max

@Aspenglow

No. Emphatically, no. There is never a right to ignore a subpoena, with or without a vote authorizing an impeachment investigation or at any other time. The rule of law, upon which this nation is founded, requires compliance with a subpoena, irrespective of who issues it or when. This is an egregious dodge.

Au contrare, an improperly issued subpoena is null and void, in as much as the courts will not enforce it, and a subpoena without the poena isn’t really a subpoena. For example, a subpoena cannot violate the Fourth Amendment. Perhaps of more relevance, successful case law involving standing to enforce Congressional subpoena power has always had the benefit of the relevant committee or person being authorized by the whole branch to bring suit. Comm. on Oversight & Gov’t Reform v. Holder, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1, 27 (D.D.C. 2013). (The Court noting that “the House of Representatives has specifically authorized the initiation of this action to enforce the subpoena. Twice.”) Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 67 (D.D.C. 2008). “It is clear that the House as a whole has standing to assert its investigatory power, and can designate a member to act on its behalf.” United States v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 551 F.2d 384, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1976). [The House authorized Oversight Chairman Moss to sue AT&T, H.Res. 1420, 94th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1976)]. See also Reed v. County Commissioners of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 277 U.S. 376 (1928). (In Reed, the Court rejected a special Senate committee’s standing to enforce subpoenas through the Judiciary, holding that according to then-current Senate Rules, “the Senate did not intend to authorize the committee, or anticipate that there might be need, to invoke the power of the Judicial Department. Petitioners are not ‘authorized by law to sue’”.)

@Aspenglow

No. Akaj is spot on. It’s the DOJ, currently under the thumb of William Barr, that is responsible for enforcing Congressional subpoenas. This is the problem the Democratic House is facing that no other impeachment effort has suffered: A politicized DOJ intent on working only for Trump, not the citizens of the United States. It’s a big deal, and not in a good way. Barr’s actions are in conflict with his oath of office, but for now, he runs the enforcement arm. Who is going to enforce the laws against him? If Dems lose the presidency in 2020, you can expect Barr to remain in that office until there is nothing left of the rule of law as we have understood it for more than 240 years.

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