• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

House Democrats subpoena White House for Ukraine documents

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#1
House Democrats subpoena White House for Ukraine documents as part of impeachment inquiry

Christal Hayes, USA TODAY,USA TODAY 16 hours ago


WASHINGTON – House Democrats issued a subpoena to the White House Friday evening for documents relating to the president's contact with Ukraine — a so-far unprecedented move that is sure to escalate the rapidly moving impeachment inquiry.
The House Oversight, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, notified the White House Friday evening of the subpoena, which was addressed to President Donald Trump's acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney.
The subpoena follows two letters in September where members of Congress demanded information about Trump's efforts to pressure the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the leading Democratic candidates in the 2020 election. In those letters, Democrats asked for all records surrounding Trump's call with the Ukrainian president and documents about the delay of military aid for the country.
The subpoena demands documents by Oct. 18.

The chairmen of the House committees — Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., Adam Schiff, D-Calf., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. — who are leading the investigation wrote in a letter to Mulvaney that they regretted that Trump "has put us — and the nation — in this position, but his actions have left us with no choice but to issue this subpoena."
"The White House has refused to engage with — or even respond to — multiple requests for documents from our Committees on a voluntary basis," the chairman said. "After nearly a month of stonewalling, it appears clear that the President has chosen the path of defiance, obstruction, and cover-up."
The letter to Mulvaney also includes a warning should the White House not comply with the request: "Your failure or refusal to comply with the subpoena, including at the direction or behest of the President or others at the White House, shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House's impeachment inquiry and may be used as an adverse inference against you and the President."
Friday's subpoena follows yet another intense day of developments in the House's impeachment inquiry. House Democrats asked Vice President Mike Pence for documents on his involvement in the Ukraine scandal and the House Intelligence Committee questioned Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, about a whistleblower complaint that brought Trump's requests about Biden to light.
The president also was asked about text messages between Trump's then-special envoy to Ukraine, Kurt Volker, and other U.S. diplomats that showed concern the president was dangling a U.S.-Ukraine meeting and military aid in exchange for investigations that would help him politically.
The White House has so far indicated that it will not cooperate with document requests unless and until the full House votes to authorize the impeachment inquiry, a move that Democratic leaders argue is not needed to launch an impeachment inquiry.
Democrats had threatened earlier this week that a subpoena may be issued after not receiving any response.
Earlier this week, White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham slammed the threat as a waste of time.
"This is nothing but more document requests, wasted time, and taxpayer dollars that will ultimately show the President did nothing wrong," she said. "The Dems can continue with their kangaroo court, the President will continue to work on behalf of this country."

Democrats have also issued subpoenas to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal attorney.
"She hands out subpoenas like they're cookies," Trump has said of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "'You want a subpoena? Here you go. Take them.' Like they're cookies."
Contributing: David Jackson
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Impeachment inquiry: House Democrats subpoena White House



https://www.yahoo.com/news/house-democrats-subpoena-white-house-224356444.html
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,078
Likes
29,107
Location
ORYGUN
#2
I hope this comes back to bite them in the ass !
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,273
Likes
5,808
Location
Florida Panhandle
#4
The opposition is supposed to fold in fear when the Dims go "BOO!" like they always did in the past. It's not fair when they fight back, so really, really not fair that the Dims are gonna hold their breath until they turn blue!
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#5
Subpoena
[Latin, Under penalty.] A formal document that orders a named individual to appear before a duly authorized body at a fixed time to give testimony.


A court, Grand Jury, legislative body, or Administrative Agency uses a subpoena to compel an individual to appear before it at a specified time to give testimony. An individual who receives a subpoena but fails to appear may be charged with Contempt of court and subjected to civil or criminal penalties. In addition, a person who has been served with a subpoena and has failed to appear may be brought to the proceedings by a law enforcement officer who serves a second subpoena, called an instanter.


A subpoena must be served on the individual ordered to appear. In some states a law enforcement officer or process server must personally serve it, whereas other states allow service by mail or with a telephone call. It is most often used to compel witnesses to appear at a civil or criminal trial. A trial attorney may receive an assurance from a person who says that she will appear in court on a certain day to testify, but if a subpoena is not issued and served on the witness, she is not legally required to appear.


It is up to the attorneys in a case to request subpoenas, which are routinely issued by the trial court administrator's office. The subpoena must give the name of the legal proceedings, the name of the person who is being ordered to appear, and the time and place of the court hearing.


Legislative investigating committees also issue subpoenas to compel recalcitrant witnesses to appear. Congressional investigations of political scandal, such as the Watergate scandals of the Nixon administration, the iran-contra scandal of the Reagan administration, and the Whitewater scandal of the Clinton administration, rely on subpoenas to obtain testimony.


A subpoena that commands a person to bring certain evidence, usually documents or papers, is called a Subpoena Duces Tecum, from the Latin "under penalty to bring with you." This type of subpoena is often used in a civil lawsuit where one party resists giving the other party documents through the discovery process. If a court is convinced that the document request is legitimate, it will order the production of documents using a subpoena duces tecum.


A party may resist a subpoena duces tecum by refusing to comply and requesting a court hearing. One of the most famous refusals of a subpoena was richard m. nixon's reluctance to turn over the tape recordings of his White House office conversations to the Watergate special prosecutor. Nixon fought the subpoena all the way to the Supreme Court in united states v. nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S. Ct. 3090, 41 L. Ed. 2d 1039 (1974). The Court upheld the subpoena, leading Nixon to resign his office a short time later.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subpoena
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,032
Likes
47,364
#6
So, what do they expect to get out of these subpoenas? Why are they stalling and what are they distracting us from? This can't go on much longer
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#7
So, what do they expect to get out of these subpoenas?
it is a fair question and what is the response to it?

they get to claim they are acting as a investigation outfit of the highest order, thereby you cannot ignore the subpoena's

what is the 'legal' counter to their argument?


Constitutional provisions
The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
Article II, Section 2

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article II, Section 4



Impeachable offenses: "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors"
See also: High crimes and misdemeanors

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[2] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[3] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[3] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, "finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct."[4][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][5] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[6][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[6][4][1]

In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct.[1] Less than one-third of the articles that the House have adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or "crime" to describe the conduct alleged.[1] Officials have been impeached and removed for drunkenness, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal.[1] Two of the articles against President Andrew Johnson were based on rude speech that reflected badly on the office: President Johnson had made "harangues" criticizing the Congress and questioning its legislative authority, refusing to follow laws, and diverting funds allocated in an army appropriations act, each of which brought the presidency "into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace".[7] A number of individuals have been impeached for behavior incompatible with the nature of the office they hold.[1] Some impeachments have addressed, at least in part, conduct before the individuals assumed their positions: for example, Article IV against Judge Porteous related to false statements to the FBI and Senate in connection with his nomination and confirmation to the court.[1]

On the other hand, the Constitutional Convention rejected language that would have permitted impeachment for "maladministration," with Madison arguing that "o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate." [8]

Congressional materials have cautioned that the grounds for impeachment "do not all fit neatly and logically into categories" because the remedy of impeachment is intended to "reach a broad variety of conduct by officers that is both serious and incompatible with the duties of the office".[6][1] Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:

(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.[6][1]
Conversely, not all criminal conduct is impeachable: in 1974, the Judiciary Committee rejected an article of impeachment against President Nixon alleging that he committed tax fraud, primarily because that "related to the President's private conduct, not to an abuse of his authority as President."[1]

Several commentators have suggested that Congress alone may decide for itself what constitutes a "high Crime or Misdemeanor", especially since the Supreme Court decided in Nixon v. United States that it did not have the authority to determine whether the Senate properly "tried" a defendant.[9] In 1970, then-House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford defined the criterion as he saw it: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."[10]

Of the 17 impeachments voted by the House:


  • No official has been charged with treason. (In 1797, Senator Blount was impeached for assisting Britain in capturing Spanish territory. In 1862, Judge Humphries was impeached and convicted for siding with the Confederacy and taking a position as a Confederate judge during the Civil War.)
  • Three officials have been charged with bribery. Of those, two proceeded to trial and were removed (Judge Archibald and Judge Hastings); the other resigned prior to trial (Secretary Belknap).
  • The remaining charges against all the other officials fall under the category of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors".

The standard of proof required for impeachment and conviction is also left to the discretion of individual Representatives and Senators, respectively. Defendants have argued that impeachment trials are in the nature of criminal proceedings, with convictions carrying grave consequences for the accused, and that therefore proof beyond a reasonable doubt should be the applicable standard. House Managers have argued that a lower standard would be appropriate to better serve the purpose of defending the community against abuse of power, since the defendant does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property, for which the reasonable doubt standard was set.[11]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#8
Procedure
At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.


  • First, the Congress investigates. This investigation typically begins in the House Judiciary Committee, but may begin elsewhere. For example, the Nixon impeachment inquiry began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The facts that led to impeachment of Bill Clinton were first discovered in the course of an investigation by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
  • Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached".
  • Third, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides over the proceedings. For the impeachment of any other official, the Constitution is silent on who shall preside, suggesting that this role falls to the Senate's usual presiding officer, the President of the Senate who is also the Vice President of the United States. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote. The result of conviction is removal from office.
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#9
The Supreme Court has also explained that Congress has not only the power, but the duty, to investigate so it can inform the public of the operations of government:


It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function.[23]
 

Scorpio

Скорпион
Founding Member
Board Elder
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
Joined
Mar 25, 2010
Messages
28,778
Likes
37,428
#10
so here is the upshot to all of this as I get it,

a formal proceeding does not have to take place prior to investigations, subpoenas, etc.
impeachment is left generic and becomes whatever the house says it is

the actual trial takes place in the senate, and it is at that time that the accused is allowed to state a position with defense

in other words, they need to comply with the subpoenas, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it, as they get to make up the rules as they go.

now I would ask that someone prove me wrong, as I disagree that this would be a 'proper procedure'.
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
13,580
Likes
12,704
Location
Florida
#11
By not taking a vote the dems keep the pukes from calling their own subpoenas. The whole thing was manufactured and a bad decision because it exposes their first manufactured crisis called the Mueller Report.
 

the_shootist

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
35,032
Likes
47,364
#12
By not taking a vote the dems keep the pukes from calling their own subpoenas. The whole thing was manufactured and a bad decision because it exposes their first manufactured crisis called the Mueller Report.
They'll keep distracting from making any progress until the 2020 election. All our esteemed elected officials are as useless as tits on a bull. IMHO, anyone who aligns themselves with either the Dims or the Pukes is part of the problem! Think for yourselves and stop supporting the deep state!
 
Last edited:

Buck

Old Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,559
Likes
7,207
#13
martial law, how come we don't have it yet?
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,471
Likes
12,819
#14

Buck

Old Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,559
Likes
7,207
#15
idk, krav maga comes to mind, to do anything else seems to be such a waste of some perfectly good time
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,078
Likes
29,107
Location
ORYGUN
#17
shit.png
 

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,950
Likes
10,533
#19
so here is the upshot to all of this as I get it,

a formal proceeding does not have to take place prior to investigations, subpoenas, etc.
impeachment is left generic and becomes whatever the house says it is

the actual trial takes place in the senate, and it is at that time that the accused is allowed to state a position with defense

in other words, they need to comply with the subpoenas, and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it, as they get to make up the rules as they go.

now I would ask that someone prove me wrong, as I disagree that this would be a 'proper procedure'.
My take is that since Pelosi changed all the rules some time back (with this eventuality in mind for sure), and are proceeding in a manner not consistent with precedent - it gives Trump reasonable grounds to fight the subpoena's - which would force the matter into the courts.

With appeals and whatnot - that could drag into next year.

Thinking from a strategic perspective - Trump may be using this as bait to force the House's hand - i.e. - they will use his failure to provide documents, witnesses, etc... as proof of obstruction...and that will surely be one of the charges.

The 64K question is...does Trump want a trial in the Senate during election season?

My conclusion after paying attention to all this pretty closely is that yes - that is exactly what Trump wants...

An impeachment trial with the eyes of the world in attendance...

A global platform to lay out his case that this has been nothing but an orchestrated coup from the time he announced his candidacy until the present...

A case so strong that it will utterly destroy the Democrat party...and expose them as the criminals they are for all to see.

The OJ trial was billed as the trial of the century...

This one needs a bigger billing...Trial of the Millenium?

The biggest, bestest trial eva?

No one has ever seen the likes of this trial...
 

Buck

Old Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
7,559
Likes
7,207
#21

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
7,982
#23
the narrative now being rumored about is that the fired warmonger bolton is actually the traitor sending up the non whistle blower whistle blower docs
That dude is a piece of work. He's an all-star in a sea of warmongerers. I've no problem with Johnny spending some time under the bus...preferably under the bus' tires. The anomaly is that Trump ever hired the POS, not that he canned the jerk.

https://reason.com/2019/09/18/john-bolton-is-mad-that-trump-wouldnt-let-him-bomb-iran/
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
16,078
Likes
29,107
Location
ORYGUN
#24

Strawboss

Home Improvement Sales Trainee...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,950
Likes
10,533
#25

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
7,982
#26
Trump is a smart guy. Perhaps he wanted a neo-con piece of garbage on hand, just so he could toss him under a passing bus. Who knows.