The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump

The House wasn't in session a week ago.

Lol. I just got called a "war monger" all because I mocked trumps intelligence and pointed out that his sudden pull from Syria coincidentally happened on Putins birthday.

What's with the Republican push to hold a vote right now? Haven't they ever watched The Deadliest Catch? You have to let those pots sit for a bit. Then you come charging in hard to collect the bounty.

They have the votes in the house but they will not get the needed twenty Republican votes in the Senate. Ergo there will be no vote to begin impeachment proceedings and, yes, lefties will get left hanging yet again. Now, is Trump guilty and should he be impeached? Without a doubt. Will he? That seems doubtful.

So, a google search tells me they were.

Apparently she was to be sent to jail for failing to provide them under subpoena, according to Trump at least.

Does that mean anyone refusing to testify here should be subject to chants of "lock him up"?

No, they are saying the house has to vote to begin the impeachment inquiry or else it is not happening because they are making shit up as they go hoping something will distract from the truth. The senate vote is an entirely different thing than the house inquiry.

I think anyone falling under the trump administration deserves that chant at this point.

Why would you prevent a witness from testifying when they could exonerate you?

Pissing off liberals is what really matters. That’s much more important.

Isn't defying these subpoenas an impeachable offense?

Cue @The Flashlight crying "Perjury Trap!!!!"

I think it’s contempt of Congress, which could be impeachable, but it wouldn’t be the first time a president has done something like this.

"Contempt" is usually a legal determination. In this case it's the literal definition of how Trump & Company feel about Congress and all those pesky laws those meddling kids in Congress keep throwing at them.

Old news that I already mentioned.

Trump is putting the Democrats in a box of their own making. By making this a “impeachment inquiry” instead of an official impeachment hearing the Democrats have limited themselves in what they can do.

In effect an impeachment inquiry has been going on since the Dems took the House over in 2018. Congress has been harassing the president ever since.

Nancy Pelosi’s statements not withstanding there is no such thing as an impeachment inquiry. Now Democrats can expect to get no cooperation at all. Everything will be litigated in the courts.

It is a fact that an official impeachment hearing vote gives far more strength to Congress to compel the Executive branch to comply with any requests. An official impeachment hearing also gives the Republicans equality with the Democrats and it also gives the White House lawyers the right to work with Congress by explaining things or submitting evidence.

The Democrats don’t want any Republican or White House involvement so now it’s time to play hardball. No cooperation on anything.

Go ahead and make your obstruction noises but you can’t obstruct something that’s not official. As long as they comply with court orders the White House is under no obligation to cooperate on anything else.

No. They are not impeachable offenses.
You get the courts involved all the way up to SCOTUS if you have too.
This is why the Democrats should have gone with an official impeachment hearing which would give them better standing in a courtroom.

^Is there anyone who is not completely full of shit who could weigh in on the topic? I'm not saying refusing to comply is impeachable, but it certainly sounds like it might be.

Obviously if a court says follow the subpoena and you don’t than you’re in trouble.

But litigating the subpoenas by claiming executive privilege or other reasons can not be an impeachable offense. The executive branch is coequal to the legislative branch. It is not inferior. The executive branch has the right to assert any and all rights. That includes the right to dispute subpoenas from Congress.

If you set that standard that any dispute over a subpoena could be impeachable than the president of any party could face impeachment.

Is that the new rule you want to set? Because it will certainly be used against a Democrat president if you want to lower the bar for impeachment.

What is or is not an impeachable offense is up to Congress. "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is whatever the hell Congress decides they are. Refusing to fire a cabinet officer was good enough for impeachment, but not conviction and removal. Getting a blowjob was grounds for impeachment, but not conviction and removal. Telling Congress to shove a subpoena certainly could be an impeachable offense, in my ever so humble (hopefully not full of shit) opinion but as it looks now, probably not good enough for conviction and removal.

There is a kernel of truth there, but it's more nuanced than that. There is no law or rule that says the House has to have a formal impeachment vote. They already have full subpoena powers, so it doesn't make a difference there. All this does is make it easy for Republicans to challenge the legitimacy of the inquiry, and spare moderate Dems in red states from exposing themselves to a backlash...which I'm sure factored into Pelosi's calculus. No rational person actually believes the White House would be any more cooperative if there had been a vote. In short, it makes a difference politically, but absolutely no difference legally. Having a formal vote doesn't grant extra powers to the House that it doesn't already have.

Weird thing is, I remember when Zombie was saying that Obama had to show his birth certificate now, because not giving people anything they ask for just made him look suspicious.

It was my understanding that you can face punishment for contempt of congress. A quick look back shows a lot of different endings . Most cases showed the documents eventually being released, but some individuals served jail time. Not sure if Trump going this route is a wise move, particularly with a HOR that wants to nail him in the worst way.

Q

I'm pretty sure Howard Hughes faced contempt of Congress if he didn’t testify about the Spruce Goose, which could result in jail time. The issue is with a president. Jackson ignored SCOTUS . Ultimately it comes down to the people and right now the people are like,

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/politics/obama-official-wont-testify-to-congress.html

The White House said Tuesday night that it would refuse to allow its director of political strategy to testify Wednesday before a Republican-led House committee investigating whether the administration had illegally conducted political activity in the West Wing.

2. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/06/justice-thwarts-black-panther-subpoenas/

First, a Web site called “Main Justice” reported on Wednesday (and we have since confirmed) that the Justice Department has, for now, ordered two key career attorneys not to comply with a subpoena about the case issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that “all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission.” The Justice Department, however, is citing internal regulations stemming from a 1951 case to support its order to ignore the subpoena.

3. http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1945192,00.html

The White House announced Wednesday, Dec. 1, that Social Secretary Desirée Rogers would not be testifying to Congress Thursday about the two reality-television aspirants who got by the Secret Service at a recent state dinner to shake hands with President Obama. "I think you know that based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress," said press secretary Robert Gibbs in his daily briefing. "She will not be testifying in front of Congress tomorrow."

4. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-fires-back-at-overbroad-subpoena-on-solyndra-documents

The White House on Friday all but refused to turn over the documents House Republicans have subpoenaed on bankrupt solar firm Solyndra, firing off a letter saying the request would put an "unreasonable burden on the president's ability to meet his constitutional duties."

5. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...request-kagan-obamacare-documents-holder-then

The U.S. Department of Justice is refusing to comply with a request from the House Judiciary Committee to provide the committee with documents and witness interviews that the committee believes, as Chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Texas) put it in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, would allow the panel “to properly understand any involvement by Justice Kagan in matters relating to health care legislation or litigation while she was Solicitor General.”

6. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...litical-director-refuses-to-testify/12710171/

President Obama's top political adviser in the White House, David Simas, will defy a subpoena to appear before a House oversight committee Wednesday, setting up a political and legal confrontation over the scope of executive power.

7. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/244069-cruz-slams-obama-officials-for-refusing-to-testify

Cruz had invited Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule-making process, but the administration declined to send them, citing the pending case before the Supreme Court.

8. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/wh-cites-executive-privilege-obama-adviser-testify/

After congressional Republicans called his bluff, President Obama’s deputy national security adviser refused Tuesday to testify to Congress about whether he misled the public in pushing the Iran nuclear deal, claiming executive privilege.

9. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/

Lerner once again asserted her Fifth Amendment right not to testify, as she did last May when she was first called to testify. Before she first spoke at the hearing Wednesday, Issa warned that his committee would consider whether to hold her in contempt if she declined to testify.

10. https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988

The House has voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.

The letter from the White House to Nancy Pelosi:

https://www.scribd.com/document/429...noncompliance-with-impeachment-probe#download

Let's see, Trump can't be held in contempt of Congress because there's no impeachment proceeding and you're using times when the Obama administration was threatened with contempt when there wasn't any impeachment proceeding. Have I got that right?

No. I'm pointing out that a President and the executive branch can fight against subpoenas and it's not an impeachable offense.

Do you leftists ever learn?

Every rule you change the Republicans take advantage of the new rule when they are in power. Just look at how many federal judges Trump is getting through the Senate. All thanks to Democrats and in particular Harry Reid.

If you want to say that Trump fighting against a subpoena is possibly an impeachable offense what do you think is going to happen to a future Democrat president?

If a court orders Trump to comply with a subpoena and he doesn't do it THAN you have a case for obstruction of justice that can result in impeachment.

Until then you guys are just setting yourself up to be disappointed.