House Impeachment Hearings

[Rightguide]

They have the right to know that moneys they appropriate for a specific purpose are used how and when they expected. And they certainly have the right to know if that money is being used, or attempted to be used, for personal gain by the President or any other government official. And witnesses, one by one, are proving that is the case. Your assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

What is the alleged "personal gain."

 

[schism666]

What is the alleged "personal gain."

promoting his son's book.
supporting his daughter's trademarks overseas.

be educated.

 

[Rightguide]

promoting his son's book.
supporting his daughter's trademarks overseas.

be educated.

Get fucked, it may make you smarter.

Friggin' idiocy

 

[HisArpy]

It’s routine while they consider hearing the case or not.

No, it isn't "routine".

The US Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases it hears. It doesn't hear cases where the law is clear and/or the lower courts ruled according to the law.

When the US Supreme Court issues a stay, it doesn't bode well for the underlying decisions regardless of which way the lower courts ruled on the case. That said, sometimes the SCOTUS does determine that the lower decision was correct but they needed to hear the case to clear up any confusion or controversy in that particular area of law.

So, the stay isn't "routine" but no one can infer anything from it other than the SCOTUS has decided to decide whether to hear the matter. The stay is so no one is harmed by the SCOTUS taking the time to decide if they're going to hear the case.

However, in this particular matter there is precedent on this exact issue. That precedent goes against the lower court decision. Make of that whatever you choose.

Personally, I find that the stay tells the House that they've overreached in some manner. One need only read the question presented and the basis for the subpoena to see that the House is contending that in their capacity for oversight of the IRS auditing procedures, the law may need updating because the tax returns of 1 guy, as compared to 300 million other US citizens, may be lacking somehow.

1 guy's tax returns may show that the IRS isn't doing it's job for the other 330 million taxpayers? Yeah, that sounds like it'll fly...

 

[HisArpy]

Get fucked, it may make you smarter.

Friggin' idiocy

Hot dam! They've got him now!! Again!!!! This time for sure!!!!!!

 

[schism666]

Get fucked, it may make you smarter.

Friggin' idiocy

you asked and got fucked up

 

[Rightguide]

No, it isn't "routine".

The US Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases it hears. It doesn't hear cases where the law is clear and/or the lower courts ruled according to the law.

When the US Supreme Court issues a stay, it doesn't bode well for the underlying decisions regardless of which way the lower courts ruled on the case. That said, sometimes the SCOTUS does determine that the lower decision was correct but they needed to hear the case to clear up any confusion or controversy in that particular area of law.

So, the stay isn't "routine" but no one can infer anything from it other than the SCOTUS has decided to decide whether to hear the matter. The stay is so no one is harmed by the SCOTUS taking the time to decide if they're going to hear the case.

However, in this particular matter there is precedent on this exact issue. That precedent goes against the lower court decision. Make of that whatever you choose.

Personally, I find that the stay tells the House that they've overreached in some manner. One need only read the question presented and the basis for the subpoena to see that the House is contending that in their capacity for oversight of the IRS auditing procedures, the law may need updating because the tax returns of 1 guy, as compared to 300 million other US citizens, may be lacking somehow.

1 guy's tax returns may show that the IRS isn't doing it's job for the other 330 million taxpayers? Yeah, that sounds like it'll fly...

You may have just spoiled Adre's nap.

 

[Rightguide]

you asked and got fucked up

All that happened is you showed up and queefed instead of posting something intelligent.

 

[schism666]

All that happened is you showed up and queefed instead of posting something intelligent.

yet it was still enough to ruin your narrative

 

[jaF0]

our assertion that this or any other impeachment process is illegal is baseless. And stupid.

Tell it to the Senate.

"WASHINGTON (CN) – A federal judge in Washington declared Friday the House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, dismissing arguments from Republicans and the Justice Department that the House Judiciary Committee failed to demonstrate a particularized need for access to evidence.

“These arguments smack of farce,” wrote Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. “The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information.”"

https://www.courthousenews.com/house-democrats-win-access-to-mueller-grand-jury-records/

 

[Adre]

No, it isn't "routine".

The US Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases it hears. It doesn't hear cases where the law is clear and/or the lower courts ruled according to the law.

When the US Supreme Court issues a stay, it doesn't bode well for the underlying decisions regardless of which way the lower courts ruled on the case. That said, sometimes the SCOTUS does determine that the lower decision was correct but they needed to hear the case to clear up any confusion or controversy in that particular area of law.

So, the stay isn't "routine" but no one can infer anything from it other than the SCOTUS has decided to decide whether to hear the matter. The stay is so no one is harmed by the SCOTUS taking the time to decide if they're going to hear the case.

However, in this particular matter there is precedent on this exact issue. That precedent goes against the lower court decision. Make of that whatever you choose.

Personally, I find that the stay tells the House that they've overreached in some manner. One need only read the question presented and the basis for the subpoena to see that the House is contending that in their capacity for oversight of the IRS auditing procedures, the law may need updating because the tax returns of 1 guy, as compared to 300 million other US citizens, may be lacking somehow.

1 guy's tax returns may show that the IRS isn't doing it's job for the other 330 million taxpayers? Yeah, that sounds like it'll fly...

Lots of words, Matlock, but you didn’t prove that SCOTUS stays aren’t a routine occurrence.

 

[Rightguide]

"WASHINGTON (CN) – A federal judge in Washington declared Friday the House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, dismissing arguments from Republicans and the Justice Department that the House Judiciary Committee failed to demonstrate a particularized need for access to evidence.

“These arguments smack of farce,” wrote Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. “The reality is that DOJ and the White House have been openly stonewalling the House’s efforts to get information by subpoena and by agreement, and the White House has flatly stated that the Administration will not cooperate with congressional requests for information.”"

https://www.courthousenews.com/house-democrats-win-access-to-mueller-grand-jury-records/

An Obama anti-Trump judge who will be reversed.

 

[HisArpy]

Lots of words, Matlock, but you didn’t prove that SCOTUS stays aren’t a routine occurrence.

It's not my fault you can't keep up with the rest of the class.

 

[Rightguide]

yet it was still enough to ruin your narrative

Here's how Schiffs narrative was destroyed on Friday by Tim Morrison, Schiff's own witness:

Mr. Castor: Returning to page 9 of Ambassador Taylor's statement. Ambassador Taylor relates that you told -- you told him that the President doesn't want to provide any assistance at all?

Morrison: Yes.

Castor: And can you help me understand what that meant?

Morrison: The President's general antipathy to foreign aid, as well as his concern that the Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as his concern when our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem.


PS: Pass this along to the hapless Adre who doubts the presence of corruption isn't ground for withholding aid.

 

[HisArpy]

An Obama anti-Trump judge who will be reversed.

I think in this instance the SCOTUS will determine that the current impeachment inquiry is sufficient to justify the subpoenas for these records. The irregularities in establishing the inquiry isn't enough to quash them.

 

[Rightguide]

I think in this instance the SCOTUS will determine that the current impeachment inquiry is sufficient to justify the subpoenas for these records. The irregularities in establishing the inquiry isn't enough to quash them.

Why didn't they just let the lower court decision stand? I was thinking they might be thinking the matter comes under the political question doctrine and might so instruct the lower court.

 

[Adre]

Why didn't they just let the lower court decision stand? I was thinking..l

There’s your problem.

 

[HisArpy]

Why didn't they just let the lower court decision stand? I was thinking they might be thinking the matter comes under the political question doctrine and might so instruct the lower court.

That's 1 reason. The open rancor against Trump that has led to the rash of frivolous suits and injunctions being yet another. There may even be other reasons, I don't speak for the SCOTUS so I don't know what they're thinking even though I can often predict the outcome of various cases I follow. Such as the ISIS Bride case - I nailed that one months ago for the exact reasons the SCOTUS gave.

What's kind of interesting right now is that the House has yet to demand production of Trump's tax returns as part of the impeachment inquiry. Under established precedent, they'd get them. Trump would attempt to block the demand, but the Courts would support the subpoena because it IS a "legitimate impeachment inquiry" at this point.

Yet the inquiry hasn't done so. One wonders why unless the impeachment fiasco isn't genuine but only political theater.

 

[HisArpy]

There’s your problem.

At least he does. Unlike some...

 

[RobDownSouth]

I think in this instance the SCOTUS will determine that the current impeachment inquiry is sufficient to justify the subpoenas for these records. The irregularities in establishing the inquiry isn't enough to quash them.

Wrong.
The concept of "executive privilege" shields the Executive Branch from the Judiciary Branch. Congress can demand anything it wants from the Executive branch during an impeachment inquiry, and the Judicial Branch doesn't have a say in the matter.

The sole role of the Judiciary is that the Chief Justice referees the prosecution and defense in the Senate during the impeachment trial itself.

It's Constitutional Law 101...Are you SURE you attended an accredited law school?

 

[HisArpy]

Wrong.
The concept of "executive privilege" shields the Executive Branch from the Judiciary Branch. Congress can demand anything it wants from the Executive branch during an impeachment inquiry, and the Judicial Branch doesn't have a say in the matter.

The sole role of the Judiciary is that the Chief Justice referees the prosecution and defense in the Senate during the impeachment trial itself.

It's Constitutional Law 101...Are you SURE you attended an accredited law school?

Poor rubbery, so totally fucked up that he can't see that what I wrote actually agrees with his premise despite his insufficient summation of the role of the Courts in government.

 

[Dribble]

What you can't seem to understand, is, spending those particular funds for the wall are within his purview. The same goes for holding back funds when it comes to foreign aid and corruption.

No...only if he declared a national emergency...which he did. Even though it wasnt.

Yes...he can do this. What he cant do is hold the aid with the intent of releasing it only after receiving personal or political gain.

Glad to be of service.

 

[Curmudgeonly]

That's 1 reason. The open rancor against Trump that has led to the rash of frivolous suits and injunctions being yet another. There may even be other reasons, I don't speak for the SCOTUS so I don't know what they're thinking even though I can often predict the outcome of various cases I follow. Such as the ISIS Bride case - I nailed that one months ago for the exact reasons the SCOTUS gave.

What's kind of interesting right now is that the House has yet to demand production of Trump's tax returns as part of the impeachment inquiry. Under established precedent, they'd get them. Trump would attempt to block the demand, but the Courts would support the subpoena because it IS a "legitimate impeachment inquiry" at this point.

Yet the inquiry hasn't done so. OB]One wonders why[/B] unless the impeachment fiasco isn't genuine but only political theater.

The court battle would unacceptably elongate the duration of the Kabuki theater.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

This impeachment process is not illegal. And anyone that says it is is a traitor.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Poor rubbery, so totally fucked up that he can't see that what I wrote actually agrees with his premise despite his insufficient summation of the role of the Courts in government.

Apology accepted. Be best, chumly.