Non-valid subpoenas

[Mike_Jones]

.
In this morning's Presidential rebuttal summaries it came out that the House committees had no authority to subpoena executive branch employees and documents.

The Constitution states that each congressional chamber shall make its own rules. The House of Representatives made a rule that its subcommittees could only have subpoena power granted by a majority vote of the full House. The speaker said that the entire House had not voted Schiff's and Nadler's committees with any such authority. He also said that subpoenas which violated this rule had been struck down by the courts.

Not only does executive privilege protect the president from responding to these subpoenas, but the subpoenas themselves are not valid.
.

 

[manbearpig]

So you’re for politicians being above the law.

We’ll see how you like this when tables are flipped.

 

[GromsDad]

So you’re for politicians being above the law.

We’ll see how you like this when tables are flipped.

you are arguing that the partisan House democrats are above the law.

 

[manbearpig]

you are arguing that the partisan House democrats are above the law.

Incorrect.

 

[Mike_Jones]

So you’re for politicians being above the law.

We’ll see how you like this when tables are flipped.

I have no objection to the ongoing requirement that future Republican-led committees must acquire full House votes to authorize subpoena authority. And I don't know of a valid reason why you would oppose this rule while your Democrats control the House.

The problem was the "urgency" with which House Dumbocrats rushed to impeach. There has never been a House impeachment committee which was simply appointed by the Speaker. In standard form entire house chambers vote to create and charter committees, and approve subpoena power at the same time. Because of some unknown "urgency" Pelosi alone started these committees by her appointment without House authorization.
.

 

[manbearpig]

As usually the gay squid lies.

Loading…

fas.org

House could also vote directly on the resolution, but in modern practice, it has not chosen to approve articles of impeachment called up in this fashion. Instead, the House has relied on the Judiciary Committee to first conduct an investigation, hold hearings, and report recommendations to the full House.
Committee consideration is therefore typically the second stage of the impeachment process. In recent decades, it has been more common than not that the Judiciary Committee used information provided from another outside investigation. The committee might create a task force or a subcommittee to review this material and collect any other information through subpoenas, depositions, and public hearings. Impeachment investigations are governed by the standing rules of the House that govern all committee investigations, the terms of the resolution authorizing the investigation, and perhaps additional rules adopted by the committee specifically for the inquiry.

 

[Mike_Jones]

.
Here's a dis cuuss

As usually the gay squid lies.

Loading…

fas.org

Wrong. Yes, Pelosi quickly assigned impeachment inquiry duty to three standing committees in order to try and dodge the full-House subpoena vote requirement. However, these committees have full-house standing subpoena authority ONLY for investigating the subjects covered under their charters.

None of the three House committees used to investigate Trump impeachment were authorized to subpoena under any of the subjects related to this case.

Apparently, upon being subpoenaed, the executive branch refused on this basis as well as others. House managers could have challenged Trump's reasoning in federal court, but declined. Why do you think they did that?
.

 

[Phi1]

So you're no fan of flaccid subpoenas eh?

 

[GromsDad]

I wonder if these dum dums even realize that the house democrats themselves rescinded their own subpoenas as they knew they were going to lose the court fight. They'd rather have the propaganda talking point than have a judge rule on the constitutionality of what they were doing.

Judge dismisses impeachment witness lawsuit after House rescinds subpoena

A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that former Trump national security official Charles Kupperman had filed challenging a House subpoena for him to testify in the impeachment inquiry after the chamber withdrew their subpoena.

www.cnn.com