Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

[NightFox]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate.

Which bumper sticker did you swipe that meaningless gibberish from?

 

[The Original Tree]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate. Former Republicans are falling all over themselves to embrace and profit from the Trumpublican corruption.

Heil Schiffler. Spoken like a True Russian Bot

 

[jc456]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

then I don't know why we even have courts, if I did something and said I didn't, that should be good enough, right?

 

[The Original Tree]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate.

Which bumper sticker did you swipe that meaningless gibberish from?

He borrowed it from the argument about The Fake Dirty Russian Dossier, Obama, Clinton and The FBI tried to use to defraud FISA and attempt their failed COUP 1.0

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

then I don't know why we even have courts, if I did something and said I didn't, that should be good enough, right?

Someone is about to make that claim, I am sure.

 

[The Original Tree]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.

Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Furthermore, They Denied The President Due Process because they refused to wait until The Courts Arbitrated the Validity of The Subpoenas, and on whether or not if they involved The President's Right to Executive Privilege.

Well yes - that's the point.
The House cannot soundly claim the President ignored a legal subpoena when the subpoena has not been ruled legal.

It just proves its a sham and also reading Leftist Politicians postings and statements, and Leftist Sites that Fund their Campaigns, Nancy is going to go Immediately After Pence to Impeach him if She can Take down President Trump and then have herself installed as Emperor.

 

[colfax_m]

To wit:

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

 

[M14 Shooter]

To wit:
Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand, because this is not the judicial system.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

 

[jc456]

To wit:
Absent a prior decision by the courts, contempt of congress cannot exist because a person can only be compelled to testify pursuant to a valid - that is, "lawful" - subpoena, and Congress does not have the power to decide if a subpoena is valid.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

the courts and judges. you didn't know that? hly fk Aussie fk.

 

[colfax_m]

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

Ha! You must know where I’m going with this because too don’t want to answer.

You stated the issuing authority doesn’t determine the validity of a subpoena.

In the regular judicial system, the court issues subpoenas. You’ve already claimed the court determines their validity. So as you see, your belief that the issuing authority can not determine their validity is false.

 

[colfax_m]

Why wouldn’t it be a valid subpoena?

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

the courts and judges. you didn't know that? hly fk Aussie fk.

See above. This point invalidates the posters argument. He saw it coming. You did not.

 

[mudwhistle]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

Course the whole case could go to the Supreme Court and be thrown out.

Cheeks meet balances

Ummm.. no it couldn't, SCOTUS doesn't have Constitutional Recourse when it comes to modifying the impeachment and removal from office process. The only role they're going to play is the Chief Justice presiding at the Senate Trial.

So essentially this is nothing more than a political campaign for the 2020 election.....which illustrates the irony of the process. They claim Trump did something for personal reasons and then they turn around and impeach the guy for personal reasons. They need to draw up articles of impeachment for abuse of power on themselves...and for obstruction of Justice because this is merely an attempt to cover up their money-laundering of foreign aid money from the Treasury.

 

[The Original Tree]

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

Ha! You must know where I’m going with this because too don’t want to answer.

You stated the issuing authority doesn’t determine the validity of a subpoena.

In the regular judicial system, the court issues subpoenas. You’ve already claimed the court determines their validity. So as you see, your belief that the issuing authority can not determine their validity is false.

The House of Representatives cannot Validate it's own Subpoenas. They are actually worthless unless validated by The Courts. Everyone can Ignore a House Subpoena.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The house claims the subpoenas -are- valid; Congress is incompetent to make this determination.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

In the regular judicial system...

Irrelevant, as this isn't the regular judicial system - this is one branch of government trying to compel another; as such your desperate comparison in invalid. Congress does not get to determine its subpoenas are legal; only a court can do that.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence
Disagree?
When did a court rule the subpoenas in question as legal?
Cite the decision and quote the text.

 

[The Original Tree]

As far as what goes into the Articles of Impeachment the HoR is the sole determiner of what is and what isn't a "valid charge" (at least according to the U.S. Constitution), they could pass an Article of Impeachment against the POTUS because he spit on the sidewalk if they wanted to.

... of course the Senate will have the final say on whether or not the charges outlined in the Articles of Impeachment end up being grounds for removal from office.

Checks meet balances.

Course the whole case could go to the Supreme Court and be thrown out.

Cheeks meet balances

Ummm.. no it couldn't, SCOTUS doesn't have Constitutional Recourse when it comes to modifying the impeachment and removal from office process. The only role they're going to play is the Chief Justice presiding at the Senate Trial.

So essentially this is nothing more than a political campaign for the 2020 election.....which illustrates the irony of the process. They claim Trump did something for personal reasons and then they turn around and impeach the guy for personal reasons. They need to draw up articles of impeachment for abuse of power on themselves...and for obstruction of Justice because this is merely an attempt to cover up their money-laundering of foreign aid money from the Treasury.

And using their own Children and Family Members to cover up their crimes, as Romney, Pelosi, John Kerry, and Joe Biden did in just a SINGLE Example with Burisma.

 

[BlindBoo]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate.

Which bumper sticker did you swipe that meaningless gibberish from?

Trumpersticker like that are too long and don't exist in the real world. TGrumpsters can barely handle 3 words at a time. You know "Lock Her up" and "Build da Wall"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate.

Which bumper sticker did you swipe that meaningless gibberish from?

Trumpersticker like that are too long and don't exist in the real world. TGrumpsters can barely handle 3 words at a time. You know "Lock Her up" and "Build da Wall"

Let us know when you can add something meaningful to a conversation,.
Any conversation.

 

[colfax_m]

Who said Congress is incompetent to make that decision?

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Who issues subpoenas in regular judicial system?

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The validity - the legality - of subpoenas is not determined by the issuing authority, but by the courts.
The fact the issuing authority believes a subpoena is valid in no way makes it so.
Article II is thus invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence

In the regular judicial system...

Irrelevant, as this isn't the regular judicial system - this is one branch of government trying to compel another; as such your desperate comparison in invalid. Congress does not get to determine its subpoenas are legal; only a court can do that.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence
Disagree?
When did a court rule the subpoenas in question as legal?
Cite the decision and quote the text.

Caught ya. Moving on.

Congress does not get to determine its subpoenas are legal; only a court can do that.

What is this based on?

 

[The Original Tree]

BTW, best statement and most authentic and True Statement made in this Entire Sham, in The Midst of The Christmas Season.

Rep. Loudermilk: 'Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus' than Dems have to Trump

 

[BlindBoo]

Willingly accepting fruit from the poisonous tree makes Trumpybear's presidency illegitimate.

Which bumper sticker did you swipe that meaningless gibberish from?

Trumpersticker like that are too long and don't exist in the real world. TGrumpsters can barely handle 3 words at a time. You know "Lock Her up" and "Build da Wall"

Let us know when you can add something meaningful to a conversation,.
Any conversation.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. Issued on July 24, 1974, the decision was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

Still doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.