Article II: Contempt of Congress -- Invalid charge

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Arguing apples and oranges catches no one at anything, except your awareness of your inability to argue in context.

As expected - you cannot tell us when a court ruled the house subpoenas were legal.
Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[mudwhistle]

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"

You forgot "Grab That Pussy".

 

[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.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court

What court decision ruled the house subpoenas were legal?

 

[22lcidw]

Nancy is wearing her Easter Sunday Catholic outfit. She knows the cameras are on her. You Progs can only see what you want. This woman's ego makes Trump look like a piker. She has been in this field whether elected or not for near 60 years. Since being a teenager. In three years Trump has beat her in her own game. It is Trump that has nothing to lose. Its been that way since the beginning. He's playing with House money. All Nancy is doing is dividing us more.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

Arguing apples and oranges catches no one at anything, except your awareness of your inability to argue in context.

As expected - you cannot tell us when a court ruled the house subpoenas were legal.
Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

Your theory is based on your conception that an issuing authority can not determine if their subpoena is valid. Apparently not.

If a court can determine their subpoena is valid, why can’t Congress?

So I don’t agree with your assumption. A Congressional subpoena is valid. A court does not need to deem it so.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nancy is wearing her Easter Sunday Catholic outfit. She knows the cameras are on her. You Progs can only see what you want. This woman's ego makes Trump look like a piker. She has been in this field whether elected or not for near 60 years. Since being a teenager. In three years Trump has beat her in her own game. It is Trump that has nothing to lose. Its been that way since the beginning. He's playing with House money. All Nancy is doing is dividing us more.

I know it seems like Trumpybear has taken three years worth of beating from the woman but fact of the matter is she has been Speaker of the House for less than a year.

Poor Donnie, She's beaten him like he was an unwanted step-child.

No wonder the world leaders laugh at us.

 

[WEATHER53]

Really the abuse of power is just as nebulous

 

[WEATHER53]

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"

You forgot "Grab That Pussy".

He never said he had done that nir wished to nor suggested it was a good idea.
Its rare currently that I illustrate or correct Facts because we live under a suspension of reality right now
Graham’s opening statement began to pull the cover off of how deluded the atmosphere has become

 

[g5000]

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.

Schizophrenic Lindsey strongly disagrees with you.


"Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon, the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, failed to comply with subpoenas of Congress. Congress was going through its oversight function to provide oversight of the president. When asked for information, Richard Nixon chose not to comply, and the Congress of that time said, 'You're taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you.' The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury." - Lindsey Graham, 1998

 

[M14 Shooter]

So I don’t agree with your assumption. A Congressional subpoena is valid. A court does not need to deem it so.

You cannot support your objection in any way.
This is not new.

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena; until that point the legality of the subpoena has not been resolved.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it canot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[jc456]

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.

well the House isn't a court, and the constitution didn't give them that authority, it gives it to the judicial branch.

 

[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

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.

well the House isn't a court, and the constitution didn't give them that authority, it gives it to the judicial branch.

Where does the Constitution say that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

 

[colfax_m]

So I don’t agree with your assumption. A Congressional subpoena is valid. A court does not need to deem it so.

You cannot support your objection in any way.
This is not new.

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena; until that point the legality of the subpoena has not been resolved.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it canot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

You haven’t supported your case at all.

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena

What is the basis for this “fact”?

 

[colfax_m]

Where does the Constitution say that?

Th constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

Then why has Congress been doing it since the birth of the nation?

 

[BlindBoo]

Where does the Constitution say that?

The constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

So you want to throw out the Contempt of Congress for Eric Holder as unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena

What is the basis for this “fact”?

Congress itself says so.

Congress has three formal methods by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issued subpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority ofa separate branch of government. First, the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. Second, the criminalcontempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor. Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.
---
Although the DOJ appears to have acknowledged that properly authorized procedures for seeking civil enforcement provide the preferred method of enforcing a subpoena directed against an executive branch official,260the executive branch has consistently taken the position that Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures261against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General has previously directed the U.S. Attorney to refrain from pursuing a criminal contempt prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §§192, 194.262This view is most fully articulated in two opinions by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from the mid-1980s,263and further evidenced by actions taken by the DOJ in the Burford, Miers, and Holder disputes, discussed below.264As a result, when an executive branch official is invoking executive privilege at the behest of the President, the criminal contempt provision may prove ineffective, forcing Congress to rely on other avenues to enforce subpoenas, including civil enforcement through the federal courts
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

The courts, not congress determine the legality of congressional subpoenas.
Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it cannot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the Constitution say that?

Th constitution does not give Congress the power to subpoena anyone.

Then why has Congress been doing it since the birth of the nation?

Because of the powers the court said it had.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So I don’t agree with your assumption. A Congressional subpoena is valid. A court does not need to deem it so.

You cannot support your objection in any way.
This is not new.

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena; until that point the legality of the subpoena has not been resolved.

Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it canot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

You haven’t supported your case at all.

This is a lie, and you haven't supported any argument against it.

 

[colfax_m]

Mine is supported by fact that Congress has to take the President to court to compel compliance with its subpoena

What is the basis for this “fact”?

Congress itself says so.

Congress has three formal methods by which it can combat non-compliance with a duly issued subpoena. Each of these methods invokes the authority ofa separate branch of government. First, the long dormant inherent contempt power permits Congress to rely on its own constitutional authority to detain and imprison a contemnor until the individual complies with congressional demands. Second, the criminalcontempt statute permits Congress to certify a contempt citation to the executive branch for the criminal prosecution of the contemnor. Finally, Congress may rely on the judicial branch to enforce a congressional subpoena. Under this procedure, Congress may seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.
---
Although the DOJ appears to have acknowledged that properly authorized procedures for seeking civil enforcement provide the preferred method of enforcing a subpoena directed against an executive branch official,260the executive branch has consistently taken the position that Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures261against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General has previously directed the U.S. Attorney to refrain from pursuing a criminal contempt prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §§192, 194.262This view is most fully articulated in two opinions by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from the mid-1980s,263and further evidenced by actions taken by the DOJ in the Burford, Miers, and Holder disputes, discussed below.264As a result, when an executive branch official is invoking executive privilege at the behest of the President, the criminal contempt provision may prove ineffective, forcing Congress to rely on other avenues to enforce subpoenas, including civil enforcement through the federal courts
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34097

The courts, not congress determine the legality of congressional subpoenas.
Thus, the house's claim that they are legal is unsubstantiated as it cannot make that determination.
Article II is invalid because it assumes facts not in evidence.

That article states there are three methods to compel compliance. Only one involves going to a court.

Nothing in that article states that Congress can not determine if their subpoena is “legal”. In fact, that article makes it entirely clear that Congress has every right and the authority to issue subpoenas without approval of a court.