Congress threatens to jail those who don't comply with subpoenas

[SomeDudeUDunno]

Democrats refuse to give Trump DUE PROCESS afforded him under the US Constitution.. And that is treason!

Quote the constitution that you think is being violated.

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him"

Yes, in the event of a Trial, you do have that right. But when your accuser is threatened with loss of life then they can be submitted in such a way that their identity is hidden. And any questions by the Defense to uncover exactly who that person really is will get the Defense Attorney in Prison fast. It can be done by Electronic Means or even Disguises. But you do have the right to confront that accuser. In this case, it's going to be anon because there is reason enough to believe that their life and livelihood have been seriously threatened. When you are dealing with a Mobsters such as Rump then even the US Marshals might have to relocate that person in a Witness Protection Program. You Rumpsters are nothing more than minor Mob Soldiers at this point.

Nope. Graham already said get this vote on so he can subpoena this accuser to testify in front of the world. They have no right to remain anon.

If they have so much evidence against this president and they are so sure of themselves, why is the entire thing going on behind closed doors in secret?

Love him or hate him at least Gingrich gave Clinton a fair shot with a real vote and a real chance to defend himself.

It was much simpler with Clinton. Clinton never claimed he didn't lie (sort of) to the Grand Jury. the only question became, what was the world "IS" meaning. And it was downright comical all the way. It's tough to convict a President when you are laughing so hard. The whole thing ended up with the Levity of a Men's Locker Room Joke.

Rump just keep denying everything and then keep trying to cover it up by doing more illegal things to try and make us all look the other way. There is nothing humorous about any of this. And Rump keeps going and going. About the time you think you have all the information, Rump does something else. Yes, Rump. The Gift that keeps on Giving.

Can't wait to see you people cry on election night. Lol

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Quote the constitution that you think is being violated.

Sixth Amendment

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him"

Yes, in the event of a Trial, you do have that right. But when your accuser is threatened with loss of life then they can be submitted in such a way that their identity is hidden. And any questions by the Defense to uncover exactly who that person really is will get the Defense Attorney in Prison fast. It can be done by Electronic Means or even Disguises. But you do have the right to confront that accuser. In this case, it's going to be anon because there is reason enough to believe that their life and livelihood have been seriously threatened. When you are dealing with a Mobsters such as Rump then even the US Marshals might have to relocate that person in a Witness Protection Program. You Rumpsters are nothing more than minor Mob Soldiers at this point.

Nope. Graham already said get this vote on so he can subpoena this accuser to testify in front of the world. They have no right to remain anon.

If they have so much evidence against this president and they are so sure of themselves, why is the entire thing going on behind closed doors in secret?

Love him or hate him at least Gingrich gave Clinton a fair shot with a real vote and a real chance to defend himself.

It was much simpler with Clinton. Clinton never claimed he didn't lie (sort of) to the Grand Jury. the only question became, what was the world "IS" meaning. And it was downright comical all the way. It's tough to convict a President when you are laughing so hard. The whole thing ended up with the Levity of a Men's Locker Room Joke.

Rump just keep denying everything and then keep trying to cover it up by doing more illegal things to try and make us all look the other way. There is nothing humorous about any of this. And Rump keeps going and going. About the time you think you have all the information, Rump does something else. Yes, Rump. The Gift that keeps on Giving.

Can't wait to see you people cry on election night. Lol

I can deal with it either way. Got my big boy pants on. With the way you are carrying on, if it doesn't go the way you demand it does, I suggest you keep either Suicide Helpline or Dial-a-Prayer handy for yourself.

 

[2aguy]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

The house doesn't have arrest powers, that lies with the Executive Branch.

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia;[15] according to the law it is the duty of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action. However, while the law places the duty on the U.S. Attorney to impanel a grand jury for action, some proponents of the unitary executive theory argue that the Congress cannot properly compel the U.S. Attorney to take this action against the Executive Branch, asserting that the U.S. Attorney is a member of the Executive Branch who ultimately reports only to the President and that compelling the U.S. Attorney amounts to compelling the President[citation needed]. They argue that to allow Congress to force the President to take action against a subordinate following his directives would be a violation of the separation of powers and infringe on the power of the Executive branch.

 

[2aguy]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

I’m not sure why this isn’t SOP. Lying to Congress should be tantamount to perjury.

Isn't abuse of power under color of law fun... Until its you that is slammed into a jail cell for this gross abuse of power.

Well…I don’t foresee my getting subpoenaed by Congress any time soon so I’m not too worried about the jail cell.

As for those who are subpoenaed….They should show up and testify. Congress is a co-equal branch to the Executive and the Judiciary. If you ignore a subpoena from a court…you will be arrested. It should be the same with Congress.

The Court can't arrest you, that power lies with the executive Branch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation.

And there is where your post drifts into fantasyland.

 

[2aguy]

The Congress....the power of the purse.

The judicial branch...the power of judgement

The Executive Branch, the power of the sword...

They are separate for a reason....

 

[2aguy]

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation.

And there is where your post drifts into fantasyland.

Impeachment is not handled by the Intelligence Committee.....it is handled by the Judiciary committee....so any subpoena by the intelligence committee for the purpose of impeachment is non valid...but thanks for playing.

 

[justoffal]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

I’m not sure why this isn’t SOP. Lying to Congress should be tantamount to perjury.

It cannot be done legally Congress has no power or authority to arrest, detain or otherwise incarcerate.

They're just playing a mental masturbation game.

Jo

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It cannot be done legally Congress has no power or authority to arrest, detain or otherwise incarcerate.

False. You literally just made that up. Do you plan to make up lies all day?

 

[airplanemechanic]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

I’m not sure why this isn’t SOP. Lying to Congress should be tantamount to perjury.

It cannot be done legally Congress has no power or authority to arrest, detain or otherwise incarcerate.

They're just playing a mental masturbation game.

Jo

That's not true.

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

The last time it happened was 1935, but it is legal.

 

[justoffal]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

I’m not sure why this isn’t SOP. Lying to Congress should be tantamount to perjury.

Clinton just called. I heard him laughing on the phone reading your post.

You can see where lefties mind is. Control conquer and destroy whatever disagrees with you. the reason it doesn't happen is because Congress never had the authority to arrest and detain and will never be given that authority for a very good reason.

the moment

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

I’m not sure why this isn’t SOP. Lying to Congress should be tantamount to perjury.

It cannot be done legally Congress has no power or authority to arrest, detain or otherwise incarcerate.

They're just playing a mental masturbation game.

Jo

That's not true.

Contempt of Congress - Wikipedia

The last time it happened was 1935, but it is legal.

yes it is true even in 1935 a judge was required to write the paperwork for the arrest and detention. Congress does not have the power to arrest or detain they need the permission of the court systems. They do not have the authority to send out arresting officers. Should a contingent of Capitol Police converge on the White House to arrest a White House official the president would be well within his rights to summon a battalion of Marines to surround the White House and shoot to kill those making an attempt to enter enter.

Jo

 

[j-mac]

If DEAMON-RATS would stop lying and making shit up to try and impeach him...

The longer this goes on, the more crap comes out. Hell, the more Rump keeps going off on a deep end. Had he allowed it to go in the first place and completely cooperated, they really didn't have enough for impeachment. Not even close. But Rump became that Gift that keeps on Giving. Now they have more than enough and he gives them more each day. If I had a client like Rump I would have him locked in a closet, handcuffed and gagged until after the trial.

This whole thing is improper from the begining...If they were to do this properly then a vote would have been taken on the house floor, then if passed, Trump would have the right to subpeona witnesses, and defend himself...That's what Due Process calls for...Until then it is just a mob...

Rump has the right to do this under the Senates part. The Impeachment isn't part of the Trial. It's the official announcement of charges. When the DA is gathering is portfolio on you you don't get the right to even be made aware of everything in that folder until the actual trial. The real Trial happens with the Senate where the Disclosure Laws do apply along with all the other things you keep bring up. You seem to want to magically give Rump all these extraordinary benefits that no else seems to get. And that sense of entitlement is pretty much what's gotten him where he is right now.

This is simply untrue...

‘The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

It’s right there in black-and-white: In article I, section 2, clause 5, our Constitution vests the entirety of the power to call for removal of the president of the United States in a single body — the House.

Not in the Speaker of the House. In the House of Representatives. The institution, not one of its members.

To be sure, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a very powerful government official: second in the line of succession to the presidency; arguably, the most powerful member of Congress. She wields decisive influence on the business of her chamber. She even has the power to induce the House to vote on whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry.

But she does not have the power to impeach on her own.

In the end, Speaker Pelosi is just one member, a representative elected biannually by one district (in her case, the 12th district of California, centered in San Francisco and not particularly representative of the nation at large). Sure, she enjoys primus inter pares status because she is chosen by a majority of the House’s 435 members. But like each of those other members, her vote counts as just one — in a body that generally requires 218 votes to get the important things done.'

Trump Impeachment Inquiry: House Must Vote or It’s Just a Democratic Stunt | National Review

By the by, you are aware that at least part of the reasoning behind not allowing a vote to start a formal impeachment investigation, is because that would allow for Republican members to also subpeona potential witnesses, and the Democrats just can't have that with their lynching....

So, precedent be damned, due process be damned, all that matters is that they get Trump....is that about right?

It would only mean that the charges would all be made public. Simple as that. And yes, the Republican House will have the chance to contest it at that time. But Rump and his band of merry Criminals are not afforded with that right until it goes to the Senate.

And Nancy Pelosi with Adam Schiff can't just declare that they are in a formal impeachment inquiry all by themselves either...We both know the reason they did this and that was to deny the minority the ability to subpeona, and deny Trump any defense...It's so dishonest, and should be denounced by honest Democrats, if there are any....

Anyway, just remember what you're cheering now, will come back to bite you in the ass.

 

[B. Kidd]

This is definitely uncharted territory for congress. But once you jail someone, then they have a right to an attorney.

Tlaib says Democrats have discussed detaining White House officials who don't testify

Jailing someone for not complying with a subpoena issued from an illegal investigation. Oh yea, this will be fun.

Why do House Democrats think that they are above the law? (See how that works?)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We both know the reason they did this and that was to deny the minority the ability to subpeona

Yeah....so? Welcome to hardball.

 

[j-mac]

This whole thing is improper from the begining...If they were to do this properly then a vote would have been taken on the house floor, then if passed, Trump would have the right to subpeona witnesses, and defend himself...That's what Due Process calls for...Until then it is just a mob...

Rump has the right to do this under the Senates part. The Impeachment isn't part of the Trial. It's the official announcement of charges. When the DA is gathering is portfolio on you you don't get the right to even be made aware of everything in that folder until the actual trial. The real Trial happens with the Senate where the Disclosure Laws do apply along with all the other things you keep bring up. You seem to want to magically give Rump all these extraordinary benefits that no else seems to get. And that sense of entitlement is pretty much what's gotten him where he is right now.

Trump has the right to see all evidence the House collects. ALL OF IT! Not just the stuff they want us to see and this is why the Judiciary Committee is supposed to be doing this. Schiff is using his position on the intelligence committee to hide the evidence found from sight so only the stuff they want us to see is let out. and that is the violation of DUE PROCESS.

Put it into prospective like it was a normal Legal Process. Does the Police have to divulge all information to the accused during the investigation? Does the DA have to turn over his entire file over to your lawyer during the investigation? Where they are right now is like the Police and the DA investigating. It hasn't reached the point of Disclosure and Due Process yet. The actual Trial is by the Senate and that is where Disclosure and Due Process comes into being. And the sooner Rump allows it to reach that point the better off he is going to be. Had cooperated 2 years ago, it would have fizzled and gone away. But he decided to obstruct it and then compound it over and over.

I have never seen a President working so hard to not be re-elected as this one. But, then again, he worked just as hard not to be elected in the first place. Guess he's using the same playbook. If he loses in 2020, it's because he threw it away not because of anything the Democrats have done. Stand up, be a man. take it on the chin. Walk erect.

Using your analogy, which is wrong btw, but let's just say for the sake of argument that this is like the investigative stage of a criminal investigation...That being the case it is also the right of the accused in these cases NOT to cooperate with investigators too, and that is NOT obstruction....

You people are making the charge, now you have to prove it....

That might be true if it weren't for that pesky little law called Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy. And you are right, the Accused does not have to cooperate but others do. And to instruct others not to cooperate and they follow that "Advice" makes them liable for the Obstruction of Justice and Conspiracy charges which can be easily proven. While Rump may not be bagged for that, himself, his merry band of criminals will be. And that is why so many are rolling over.

As the President, Rump gets a whole new set of rules. And, I know you think he doesn't have any rules, but he is barred by law to use his office for his own personal gain. That includes obstructing any investigation into him or his actions. He's protected against prosecution as long as he's President but what an Impeachment Trial is all about is to whether he remains President or not. If he is removed from office, all the charges can be or might be totaled up by the next President's Justice Department and Rump may be in serious trouble. Rump had better damn well pray that Biden doesn't become President in 2021. The way Rump has treated Biden, if I were Biden, Rump would be behind bars so fast and so long that you would have plenty of time to forget his name. What Rump doesn't understand is, be careful how you treat your possible replacement because you will be treated at least as unfairly as you treated them. It also WILL happen in 2024 as well so the day of reckoning is coming. We just don't know the exact date.

Well, that's just stupid....No president has ever prosecuted a former president, and that won't change now no matter how much he triggers you....

Look, the POTUS has an absolute right to have his people around him, give him counsel, and speak freely. It's called executive privilage. Without it no one could do that job...

You little snots think that because you hate Trump, you have some special right to control what he does, and who he speaks with...You're wrong period.

 

[j-mac]

We both know the reason they did this and that was to deny the minority the ability to subpeona

Yeah....so? Welcome to hardball.

Just for liberals like you, I hope in the future we crush you people...You're dangerous to a free society.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look, the POTUS has an absolute right to have his people around him, give him counsel, and speak freely.

Absolutely. And everyone else has a right to point out their unethical behavior. And congress has the right to investigate possible criminal behavior.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just for liberals like you, I hope in the future we crush you people

Oh, I know. You're a nauseating little weasel who dehumanizes people who dont share his superstitions. Good for you. Say it loud and proud, you fucking crybaby. You're whining is music to my ears.

 

[j-mac]

Look, the POTUS has an absolute right to have his people around him, give him counsel, and speak freely.

Absolutely. And everyone else has a right to point out their unethical behavior. And congress has the right to investigate possible criminal behavior.

If there is such, but you don't have the right to make it up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Look, the POTUS has an absolute right to have his people around him, give him counsel, and speak freely.

Absolutely. And everyone else has a right to point out their unethical behavior. And congress has the right to investigate possible criminal behavior.

If there is such, but you don't have the right to make it up.

No need to make it up. You can literally step outside and see it.