Rudy Stands His Ground Says Eff You to Democrats

[BlindBoo]

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

Is the House impeachment inquiry illegitimate? Three questions.

“The impeachment process may be initiated as the result of various actions and events, including the receipt and referral of information from an outside source, investigations by congressional committees under their general authority, or the introduction of articles of impeachment in the form of a House resolution,” says a Congressional Research Service overview of current House impeachment rules.

Here the Congressional Research Service overview

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45769.pdf

And the current House rules themselves.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The investigations are valid and the subpoenas are valid as well.

 

[depotoo]

The Republicans are being hoist by their own petard:

GOP set to strengthen committee chairmen's subpoena power

House Republicans are about to give more of their committee leaders the same unilateral subpoena power that former Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa wielded against the Obama administration in his probes into the Internal Revenue Service and “Fast and Furious.”

The change means that, in a break from years of tradition, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) wouldn’t need to consult with his panel’s top Democrat before subpoenaing documents or witnesses about issues like Obamacare or the Environmental Protection Agency. The GOP is also proposing similar boosts in authority for Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), whose panel’s jurisdiction includes the Dodd-Frank financial regulations law, and for Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who will oversee any probes into immigration.

Two other panels — Agriculture and Science, Space and Technology — are considering making the same change. And in a similar move, the House passed a rules package last week that gave the energy, science, finance and Ways and Means committees the power to let their counsels hold depositions in private.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...32e1de-5638-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html
The reason, in part, is that Congress relies on the very Justice Department it is pursuing to prosecute the contempt citation.

And the Justice Department has, in the past, simply declined to do so.

 

[BlindBoo]

Fascism always begins as a majority placing people in power they did not fully understand.
And that is EXACTLY what Democrats are doing with allowing leftist to take over the party.

The Nazi's never won much more than 30% of the German vote. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

 

[bullwinkle]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

Actually, Rudy may be standing his ground on Riker's Island.

 

[BlindBoo]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

Holder was also held in contempt of Congress.

For withholding documents.

 

[jc456]

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

U.S. Congress List of Commitees - GovTrack.us

Judiciary
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its role in impeachment ..

The House Rules are what govern the actions of the House, not GovTrack.us Is there anything in the Constitution requiring a Formal Impeachment Inquiry or defining how that inquiry is to be set up before the Committees subpoenas are considered legal under the Trumpian doctrine of obstruction at all cost?

nope, but we base our policy and rules based on precedence. you should read up.

 

[jc456]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

did you look it up?

 

[jc456]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

he did?

hmm
Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

 

[jc456]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

Actually, Rudy may be standing his ground on Riker's Island.

Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

 

[kyzr]

We believe that as per the past two precedents, that it takes a full House vote to launch a proper impeachment inquiry.

Those were not rule setting precedents. Under the House rules at the time they had to vote to give any committee subpoena power.

Well there is a serious disagreement on what it takes to launch a legal impeachment inquiry.
The Republicans say nothing happens w/o a full House vote.
The Democrats say the current impeachment inquiry is legal. Who is right?
Let the courts decide, or have Nancy do a full House vote to launch the impeachment inquiry, WTF is the problem?
Currently the House and Senate are in total disagreement, so the voters will decide in 2020.

The Trump herd is tossing out delaying tactics which have no merit. As soon as one is batted down, they will toss out six more.

All Nancy has to do to prove the GOP wrong is call a full House vote. WTF is the problem? Call the GOP's "bluff".
If the GOP finds new issues then I'd say you are correct.
But if the House vote triggers a legal impeachment inquiry the current fight is over.

 

[g5000]

We believe that as per the past two precedents, that it takes a full House vote to launch a proper impeachment inquiry.

Those were not rule setting precedents. Under the House rules at the time they had to vote to give any committee subpoena power.

Well there is a serious disagreement on what it takes to launch a legal impeachment inquiry.
The Republicans say nothing happens w/o a full House vote.
The Democrats say the current impeachment inquiry is legal. Who is right?
Let the courts decide, or have Nancy do a full House vote to launch the impeachment inquiry, WTF is the problem?
Currently the House and Senate are in total disagreement, so the voters will decide in 2020.

The Trump herd is tossing out delaying tactics which have no merit. As soon as one is batted down, they will toss out six more.

All Nancy has to do to prove the GOP wrong is call a full House vote. WTF is the problem? Call the GOP's "bluff".
If the GOP finds new issues then I'd say you are correct.
But if the House vote triggers a legal impeachment inquiry the current fight is over.

Pelosi does not have to the GOP's tune. They don't get to call the plays. She's making them eat a big bowl of karma.

 

[B. Kidd]

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.

Presidential Impeachment: The Legal Standard and Procedure - FindLaw

But in the current case of a Soviet-style setup, Dems have centered it in the Intelligence Committee.

 

[BlindBoo]

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

U.S. Congress List of Commitees - GovTrack.us

Judiciary
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its role in impeachment ..

The House Rules are what govern the actions of the House, not GovTrack.us Is there anything in the Constitution requiring a Formal Impeachment Inquiry or defining how that inquiry is to be set up before the Committees subpoenas are considered legal under the Trumpian doctrine of obstruction at all cost?

nope, but we base our policy and rules based on precedence. you should read up.

The precedent is that the House sets it's operating rules by majority vote at the beginning of the session.

 

[jc456]

the left always tuck and run in here. too funny. I supposed when all is lost, it isn't a bad move. humiliation sets in.

 

[jc456]

Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives.

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

U.S. Congress List of Commitees - GovTrack.us

Judiciary
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its role in impeachment ..

The House Rules are what govern the actions of the House, not GovTrack.us Is there anything in the Constitution requiring a Formal Impeachment Inquiry or defining how that inquiry is to be set up before the Committees subpoenas are considered legal under the Trumpian doctrine of obstruction at all cost?

nope, but we base our policy and rules based on precedence. you should read up.

The precedent is that the House sets it's operating rules by majority vote at the beginning of the session.

post that.

 

[BlindBoo]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

did you look it up?

No. I remember him testifying to Congress a lot and I don't remember him refusing to go before Congress. He might have, but certainly there was no blanket immunity claim ever made by the Obama White House.

 

[jc456]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

did you look it up?

No. I remember him testifying to Congress a lot and I don't remember him refusing to go before Congress. He might have, but certainly there was no blanket immunity claim ever made by the Obama White House.

I posted it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

he did?

hmm
Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

Yes. Didn't read this part didya?

"However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation."

He had to turn them over.

 

[depotoo]

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

did you look it up?

No. I remember him testifying to Congress a lot and I don't remember him refusing to go before Congress. He might have, but certainly there was no blanket immunity claim ever made by the Obama White House.

I posted it.

Facts, schmacts, eh, they don’t care.

 

[BlindBoo]

Point out the rule that says that.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

The only reason to have a special vote in previous inquiries is because that is how the House use to grant subpoena power to the various committees doing investigations. In their zeal to investigate Obama, in 2015 the Republicans changed the rules to grant some of the committee chairs the outright power of subpoena. No rights to the minority. No transparency.

Now the Trumpublicans sound just like the Democrats in 2015.

U.S. Congress List of Commitees - GovTrack.us

Judiciary
The Committee on the Judiciary has jurisdiction over matters relating to the administration of justice in federal courts, administrative bodies, and law enforcement agencies. Its role in impeachment ..

The House Rules are what govern the actions of the House, not GovTrack.us Is there anything in the Constitution requiring a Formal Impeachment Inquiry or defining how that inquiry is to be set up before the Committees subpoenas are considered legal under the Trumpian doctrine of obstruction at all cost?

nope, but we base our policy and rules based on precedence. you should read up.

The precedent is that the House sets it's operating rules by majority vote at the beginning of the session.

post that.

Post what? The current House Rules have already been posted.