Quote from: TwitchySeal on October 12, 2019, 08:10:49 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 12, 2019, 07:58:32 AM

the Democrats are attempting to conduct an extralegal investigation outside the process established for impeachment in order to maintain their one sided investigation and prevent any defense from being presented. Why the fuck would Trump participate in this farce of an "investigation" completely outside of the law?

This is false.

The constitution gives the House the sole power of impeachment. It doesn't specify how Impeachment proceedings should be initiated and it certainly does not give the president the right to decide whether or not his own impeachment hearings are valid.

Trump took an oath to defend the constitution. By not complying with House oversight he is violating that oath and will rightfully get another impeachment article for doing so.

Lindsey Graham was right:

Article III of impeachment against Richard Nixon was based on the idea [he] 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 back at that time said, Youre taking impeachment away from us. Youre 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 that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.

Congress absolutely has oversight authority, but it does in fact specify how impeachment is initiated and processed, otherwise congress could simply unseat any sitting president any time they liked by inventing an inequitable process. The idea that there are no rules or protocols for impeachment is totally asinine and nonsensical. This authority exists within the protocol of law, it can't just be invented as they go along, this is not oversight, this is outside of their authority. The currently issued subpoenas have ZERO AUTHORITY under the law because they are issued OUTSIDE of this protocol, unlike the Nixon impeachment, which was a criminal proceeding, unlike the current investigation.

"Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations."

"The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach the president in question."

"Specifically, the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting jointly. If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote. (Alternatively, the full committee vote could be the first step in the process.) As described in the 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution, this approach balances maximum flexibility and bipartisanship."

"The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member."

"Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. The resolutions authorizing both the Nixon and Clinton impeachment proceedings granted the judiciary committee this authority."

"It is worth noting that in both 1974 and 1998 impeachment proceedings, the House judiciary committee voted to give the president procedural rights in the committees deliberations. The president and his counsel were invited to attend all executive session and open committee hearings, and the presidents counsel was entitled to cross-examine witnesses, make objections regarding the pertinence of evidence, respond to the evidence produced and even suggest additional evidence the committee should receive."

"The case of U.S. v. Nixonin which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutorwas decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt"

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

As you can see, the house is operating outside of its authority, and furthermore these actions are completely unprecedented in any previous impeachment proceedings. This is not due process, this is just more of the same endless and basel3ss politically motivated investigations.