Quote from: Viper1 on December 04, 2019, 12:46:48 PM

Quote from: TECSHARE on November 15, 2019, 08:02:52 AM

Of course you can't even produce a document even resembling a subpoena from The House regarding impeachment before October 31st 2019.

DOD letter of the 22nd bitching about her subpoena...
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

Her subpoena, dated Oct 21st for her to show up on the 23rd. Just so you don't miss that, that was before that 31st requirement you magically added one day in order to give yourself more "outs".
https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.23.Cooper-subpoena.pdf

Her transcript from her deposition on the 23rd.
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D012.pdf

Can you shut up now about subpoenas? I'm sure though that you'll come up with some new bullshit issue about it all.

Good job, you can re-present information already presented. This discussion was always about executive branch subpoenas and their validity. You go ahead and use your topic sliding to call it an "out" if you like. I was very specific because you are extremely predictable and I know you would pull some tertiary bullshit like this out and claim it is proof. You think they are different than "legal subpoenas" anyway, so I am not too worried about your expert criticism no matter how much you and your entourage stroke each other off.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 24, 2019, 06:26:22 AM

Quote from: Viper1 on October 23, 2019, 11:15:40 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 23, 2019, 07:52:57 AM

Quote from: Viper1 on October 19, 2019, 12:53:21 AM

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas.

Really? Looks pretty clear to me you are saying congressional subpoenas are not legal subpoenas.

Quote from: Viper1 on October 19, 2019, 12:53:21 AM

Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas. His argument is that they don't have the "force of law". Which would be correct except they have the "force of the constitution".

Cherry picking one line is just lame on your part. It was in reference to the entire debate that had been going on and as you can see, I had more to say on it and I've cut out all the rest.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you have a damn hard time actually putting your arguments into any sort of coherent form which makes it very difficult to have any sort of rational debate with you.

What subpoena from an impeachment did you post that you say I had provided a site for? I provided info on an investigation into bengazi, not an impeachment.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 12:21:21 PM

The premise is that the subpoenas had force of law because they originated from a criminal investigation, making the comparison illegitimate. A crime is not required, but in order for a subpoena to exist, it must have the force of law including a penalty for defying it, which requires a vote in the house, or in Nixon's case a criminal investigation from which to issue the subpoena, the violation of which having legal penalty was the basis of that article of impeachment. In Trumps case there is neither a crime to base a subpoena on, nor a house vote, making them not legally even subpoenas.

I suggest you go and read some of the actual government documents etc I've previously posted. The republicans changed the rules and no vote or anything like that is required for them to open up an investigation and issue subpoenas with the "force of law" behind them as you say. I feel like you're so stuck on this that I should throw you a bone for something you could actually argue about them.

As for you claiming the court case I posted aren't valid. That's your opinion although since any discussion of the power of those subpoenas includes those cases I'd say you're wrong. But if you were right, then I guess since all the court cases the WH put in their letter have nothing to do with impeachment either, then they don't apply. Thus, their arguments and yours are invalid and they should be complying with the subpoenas.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 13, 2019, 12:21:21 PM

No The White House doesn't acknowledge they are subpoenas.

"The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case...". Complaining that Republicans haven't been given the power is an implicit admission that the other side has the power to issue subpoenas. Course that entire thing is false as well since they can, except that the committee has to vote and the majority (Democrats) could vote it down. They're only complaining that they can't issue them on their own.

As you posted yourself "without any legal basis and before the Committee even issued a subpoena---" Looks to me like they recognize them as subpoenas as they used a past tense to say that they have issued subpoenas.

And elsewhere regarding what they had received "it transmits a subpoena". Once again, they recognize them as subpoenas.

No where do they argue that they aren't valid subpoenas. They argue about "precedent". They argue that it's not in the legislative sphere. They argue that there's no due process (as I pointed out, since you think the cases I posted don't apply, then that same thing can be said about theirs). All of that stuff is just bogus and is only in there to force a court case that would draw everything out which they could then use to bolster the other argument in that letter that "impeachment" should be handled in the next election. But in that letter they didn't invoke executive privilege which I find odd. In that case, Pelosi etc know they would need to have a vote in order to strengthen they're case for their subpoenas in regards to executive privilege. Makes me think they don't actually want the vote so they can carry on using the argument to leave people with the impression he's being railroaded. Makes sense I suppose.

Just because you said other things doesn't mean you didn't say "Their subpoenas are different. i.e. they're not the same as a legal subpoenas."

That's not cherry picking, that's called a quote. You literally claimed congressional subpoenas are not "legal subpoenas". This quote is important because it shows your total ignorance of law. They are in fact issued in different ways, but they still have the same basic requirements to have legal effect, and they are both still very much legal documents.

You are correct that was a subpoena issued by The Congressional Committee On Oversight and Government Reform related to Hillary Clinton's private server, not an impeachment, still it was an example of an actual subpoena you yourself provided issued from congress itself as you are arguing was done in the case of Trump.

Here is the subpoena issued to Monica Lewinsky during the Bill Clinton impeachment for good measure and comparison: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc3-14-4.pdf

This is an actual subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/(70)%20Chaffetz%20Subpoena%20to%20Pagliano%2009-16-2016.pdf

This is NOT a subpoena: https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/documents/2019-09-27.EEC%20Engel%20Schiff%20%20to%20Pompeo-%20State%20re%20Document%20Subpoena.pdf

You will notice one has very distinctive legal terminology fitting specific legal requirements to make it an actionable legal document, and one does not.

here are the requirements for a subpoena to be actionable: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

Very clearly the recent so called "subpoenas" issued to Trump and other related officials regarding his impeachment DO NOT meet these basic foundational legal requirements.

The house COULD in fact issue actual subpoenas, but they have not. If they did however it would largely be a moot point, because as I explained before the legislative and executive branches are constitutionally of equal authority because of the separation of powers of the three branches of government. The office of the president can simply exercise executive privilege and not comply with any subpoenas issued unless the issuing party can demonstrate it falls outside of executive privilege. Of course Nancy Pelosi could simply call a vote to officially engage in an impeachment investigation and severely limit the executive privilege of the office of the president, but she won't do that, because it would allow the president to present his own evidence which would implicate many influential people in the Democrat party in exactly the type of corruption they are attempting to frame Trump for.

"The recipient of a duly issued and valid congressional subpoena has a legal obligation to comply, absent a valid and overriding privilege or other legal justification. But the subpoena is only as effective as the means by which it may be enforced. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or deter non-compliance, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information."

"Summary" Page 2: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf

"Executive Privilege

The use of some contempt procedures against an executive branch official invoking executive privilege at the direction of the President could be viewed as frustrating the Presidents ability to protect the confidentiality of his communicationsa protection rooted in the separation of powers.(172) In general, executive privilege is an implied legal doctrine that permits the executive branch to to resist disclosure of information the confidentiality of which [is] crucial to fulfillment of the unique role and responsibilities of the executive branch of our government.(173) Because past subpoena enforcement disputes between Congress and the executive branch have involved such assertions, it is necessary to outline briefly executive privileges general contours. The Supreme Court has only rarely addressed executive privilege, but its most significant explanation of the doctrine came in the unanimous opinion of United States v. Nixon.(174) Nixon involved the Presidents assertion of executive privilege in refusing to comply with a criminal trial subpoenaissued upon the request of a special prosecutorfor electronic recordings of conversations he had in the Oval Office with White House advisers.(175) The Courts opinion recognized an implied constitutional privilege protecting presidential communications, holding that the privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications is fundamental to the operation of Government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers.(176) The justification underlying the privilege related to the integrity of presidential decision making, with the Court reasoning that the importance of protecting a Presidents communications with his advisers was too plain to require further discussion, as [h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process.(177) Even so,the Court determined that when the President asserts only a generalized interest in the confidentiality of his communications,that interest must be weighed against the need for

disclosure in the given case.(178) In conducting that balancing, the Court held that the Presidents generalized assertion of privilege cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice, and thereforemust yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.(179) The Nixon opinion (180) established three key characteristics of executive privilege, at least as it relates to presidential communications. First, the Court expressly rejected the assertion that the privilege was absolute. Instead, the Court found the privilege to be qualified, requiring that it be assessed in a way that balances competing interests and preserves the essential functions of each branch.(181) Second, to protect the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in presidential decision making, the Court viewed confidential presidential communications as presumptively privileged.(182) As a result, the Court appeared to suggest that some degree of deference is due to a Presidents initial determination that certain information is protected by the privilege.(183) Moreover, the burden would appear to be on the party seeking the information to overcome that presumption through a strong showing of need for the information.(184) Third, the Court viewed the privilege as limited to communications made in performance of [a Presidents] responsibilities,of his office, and made in the process of shaping policies and making decisions. . . .(185) Thus, the privilege does not appear to apply to all presidential communications. "

(I added selected bold)

Pages 20-21: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf

As you can see, the only reason the subpoenas were enforceable against Nixon was the fact that the subpoenas were issued in relation to a criminal trial, otherwise he would have been able to exercise his executive privilege to not comply with them. This is what I was arguing a while ago, but the peanut gallery here insisted on making some retarded argument about impeachment not being a criminal proceeding to distract from this documented precedent.

"In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries.11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater. "

Page 4: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf

Didn't you just get done ridiculing me for "cherry picking" because I quoted you? Clearly they are explicitly saying they DO NOT have the constitutional authority to issue subpoenas without also providing that same authority to the minority via a vote to engage in an official impeachment investigation. Sure they can call a bag of rocks an "impeachment investigation", but in order for them to exercise the issuing of constitutional and legally enforceable subpoenas, a vote is in fact required.

"As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena-that "[ a ]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of obstruction."12 Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld. 13"

You have severe reading comprehension problems in addition to your cherry picking. They are clearly stating that these letters were issued before any subpoenas were even produced. They are in no way validating the requests for information as actionable subpoenas.

Quote from: Viper1 on October 23, 2019, 11:15:40 AM

No where do they argue that they aren't valid subpoenas. They argue about "precedent". They argue that it's not in the legislative sphere. They argue that there's no due process (as I pointed out, since you think the cases I posted don't apply, then that same thing can be said about theirs). All of that stuff is just bogus and is only in there to force a court case that would draw everything out which they could then use to bolster the other argument in that letter that "impeachment" should be handled in the next election. But in that letter they didn't invoke executive privilege which I find odd. In that case, Pelosi etc know they would need to have a vote in order to strengthen they're case for their subpoenas in regards to executive privilege. Makes me think they don't actually want the vote so they can carry on using the argument to leave people with the impression he's being railroaded. Makes sense I suppose.

Here you are literally just pulling a string of unsupported baseless assertions directly from your ass. Your cases don't apply because they are unrelated to impeachment and the adversarial legal situation between the executive and legislative branches. Essentially you are arguing a manager from McDonald's can write up a cashier at Burger King. It makes no sense. They are not even in the same arenas. The precedent they address in this document is DIRECTLY addressing precedent set in past impeachment processes. They didn't have to invoke executive privilege because IT WASN'T AN ACTUAL SUBPOENA. They could have literally not even responded and they would have legally been able to do NOTHING about it, because it was nothing more than a request. No one is preventing Pelosi from calling a vote, so your argument that they aren't invoking executive privilege to prevent a vote is fucking retarded.

This was fun and all but you are kind of a moron and this is a waste of time because you don't have the capacity to understand anything I am presenting you. If anyone else thinks I am wrong and cares to continue on where Viper1 left off, feel free, and I will be happy to respond. Until then I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.