The debate "Congress Does Not Have Illimitable Subpeana Power" was started by
December 5, 2019, 5:08 pm.
By the way, jrardin12 is disagreeing with this statement.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 13 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
jrardin12 posted 7 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 20 arguments, Nemiroff posted 7 arguments to the disagreers part.
TheExistentialist, Bnice80 and 6 visitors agree.
jrardin12, Nemiroff and 11 visitors disagree.
Articles of impeachment are formal charges. You're using conjecture to try and make a point that's already been disproven.
You're being intellectually very dishonest with your arguments.
"I want to get back to subpeanas.... Trump has the right to take Subpeanas to Court"
if they pertain to him and him alone. However, he's trying to exert executive privilege to prevent members of his administration to testify when executive privilege does not extend to impeachment inquiries (this was already decided during the Nixon and Clinton impeachments).
"Clinton and Nixon both were allowed to defend themselves in the House with legal representation."
You're either very uneducated on the topic or very dishonest in your points.
As was the case in both Nixon and Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, when the process moves to the Judiciary Committee, Trump’s lawyers will be able to cross-examine and suggest witnesses and present a formal defense.
TRUMP DECLINED TO HAVE LAWYERS PRESENT. Trump was afforded the exact same opportunities as Nixon and Clinton but CHOSE not to exercise them. You can't blame dems when Trump decides to not send his lawyers.
Why are you being dishonest about this point?
Lol you are a broken record who argues in bad faith.
we know that Nixon did not present a defense because he resigned before being impeached... so your already wrong.
can you name the date or show a news article of bill Clinton presenting his defense on Congress? if not, you concede.
please. any evidence.
when did either clinton or nixon defend themselves in the house? please provide any form of reference because i think your making this up.
Why shouldn't Trump?
Clinton and Nixon both were allowed to defend themselves in the House with legal representation.
I want to get back to subpeanas, because that is what this is about. Congress can issue subpeanas, but Trump has the right to take Subpeanas to Court. If Trump takes subpeanas to Court, it is in no way obstruction of justice.
making stuff up again?
I am sorry, but the Dems have already been charging Trump. Also Trump is first President to not be able to defend himself in the House.
"That Grand Jury isn't a part of the process."
"Oh Grand Jury is now in the Constitution."
I don't know if you're purposely misinterpreting @Nemiroff or just not well versed enough on the subject to understand the fact that he was making an analogy.
The impeachment inquiry and drafting of articles that happens in the house is essentially the same as a prosecutor presenting evidence to a grand jury to see what charges can be filed. So think of the house portion of the process as an investigation taking place, evidence being gathered, and charges being filed.
The senate part of the impeachment process is where the trial occurs, more witnesses will be called, etc.... Trump should know this, but purposely used the ignorance of his supporters to make the false claim that he's somehow being treated unfairly. If Trump's supporters understood the impeachment process at all they'd see how nonsensical his argument about fairness is.
Furthermore, Trump had GOP members of congress arguing on his behalf which is much more than any criminal gets during the investigation/grand jury portion of an indictment. He was also invited to send his lawyers to hearings (which he declined). During a regular indictment, the defendant doesn't get any representation during the investigation/grand jury portions. So if anything, Trump is being afforded a greater degree of representation than any regular criminal proceeding.
It's pretty clear that you don't understand the impeachment process and are just doing off on tangents rather than actually discussing the Topic.
1st. Executive privilege
The Supreme Court has never held that executive privilege applies in the impeachment context. Instead, it created the privilege in the context of a dispute about discovery of communications between President Nixon and White House advisors in a criminal case not aimed at Nixon himself, but at his advisors and campaign staff.
"The Nixon Court suggested that information damaging to our national security provides a stronger case for confidentiality than other kinds of material. But the Framers established impeachment, in part, to prevent a President beholden to a foreign power from remaining in office. In other words, it was designed to protect our national security from a disloyal President, even one who commits treason. Therefore, the need for the material necessary to resolve an impeachment inquiry must take priority over other information that might in some way temporarily damage our national security."
"Obviously, they didn't put subpeanas in the Constitution."
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference".
"So Trump can't go to court over the subpoenas?"
He can; but since he's violating established legal precedent it can be considered an obstruction of congress if he's found to be fighting discoveries of evidence to impede the investigation.
"Trump and any other citizen can and should be able to defend themselves. Trump isn't allowed to defend himself until Impeachment gets to the Senate?"
That's exactly the process that's laid out in the constitution. This is the exact same thing that happened during Clinton, Nixon, and Andrew Johnson's impeachment. This time, however, the house actually allowed Trump a lawyer present during the Judiciary hearings. Trump declined to have representation.
His main argument was that the impeachment was just, necessary, within the scope of congress, and merited. However, his only real objection was that the evidence so far did not necessarily merit articles to be drafted yet and that the process was moving too fast. His main argument was essentially that congress should play along with the Trump stall tactics and play this out until the election.
I'm not an American so I'm not really following the impeachment news. But I've read the constitution and how the process works. Since you had quite a few clear misconceptions I was curious if it was USA's infamous media bubbles at fault. Seems like you don't consume a diverse range of media so I'd say I was right.
But just so you know, the impeachement process is not in the criminal court system, it doesn't abide by the same standard of evidence as a criminal court. Its just the removal of an official from office so it doesn't follow the "beyond reasonable doubt" but instead "clear and convincing evidence" for the house and its unclear for the senate. You also said something about representation. The articles of impeachement initiate the impeachment process. The charges Donald trump needs to defend agaisnt are in the articles of impeachment, and theyre still being drafted. It really sounded like you were suggesting he should have been defending himself while they were gathering evidence to determine what to charge him with. That's not how any system works anywhere, except when there is corruption.
Mark Levin, Breitbart, Jonathan Turley. How about you?
This is an unrelated question to your discussion. But I'm curious: where do you get your information about the impeachment process from?
Oh Grand Jury is now in the Constitution.
go read the damn constitution. every word you type is dishonest avoidance and nonsense lies.
That Grand Jury isn't a part of the process.
you were comparing trump impeachment to Clinton and Nixon, and their rights to a defense. can you point out any differences? of course not.
what does not a criminal "process" mean? impeachment and the following trial removes someone from office, it doesn't put them in jail. so yeah.
as usual, wtf are you talking about.
I rest my case that the House has said it is not a criminal process.
i rest my case.
how do you make a defense before the charges are formally filed?
at what point during the impeachment process did they first able to get representation?
They were able to get representation.
what rights did clinton and Nixon get that trump did not?
Hey, Neimrof of Grand Jury. The House Judiciary Report says that impeachment is not a criminal process. Also Clinton and Nixon both had basic legal rights, but not Trump. So away with your stupid Grand Jury Claim.
Biden would be a great president to impeach.
And the Republican Congress should issue a bunch of subpeanas waiving around Pelosi and Nadler talking points. That would be awesome.
Next Dem President Must be Impeached by Republican Congress
And I disagree with your subjective opinion. As well as half of America.
that is your subjective opinion. i disagree.
Well obviously there is not enough evidence to hold a trial.
a grand jury is not a trial. it is before a trial. it is to decide if there is enough evidence to hold a trial.
if there is enough evidence to have a trial, you can try to counter that evidence at the trial. this is an indictment, not yet a prosecution. look up the definition of these terms to avoid confusion.
Huh? If you are accused of a crime you can't get a defense?
no criminal presents a defense in front of a grand jury. the law works the same for all defendants, rich or poor, powerful or powerless.
Trump and any other citizen can and should be able to defend themselves. Trump isn't allowed to defend himself until Impeachment gets to the Senate? What kind of due process is that?
I know that too. But he can challenge supoenas in court.
the trial, where he can make his defense happens in the senate. go read the constitution.
Trump is being denied basic due process rights.
And that is what is going on in Congress (House of Representatives) right now. I repeat mobocracy.
The Founding Father's were just as concerned of mobocracy as monarchy.
The Constitution didn't create an all powerful Congress.
So Trump can't go to court over the subpoenas? That is all he is doing.
why do you say it is obvious? you didn't know that impeachment as per the constitution has to be done by Congress and not (as you claimed) "by the courts".
it is clear you are not an authority on the constitution. so your claim the are not constitutional falls flat. the constitution gave Congress the authority to investigate the president, so that is what they are doing.
if you are claiming the forefathers made Congress the body that regulates the president, but then allowed the president to shrug them off, which is idiotic, you are calling the forefathers idiots.
I don't think they are idiots. They created a Separation of Powers. Obviously, they didn't put subpeanas in the Constitution.
also, my feelings about the forefathers do not answer why you think they are idiots.
to me they are racist white men? when did i say this?
Note, you said that Nixon had to turn over the tapes after he went to court. Trump is doing the same. If Congress wants witnesses and documents. Take the Executive to Court.
First off, why do you care about the Founding Father's? To you they are racist old white men. Second, the Congress has the power to impeach, but not to Subpeana.
Not to mention that the courts have already ruled on this. The president is not above the law. He does have to comply with subpoenas. If they didn't Nixon wouldn't have turned over the tapes that showed his guilt.
so your saying that the body our forefathers created to hold the president accountable was not given the power to hold the president accountable?
do you think the forefathers were stupid?
They can use Subpeana power, but the president doesn't have to comply. There is executive privilege.
No one has ever claimed it does. They do however have the power, and responsibility, to provide oversight of the executive branch. Which means they most certainly can, and must, use their subpoena power to carry out this duty.