News (FoxNews) White House announces it will not comply with 'illegitimate and unconstitutional' impeachment inquiry

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
Fuck that. If they get fired over following the law, then their bosses must be held accountable. "Just following orders" is a bull shit defense, also used by the SS.

Exactly, every federal employee is responsible for following the law. Your boss lying about what the law says is no defense.

If these individuals are given an illegal order they are oath bound to refuse. If they choose to violate their oath then they accept the consequences.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
I have my own copy, but thanks. Some items are not covered in the actual Constitution though, for those we have to depend on precedent and rulings in the Courts. Precedent says a vote must be taken on the floor and arrangements must be made with the Minority party in the House. So far those steps haven't been taken.
What part of "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" do you not understand?
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
Metaplaying sounds dangerous as hell.
Speaking for the rest of the world, we'd rather take another 4 years of a normal conservative than 1 more of Trump.
I don't want it too fast either, it'll make the dems look eager to take him down, it needs to be thoroughly invesitgated, get all the evidence mueller dug up, and you can bet he'll continue to keep incriminating himself and I wouldn't be suprised even more international leaders come forward saying trump pressured them on Biden.

I don't think a vote will come by the end of the year
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
136
I don't want it too fast either, it'll make the dems look eager to take him down, it needs to be thoroughly invesitgated, get all the evidence mueller dug up, and you can bet he'll continue to keep incriminating himself and I wouldn't be suprised even more international leaders come forward saying trump pressured them on Biden.

I don't think a vote will come by the end of the year

Agreed do the Benghazi thing. Investigation after investigation after investigation then pivot to email or in this case WhatsApp.
This should run until November 2020
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
What part of "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" do you not understand?

It's kind of funny that he doesn't seem to understand that the courts telling the House how it was to conduct impeachments would be an egregious violation of the separation of powers and therefore unconstitutional.

Amazing how these 'defenders of the Constitution' are perfectly happy to violate it any time it says something they don't like.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
I mean, I don't really want to see them *deliberately* drag it out until Election Day, but it would be both stupid and a dereliction of duty to not do a thorough inquiry. They should line up all the evidence that they can.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
11,347
2,709
136
I can see the admin trying it delay it as much as possible, I would bet they are of the mindset that if impeached but acquitted in senate they believe it will help them and the closer to the election the better
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
The administration isn't going to cooperate, and Republicans may not support him, but I really doubt they're going to get much involved in undoing the obstruction. This is just going to be strung along forever until either Democrats give up or take sufficient action against obstruction they force Congressional Republicans to either get on board or physically resist. Democrats need to decide if they have the resolve to fight should they need to and then start taking decisive action to force Republicans to stop passively enabling.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
Video from 1998 (00:52):

Originally Posted by Lindsay Graham
Article 3 of impeachment against Richard Nixon - the article was based on the idea that Richard Nixon, as president, 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 in that time said, "You are taking impeachment away from us. You're becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment, because to took the power from Congress - over the impeachment process - away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Well... in playing devils advocate, democrats had this coming. The Whitehouse refusal to cooperate, that is.
No big surprise.
Pelosi hands out subpoenas like StarBucks hands out espresso. But the real challenge is to get the Whitehouse to take them seriously, which they never will.
During Nixon, all of those Nixon Whitehouse employees including Nixon's lawyer appeared before the investigating committee.
Surely Nixon was not happy about that.
So, what did the committee investigating Watergate and Nixon do differently than Pelosi and her impeachment committee are doing?
Don't we have laws? Checks and balances? Protocol that must be followed?
Since when can any president or Whitehouse just say no?
I thought we had laws and a constitution disallowing any president to run amuck? But Trump is running amuck, and making it up as he goes along.
Seriously, there is nothing democrats in the house can do?
Republicans stand behind Donald Trump with also calling the investigation a witch hunt and illegitimate.
And they can get away with that?
Sounds like the coup has concluded, and Donald trump is now King Dictator.
Someone please call Nancy Pelosi. Nancy can save all that paper used issuing subpoenas, and wall-paper the house chamber.
That would be kinda fun. Ignored unless house subpoenas plastered all over the walls of congress. Something for the tourist to read since the Whitehouse isn't reading any of them.

"The process was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803 "
"
House - 02/06/1974 Measure passed House, roll call #21 (410-4). (All Actions)
Roll Call Votes:There has been 1 roll call vote"


full house vote is the precedent you're looking for.

 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Hey Republican posters. Call out ya boys for abusing their executive powers for the purpose of keeping oversight away from both the justice system and Congress at the same time. It's obvious the executive shouldn't be unable to be investigated. It's obvious there is cause for investigation.
Hey Democrat posters. Call out ya girls to actually observe the rules of the Constitution and to adhere to impeachment precedent and due process for a change and to stop abusing their limited powers.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
This is not the impeachment, this in the inquiry which preceeds it. Sondland wasn't subpoeaned but those are forthcoming. Nixon didn't have to wait 13 months BTW. So I assume you expect Trump to tell the SCOTUS where to go, and that's possible.

So at that point the impeachment and then trial go on and the Reps will have to support Trump or in effect declare himself above them too. Oh, the Chief Justice presides at the Senate, not Pence, during the trial and Mitch will have to face worse than Putin from a perspective of power.
I expect the House to follow precedent and to give the minority party the same powers they were given in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
7,017
8,545
136
From Fox News:

Originally Posted by Joseph diGenova
...what you’re seeing is regicide. This is regicide by another name: fake impeachment.

Holy fuck! Members of the Republican Party - as in the party of, one might think, republicanism - are now saying trying to impeach the President is "regicide"?!?

Gee, maybe we should have a Revolution -- we could publish some kind of revolutionary manifesto, then ordain a new Constitution in the name of the people to establish this country as a Republic; we could even have some kind of Bill of Rights!

Down with the King!(Any King) Long live the Republic.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Yes, no games in a national emergency. If he can be removed at any time we take it.

Putting country before party also means Democrats need to risk losing the next election if that’s what it takes.
You're been putting Party before this country since Nov. 10th 2016.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Hey Democrat posters. Call out ya girls to actually observe the rules of the Constitution and to adhere to impeachment precedent and due process for a change and to stop abusing their limited powers.

Why be so dishonest? There is no Constitutional argument to be had against what is happening now. Precident? This isn't the Judiciary and McConnell has gone against this so called "precident" principle countless times. How can he do that? Because he's in charge of the Senate. Likewise the House has the absolute and sole say in impeachment and Pelosi is the House leader. I don't like Mitch, you dont like Pelosi but that's too bad for both of us then.

You can of course advocate for what you would like but there is no basis in your clames to make them legitimate or binding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jackstar7

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
I expect the House to follow precedent and to give the minority party the same powers they were given in the Nixon and Clinton impeachments.


Since there's no basis in law or Constitution, nor in how the House conducts its business then you are going to be sorely dissapointed. BTW, I don't see equal concern for Mitch denying Obama's picks, nor #MoscowMitch for shutting down legislation even when it provides for the security of our elections.

Your dog don't hunt.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
What part of precedent and Court rulings don't you understand?
U.S v Nixon did *not* say that the House was obligated to hold a vote to start a formal impeachment inquiry. And how could it? Such a ruling would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Bottom line:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,728
2,075
136
Since there's no basis in law or Constitution, nor in how the House conducts its business then you are going to be sorely dissapointed. BTW, I don't see equal concern for Mitch denying Obama's picks, nor #MoscowMitch for shutting down legislation even when it provides for the security of our elections.

Your dog don't hunt.
I'm happy to wait and see how it plays out. #ZombiePelosi is going to have to hold a floor vote sooner rather than later.
 

ewdotson

Golden Member
Oct 30, 2011
1,295
1,520
136
Oh, and allow me to reiterate something that I think I said elsewhere: I don't actually have a problem with someone arguing that Pelosi *should* hold a full House vote on opening a formal impeachment inquiry. While there are good reasons she hasn't, I get the appeal.

I'm just objecting here to the idea that she's *obligated* to and that the lack of a vote somehow makes the inquiry extraconstitutional. *That* is prima facie ludicrous.