The actually weird thing about Sondland is that he bought an incredibly politically important ambassadorship. Usually those sorts of positions only go to people who know what the fuck they're doing.
But the same can be said about every. single. position. in this administration
The administration was too foolish to know which ambassadorships were the ones you give to the foolish donors who actually want an ambassadorship for some bizarre reason I can never understand.
Abuse of diplomatic immunity like the wife who murdered someone in the UK during a hit and run then fled back to the US.
They need to start dishing out subpoenas. Post haste. Stop the voluntary deposition shit and get down and dirty. Let Sondland defy a lawful subpoena and then fine him for contempt. Money is the only language these jerks really speak.
They need to start dishing out subpoenas. Post haste. Stop the voluntary deposition shit and get down and dirty. Let Sondland defy a lawful subpoena and then fine him for contempt. Money is the only language these jerks really speak.
They already have been sending subpoenas out. They just subpoenaed the White House last Friday, along with others. You do have to try and get people to show up voluntarily first, then subpoena them if they refuse.
The part they're not doing is arresting them when they fail to comply with the subpoena.
Heavy fines daily is the best way to go in my opinion. All these ghouls joined the Trump administration so that they could steal as much money as possible anywhere they could.
Since getting richer is all any of them care about, attacking their money for failing to appear will probably be the most effective.
I believe Sondland wasn't subpoenaed right? He was going to come voluntarily? If so, next step is to subpoena and then challenge in the courts if they ignore again.
Until they subpoena they really don't have any recourse I believe.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
+35
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
The judge wants to punt and keep their hands clean for when there's a vacancy higher up in their Circuit.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
Marathon on
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
It's how the two most recent impeachments were handled, and so some people are trying to say its required. I personally don't really understand the calculus on skipping the vote, unless its to protect vulnerable Dems from voting until we have as solid a case as possible, but this would also affect any vulnerable Republicans.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
Your second statement is how I interpreted the judge's comments.
I assume they don't want to do that because that might be a vote that the GOP could effectively whip to make it a "partisan" investigation.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
Your second statement is how I interpreted the judge's comments.
I assume they don't want to do that because that might be a vote that the GOP could effectively whip to make it a "partisan" investigation.
Sure, but they’re screaming about how it’s a partisan investigation anyway. They’ll do it no matter what.
They aren’t really wrong, it is a partisan investigation...because the Republican Party has no desire to stand up to Trump and his rampant criminality.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
Your second statement is how I interpreted the judge's comments.
I assume they don't want to do that because that might be a vote that the GOP could effectively whip to make it a "partisan" investigation.
Sure, but they’re screaming about how it’s a partisan investigation anyway. They’ll do it no matter what.
They aren’t really wrong, it is a partisan investigation...because the Republican Party has no desire to stand up to Trump and his rampant criminality.
They don't need to do it because nothing says they need to do it. Holding one is ceding ground to the Republicans who will then find something else that's not written anywhere but they can spin to try and convince people is necessary.
You don't give in to the fuckmuppets, you shut them down.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
You don't want to hold a symbolic vote, because that sets the precedence for all future impeachments that a vote is required in the House. The vote happens after the investigation, not before. This is akin to the grand jury before a criminal trial. You don't start out asking the jurors if they want to proceed.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
You don't want to hold a symbolic vote, because that sets the precedence for all future impeachments that a vote is required in the House. The vote happens after the investigation, not before. This is akin to the grand jury before a criminal trial. You don't start out asking the jurors if they want to proceed.
TLDR a Washington Post-Schar School poll found 58% of Americans say the House was correct to undertake the inquiry. 49% - of all respondents, not just those that support the inquiry - say the House should impeach the president and call for his removal from office.
But support isn't just up, opposition of the inquiry is down to 38%.
The more this stays in the news, the more support it gets.
WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY FORESEEN THIS?
+21
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
They need to start dishing out subpoenas. Post haste. Stop the voluntary deposition shit and get down and dirty. Let Sondland defy a lawful subpoena and then fine him for contempt. Money is the only language these jerks really speak.
They already have been sending subpoenas out. They just subpoenaed the White House last Friday, along with others. You do have to try and get people to show up voluntarily first, then subpoena them if they refuse.
The part they're not doing is arresting them when they fail to comply with the subpoena.
I'm not aware of any law requiring they ask nicely before subpoena and the official GOP position is that these calls to testify are illegitimate so pretty much everyone will initially refuse the request.
I also feel like not issuing subpoenas is playing into the administration's game that the demand is somehow a strong-arm tactic rather than legitimate legal procedure. Jury duty isn't optional either and failure to show up can incur penalties.
They need to start dishing out subpoenas. Post haste. Stop the voluntary deposition shit and get down and dirty. Let Sondland defy a lawful subpoena and then fine him for contempt. Money is the only language these jerks really speak.
They already have been sending subpoenas out. They just subpoenaed the White House last Friday, along with others. You do have to try and get people to show up voluntarily first, then subpoena them if they refuse.
The part they're not doing is arresting them when they fail to comply with the subpoena.
I'm not aware of any law requiring they ask nicely before subpoena and the official GOP position is that these calls to testify are illegitimate so pretty much everyone will initially refuse the request.
I also feel like not issuing subpoenas is playing into the administration's game that the demand is somehow a strong-arm tactic rather than legitimate legal procedure. Jury duty isn't optional either and failure to show up can incur penalties.
I never said it was a law, but this isn't a criminal procedure, and I think asking first before demanding plays nicer in the public sphere.
A Judge effectively ruling 'just give them what they want because it's easier' is severely fucked up, and also wrong even on the metric they themselves use. They're building roadblocks as they go. You take one down, they just build another. Capitulate to this one request, and another, seemingly easy, 'just do it so we can move on' roadblock will pop up. And another after that. And another again. This is exactly how they bully and browbeat people into getting what they want using the legal system, and the judiciary's eagerness to be exploited is extremely frustrating.
Also, as far as I can tell the Judge merely asked about it and did not require it. That is not a sign they support that argument, but it still needs to be addressed. Similar tea-leaf reading on judges also tends to be wrong; AFAIK judges actually tend to be harder on the side they expect to win as a sort of CYA against appeals, but it varies tremendously.
They need to start dishing out subpoenas. Post haste. Stop the voluntary deposition shit and get down and dirty. Let Sondland defy a lawful subpoena and then fine him for contempt. Money is the only language these jerks really speak.
They already have been sending subpoenas out. They just subpoenaed the White House last Friday, along with others. You do have to try and get people to show up voluntarily first, then subpoena them if they refuse.
The part they're not doing is arresting them when they fail to comply with the subpoena.
I'm not aware of any law requiring they ask nicely before subpoena and the official GOP position is that these calls to testify are illegitimate so pretty much everyone will initially refuse the request.
I also feel like not issuing subpoenas is playing into the administration's game that the demand is somehow a strong-arm tactic rather than legitimate legal procedure. Jury duty isn't optional either and failure to show up can incur penalties.
I never said it was a law, but this isn't a criminal procedure, and I think asking first before demanding plays nicer in the public sphere.
Disagree. The Republicans have proven themselves, over and over again, to be reacting to this entire matter in completely bad faith. It's one thing for the Democrats to want to appear to rise above the din, but it's another altogether to act as though procedural arguments put forward by Republicans are being made in anything but bad faith. When one group is shown to willfully violate unwritten norms left and right, the other should feel absolutely no obligation to adhere to another set of unwritten norms upon request. If no regulatory framework exists to which the Democrats need to adhere, then they need to proceed with utmost haste.
Republicans are to be treated as a hostile adversary. Civility and norms have been violated, the game has changed. Stop ceding ground and proceed justly, but firmly. Public opinion is showing itself to siding more and more towards the Democrats, do not cede ground when you're pushing the enemy back!
Democrats aren't acting in good faith hoping the GOP will. They're acting in good faith in case judges expect them to.
They're not doing any of this for the sake of norms, they're doing it to minimize the chances judges don't side with them.
Case in point, every other impeachment has had an "initialization vote" of some kind. This one didn't, and the judge pointed that out and asked about it. SHOULD the House have held that vote? Eh, maybe, before Trump and others hammered on the point. But definitely not now.
But the judge still asked. Because it's as close to a norm as we have wrt an impeachment proceeding (aka a step that is not codified but 'usually' taken).
Democrats aren't acting in good faith hoping the GOP will. They're acting in good faith in case judges expect them to.
They're not doing any of this for the sake of norms, they're doing it to minimize the chances judges don't side with them.
Case in point, every other impeachment has had an "initialization vote" of some kind. This one didn't, and the judge pointed that out and asked about it. SHOULD the House have held that vote? Eh, maybe, before Trump and others hammered on the point. But definitely not now.
But the judge still asked. Because it's as close to a norm as we have wrt an impeachment proceeding (aka a step that is not codified but 'usually' taken).
Wasnt that vote in the past in part to authorize the use of subpoenas? Someone mentioned that in the last thread I think that the house used to require committees get authorization to issue them for investigation and the rules have since changed.
Democrats aren't acting in good faith hoping the GOP will. They're acting in good faith in case judges expect them to.
They're not doing any of this for the sake of norms, they're doing it to minimize the chances judges don't side with them.
Case in point, every other impeachment has had an "initialization vote" of some kind. This one didn't, and the judge pointed that out and asked about it. SHOULD the House have held that vote? Eh, maybe, before Trump and others hammered on the point. But definitely not now.
But the judge still asked. Because it's as close to a norm as we have wrt an impeachment proceeding (aka a step that is not codified but 'usually' taken).
Republicans take a hammer and blowtorch to norms that had real-world impacts: boys will be boys
Democrats ignore an unnecessary step with the intention of impeaching a lawless president who has left no norm intact: why don’t you just do what they want you to do so they can’t complain?
+5
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
Why on earth, would you not subpoena these people to begin with.
As others have already said, it's because, traditionally, you don't have to. Traditionally the Executive at least nominally acts like it's okay with congressional oversight, and Secy's, etc, will typically appear voluntarily so as to appear to be playing nice with the relevant committees.
Accusing the GOP of violating norms, then also violating norms themselves, is not a necessary looks for Dems. And at least paying some deference to them may help expedite judicial processes, as well as help weigh matters in their favor.
Trump still has over a year left in office. The Dems have time to play things by the book. And as much as they complain about the GOP violating norms, there's a hypocrisy argument they can easily avoid.
Plus every refusal of oversight is another length of rope for the administration, imo
Democrats aren't acting in good faith hoping the GOP will. They're acting in good faith in case judges expect them to.
They're not doing any of this for the sake of norms, they're doing it to minimize the chances judges don't side with them.
Case in point, every other impeachment has had an "initialization vote" of some kind. This one didn't, and the judge pointed that out and asked about it. SHOULD the House have held that vote? Eh, maybe, before Trump and others hammered on the point. But definitely not now.
But the judge still asked. Because it's as close to a norm as we have wrt an impeachment proceeding (aka a step that is not codified but 'usually' taken).
The judge only asked because they were responding to an amicus brief submitted by the Republicans.
The Democrats basically responded by saying "look, just because it was done before doesn't mean we have to do it this time". Essentially, holding a vote is considered an unspoken thing you do even if you don't have to, i.e., a "norm".
But violating norms doesn't seem to have hurt republicans up until now, so why should Democrats be held to any different standard, especially considering the nation's very security may be at risk here? I am really tired of seeing Democrats continuously be stymied by having to hold themselves to a higher standard than Republicans are.
Wait, so if I'm reading that correctly their argument is that "Giving this to congress is what led to Nixon being impeached so we shouldn't also have to do that because it might be bad for us."
Is that about it? While IANAL that sounds like a horrible legal argument.
Letter says Pelosi has not limited the impeachment inquiry to Ukraine. He explains how the 6 committees will get together and share their potential articles against Trump to House leadership. Then HJC will report any articles to the full House.
Letter says the House Judiciary Committee "could easily" include articles of impeachment against Trump dealing with obstruction of justice and interference with a US election. "I can't emphasize enough it's not just Ukraine," the House counsel says.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
Judge Howell asks where the HJC wants her to draw the line on what is an impeachment proceeding. She notes GOP ranking member Doug Collins filed an amicus brief arguing that the House must hold an authorization vote.
Letter says the House can say when it's doing an impeachment. "The House is fully engaged, in fact, we're spending one heck of a lot of time on an impeachment investigation as I'm sure you are aware, both the Judiciary Committee and several other committees in the House.”
Judge Howell posits that this could be resolved if the House would just vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry. "You'd probably rule for all of us. We'd be done," Letter says. But he notes there's no House rule, or anything in Constitution or statute, saying this is required.
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
The judge wants to punt and keep their hands clean for when there's a vacancy higher up in their Circuit.
During the Clinton impeachment, it was necessary because committees didn't have the subpoena power they do now. There's no longer a need for the same kind of action as there was in the past - this is just Republicans in the minority trying to get tenuous Dems on record. Maybe they believe some will balk at an early vote.
Posts
Abuse of diplomatic immunity like the wife who murdered someone in the UK during a hit and run then fled back to the US.
They already have been sending subpoenas out. They just subpoenaed the White House last Friday, along with others. You do have to try and get people to show up voluntarily first, then subpoena them if they refuse.
The part they're not doing is arresting them when they fail to comply with the subpoena.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Since getting richer is all any of them care about, attacking their money for failing to appear will probably be the most effective.
Until they subpoena they really don't have any recourse I believe.
"Letter" is Doug Letter, the House's general counsel in this matter.
Good thing we spent all that time gnashing teeth and rending garments because "only Ukraine!?!".
(Darren Samuelsohn works for Politico)
Now, on the shitty side of things, this judge seems to be under the impression that Doug Collins isn't a fucking muppet of a human being:
What the fuck is it with this bullshit where the House needs to hold a vote on doing impeachment inquiries? That doesn't seem to fucking exist anywhere (Constitution, House rules, etc) outside of the fevered minds of Republicans, so I'm entirely unsure of why the judge wants to bring it up.
She brought it up because the amicus brief brought it up
I'll only be worried if she rules that it has to happen
The judge wants to punt and keep their hands clean for when there's a vacancy higher up in their Circuit.
Seems like an odd step for a judge to order congress to do something they are in no way required to do.
On the other hand, why not just hold a symbolic vote and get it over with anyway? Take it away from Republicans as a talking point and defense for not complying.
It's how the two most recent impeachments were handled, and so some people are trying to say its required. I personally don't really understand the calculus on skipping the vote, unless its to protect vulnerable Dems from voting until we have as solid a case as possible, but this would also affect any vulnerable Republicans.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Your second statement is how I interpreted the judge's comments.
I assume they don't want to do that because that might be a vote that the GOP could effectively whip to make it a "partisan" investigation.
Sure, but they’re screaming about how it’s a partisan investigation anyway. They’ll do it no matter what.
They aren’t really wrong, it is a partisan investigation...because the Republican Party has no desire to stand up to Trump and his rampant criminality.
They don't need to do it because nothing says they need to do it. Holding one is ceding ground to the Republicans who will then find something else that's not written anywhere but they can spin to try and convince people is necessary.
You don't give in to the fuckmuppets, you shut them down.
You don't want to hold a symbolic vote, because that sets the precedence for all future impeachments that a vote is required in the House. The vote happens after the investigation, not before. This is akin to the grand jury before a criminal trial. You don't start out asking the jurors if they want to proceed.
Good point, consider my mind changed.
WHO COULD HAVE POSSIBLY FORESEEN THIS?
I'm not aware of any law requiring they ask nicely before subpoena and the official GOP position is that these calls to testify are illegitimate so pretty much everyone will initially refuse the request.
I also feel like not issuing subpoenas is playing into the administration's game that the demand is somehow a strong-arm tactic rather than legitimate legal procedure. Jury duty isn't optional either and failure to show up can incur penalties.
I never said it was a law, but this isn't a criminal procedure, and I think asking first before demanding plays nicer in the public sphere.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
And there is your subpoena.
Washington Post is a newspaper
Good! Glad they’re moving quickly on this. Now what happens if he defies the subpoena?
Unrelated, but I’ve never seen Sondland before and he looks like an extremely allergic Booker got stung by a bee in the face.
Disagree. The Republicans have proven themselves, over and over again, to be reacting to this entire matter in completely bad faith. It's one thing for the Democrats to want to appear to rise above the din, but it's another altogether to act as though procedural arguments put forward by Republicans are being made in anything but bad faith. When one group is shown to willfully violate unwritten norms left and right, the other should feel absolutely no obligation to adhere to another set of unwritten norms upon request. If no regulatory framework exists to which the Democrats need to adhere, then they need to proceed with utmost haste.
Republicans are to be treated as a hostile adversary. Civility and norms have been violated, the game has changed. Stop ceding ground and proceed justly, but firmly. Public opinion is showing itself to siding more and more towards the Democrats, do not cede ground when you're pushing the enemy back!
Hell, Pelosi may feel the need to make it a big process again instead of just you know, doing it
An announcement for the announcement, a news conference to announce that they will vote on issuing it, an announcement for a vote, etc
They're not doing any of this for the sake of norms, they're doing it to minimize the chances judges don't side with them.
Case in point, every other impeachment has had an "initialization vote" of some kind. This one didn't, and the judge pointed that out and asked about it. SHOULD the House have held that vote? Eh, maybe, before Trump and others hammered on the point. But definitely not now.
But the judge still asked. Because it's as close to a norm as we have wrt an impeachment proceeding (aka a step that is not codified but 'usually' taken).
Giving people a chance to voluntarily comply is good form.
You can argue whether that's necessary, but still.
Wasnt that vote in the past in part to authorize the use of subpoenas? Someone mentioned that in the last thread I think that the house used to require committees get authorization to issue them for investigation and the rules have since changed.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Republicans take a hammer and blowtorch to norms that had real-world impacts: boys will be boys
Democrats ignore an unnecessary step with the intention of impeaching a lawless president who has left no norm intact: why don’t you just do what they want you to do so they can’t complain?
Hsu is a legal reporter for the Washington Post.
Well, that is certainly a bold strategy.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure : Rule 45(d)(1)
As others have already said, it's because, traditionally, you don't have to. Traditionally the Executive at least nominally acts like it's okay with congressional oversight, and Secy's, etc, will typically appear voluntarily so as to appear to be playing nice with the relevant committees.
Accusing the GOP of violating norms, then also violating norms themselves, is not a necessary looks for Dems. And at least paying some deference to them may help expedite judicial processes, as well as help weigh matters in their favor.
Trump still has over a year left in office. The Dems have time to play things by the book. And as much as they complain about the GOP violating norms, there's a hypocrisy argument they can easily avoid.
Plus every refusal of oversight is another length of rope for the administration, imo
The judge only asked because they were responding to an amicus brief submitted by the Republicans.
The Democrats basically responded by saying "look, just because it was done before doesn't mean we have to do it this time". Essentially, holding a vote is considered an unspoken thing you do even if you don't have to, i.e., a "norm".
But violating norms doesn't seem to have hurt republicans up until now, so why should Democrats be held to any different standard, especially considering the nation's very security may be at risk here? I am really tired of seeing Democrats continuously be stymied by having to hold themselves to a higher standard than Republicans are.
Is that about it? While IANAL that sounds like a horrible legal argument.
During the Clinton impeachment, it was necessary because committees didn't have the subpoena power they do now. There's no longer a need for the same kind of action as there was in the past - this is just Republicans in the minority trying to get tenuous Dems on record. Maybe they believe some will balk at an early vote.