Why on earth, would you not subpoena these people to begin with.
Because then you get them on record as having refused to appear voluntarily. Which immediately justifies treating them as a hostile witness when they are forced to appear.
Also appears better to the judiciary that you're not jumping straight to 'abusing' the subpoena power, because as much as some here don't like it the judiciary still gives a shit about norms and precedent...
Why on earth, would you not subpoena these people to begin with.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure : Rule 45(d)(1)
Fine
Chad Pergram covers Congress for Fox News and has a a quote from Schiff that Sondland literally got a voice mail at 12:30am telling him not to go today.
Chad Pergram: Schiff: This morning, we learned from Ambassador Sondland’s personal attorneys that the State Dept left a voicemail last night at 12:30 a.m. informing them that the Trump Administration would not allow the Ambassador to appear today as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry
DEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.
"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
Hsu is a legal reporter for the Washington Post.
Well, that is certainly a bold strategy.
Wow didn't know Trump had a justice department. Isn't it the us justice department??
Dirtmuncher on
+25
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
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.
I can’t speak to the Nixon or Clinton hearings but in the case of Johnson it was not.
The house voted on a resolution to impeach 3 days after the incident that broke the camel’s back, drew up articles of impeachment, and sent them for trial in the senate within a week.
The only real pattern with presidential impeachment is there is no pattern. They’re all unique.
TLDR:
In the past, (Nixon and Clinton) there were formal votes in the House to begin impeachment investigations. Those votes were important, as most House committees could only request documents for a "legitimate legislative purpose" otherwise. This is the legal reasoning used by the Trump administration: there's no impeachment, and the documents requested are purely for oversight purposes, so there's no reason to actually give the House the documents. (This has been their playbook for a while, they were using this argument before Pelosi declared impeachment, and have simply continued.)
However, between the Clinton impeachment process and now, the Judiciary Committee in the House got general subpoena and deposition power, available all the time. (Along with most other committees.) They no longer need to be specifically granted these powers in a vote in order to have them, and the subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee are as valid as any issued during previous impeachments, even without a formal vote.
That being said, having a formal vote (the same way Nixon and Clinton had) might be useful when subpoenas come before a judge, mostly because an active impeachment investigation has a higher urgency than standard oversight. Trump's administration has been running a strategy of delay: they refuse to respond to subpoenas, then it takes months for their refusal to get ruled on by a judge, then they appeal to get even more time. An impeachment-related subpoena can go through the court system much faster. The main question is whether or not judges will view Pelosi's declaration of impeachment as good enough.
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.
I know Matt Gaetz a sitting member of congress is an idiot, but holy shit. Like this feels like flailing from the GOP, "Oh trump said kangaroo court, better do a quick google ok Captain Kangaroo here we go." Tweeter is a former dead spin writer but its mostly the insane video.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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
I think this came up earlier in the House investigations thread, but iirc, subpoena's require that you make a reasonable request first or you expect that information you are requesting might be destroyed. If you start of with the subpoena, then the court could dismiss it until after you've asked politely.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
DEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.
"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
Hsu is a legal reporter for the Washington Post.
Well, that is certainly a bold strategy.
Wow didn't know Trump had a justice department. Isn't it the us justice department??
(President’s name) + (Executive department) is common shorthand to refer to that department under a specific administration
DEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.
"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
Hsu is a legal reporter for the Washington Post.
Well, that is certainly a bold strategy.
Wow didn't know Trump had a justice department. Isn't it the us justice department??
(President’s name) + (Executive department) is common shorthand to refer to that department under a specific administration
In this case, I think there's also an acknowledgement that the professional U.S. Justice Department does not exist right now, and the entity wearing its skin is a partisan arm of the Trump Administration.
Why on earth, would you not subpoena these people to begin with.
Because then you get them on record as having refused to appear voluntarily. Which immediately justifies treating them as a hostile witness when they are forced to appear.
Also appears better to the judiciary that you're not jumping straight to 'abusing' the subpoena power, because as much as some here don't like it the judiciary still gives a shit about norms and precedent...
Remember the guy was going to show up voluntarily until the president ordered him not to. The polite-request form was going to work; the committee escalating to playing hardball with subpoenas is a shot at the White House, not at (most of) the individuals whose testimony they're after.
DEVELOPING Trump Justice Dept. asks U.S. judge to reject House Judiciary Committee request for Mueller grand jury materials, argues courts in 1974 wrongly gave Congress the Watergate grand jury 'roadmap' that led to President Nixon's impeachment.
"Wow, O.K.," responded U.S. Chief District Judge Beryl A. Howell of Washington, D.C., sounding unpersuaded. "As I said, the department is taking an extraordinary position in this case."
Hsu is a legal reporter for the Washington Post.
Well, that is certainly a bold strategy.
Wow didn't know Trump had a justice department. Isn't it the us justice department??
It was, but now...
(especially after Trump finally found and installed Barr, aka "a criminal lawyer")
Democrats need to keep the Sergeant-at-arms on speed dial but most importantly sic him on Sondland NOW. The media will love the spectacle, for one, but more importantly it will discourage more fuckery.
It’s fun to imagine, but highly unrealistic to ever occur.
Where would they imprison this person? Who guards and feeds them? What are the logistics and long term plans involved here?
This only works once (if at all) and is for spectacle only, because once you have Congress arrest someone, good luck even having the next person walk into the doors of the building, let alone testify.
Jail?
Congress has sicked the law on people for contempt multiple times in the past. They just have to call the law like everyone else.
Examples from years past?
0
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
Democrats need to keep the Sergeant-at-arms on speed dial but most importantly sic him on Sondland NOW. The media will love the spectacle, for one, but more importantly it will discourage more fuckery.
It’s fun to imagine, but highly unrealistic to ever occur.
Where would they imprison this person? Who guards and feeds them? What are the logistics and long term plans involved here?
This only works once (if at all) and is for spectacle only, because once you have Congress arrest someone, good luck even having the next person walk into the doors of the building, let alone testify.
Jail?
Congress has sicked the law on people for contempt multiple times in the past. They just have to call the law like everyone else.
In February 1928, when Robert Stewart, chairman of the board of Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, refused to answer questions at a hearing, the Senate issued a warrant for his detention until he agreed to testify. The deputy sergeant at arms executed the warrant that same night, holding Stewart overnight in custody in a room in the Willard Hotel.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
CNN:Aides to Trump scrambled in the aftermath of his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s leader both to alert lawyers of their concerns and to contain the damage.
Unsettled aides also immediately began quizzing each other about whether they should alert senior officials.
Even the aides knew that stuff was not kosher.
Couscous on
+41
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
NBC: U.S. officials and others with knowledge of their relationship also say that Sondland is part of a small cadre of ambassadors who enjoy direct and frequent access to Trump. They say the two speak frequently by phone and have spoken extensively about Ukraine in the past.
NBC Reporter
This tweet specifically is a non-issue for me. The chief US ambassador to the entire European Union was part of an inner circle of ambassadors? That's, like ... good? In a vacuum? So I don't care.
e: Like, EU, UN, Nato (if there is an ambassador to Nato? I doubt it but just for the record), Mexico, and any nations we have ambassadors to but are particularly tense with (Afghanistan/Iraq, Iran, Russia), should be ones that have more or less direct and immediate access to PotUS. Like, you can just have the rest of the EU nation ambassadors routinely report through the EU ambassador, and only reach out to PotUS when necessary. Lots of people have "functional supervisors" who are not actually in their chain of command, but through whom they report to who actually is. This makes perfect sense to me and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Whatsapp when you need to commit impeachable offenses but don't want a regular record of it.
I just hope these people are not bright enough to make sure all of them delete everything off the app.
Thus far, given what evidence is in the public domain, they're not (I'm not sure how some of them don't drown in their Cherrios each morning).
Some are, but I'm 99% sure someone, somewhere in the loop hasn't purged their device and said evidence could be gleaned by Congress.
Hopefully we get lucky and benefit once again from old people being unfamiliar with technology and all their messages will be backed up into the cloud.
+2
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Whatsapp when you need to commit impeachable offenses but don't want a regular record of it.
Side note: This should not be used as ammunition to restrict or ban end to end encryption of communication. Just like there is nothing inherently illegal about peer to peer transfer services (IE Torrents), encrypting communications should be encouraged given the nature of electronic communication.
Just.. you know.. don't violate the many and clear laws about governmental record-keeping as you do so.
Whatsapp when you need to commit impeachable offenses but don't want a regular record of it.
Side note: This should not be used as ammunition to restrict or ban end to end communication. Just like there is nothing inherently illegal about peer to peer transfer services (IE Torrents), encrypting communications should be encouraged given the nature of electronic communication.
Just.. you know.. don't violate the many and clear laws about governmental record-keeping as you do so.
The State Department has encrypted communications cables specifically to allow these kinds of conversations between officials. Just not off the record.
So the Trump admin has never been like really great at not leaking things. But man alive they seem positively strainer level of leaks right now. Like good lord.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Whatsapp when you need to commit impeachable offenses but don't want a regular record of it.
Side note: This should not be used as ammunition to restrict or ban end to end encryption of communication. Just like there is nothing inherently illegal about peer to peer transfer services (IE Torrents), encrypting communications should be encouraged given the nature of electronic communication.
Just.. you know.. don't violate the many and clear laws about governmental record-keeping as you do so.
Has the encryption implementation used by WhatsApp been approved by the State Department? I suspect that as far as the US Government is is concerned, they were transmitting this in cleartext.
Which means that the only reason they were using this is to keep the rest of the government out of the loop.
So the Trump admin has never been like really great at not leaking things. But man alive they seem positively strainer level of leaks right now. Like good lord.
Which, ironically, is the reason he's in this shit.
A more competent Administration would have gotten away wit it, with noone the wiser. He still might (because worst timeline), but everyone who isn't deluded, knows just how big a shitbag he is.
History (assuming we have one) will not be kind.
+13
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
So the Trump admin has never been like really great at not leaking things. But man alive they seem positively strainer level of leaks right now. Like good lord.
Trump will never see jail but nobody wants to do the time in his place
So the Trump admin has never been like really great at not leaking things. But man alive they seem positively strainer level of leaks right now. Like good lord.
Trump will never see jail but nobody wants to do the time in his place
“I did the same thing that you’re doing now for 10 years. I protected Mr. Trump for 10 years,” Cohen told his former allies. “I can only warn people. The more people that follow Mr. Trump — as I did blindly — are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.
NBC: U.S. officials and others with knowledge of their relationship also say that Sondland is part of a small cadre of ambassadors who enjoy direct and frequent access to Trump. They say the two speak frequently by phone and have spoken extensively about Ukraine in the past.
NBC Reporter
This tweet specifically is a non-issue for me. The chief US ambassador to the entire European Union was part of an inner circle of ambassadors? That's, like ... good? In a vacuum? So I don't care.
e: Like, EU, UN, Nato (if there is an ambassador to Nato? I doubt it but just for the record), Mexico, and any nations we have ambassadors to but are particularly tense with (Afghanistan/Iraq, Iran, Russia), should be ones that have more or less direct and immediate access to PotUS. Like, you can just have the rest of the EU nation ambassadors routinely report through the EU ambassador, and only reach out to PotUS when necessary. Lots of people have "functional supervisors" who are not actually in their chain of command, but through whom they report to who actually is. This makes perfect sense to me and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I agree with you on the direct line part, especially if they were talking about the EU. But they were talking about Ukraine which Sondland is very much not the ambassador to.
So the Trump admin has never been like really great at not leaking things. But man alive they seem positively strainer level of leaks right now. Like good lord.
Trump will never see jail but nobody wants to do the time in his place
The only reason that the GOP is defending trump right now is because he stole the base out from under them. If he goes down (either from impeachment or losing in 2020) I expect the party to half heartedly clutch some pearls or make some bored statements about how unfortunate this is while doing all of jack squat to defend him.
Because even if he didn't jump to the head of the line, screw the pooch with america's allies, incense the military and intelligence communities republicans at their core loathe weakness, and will do nothing to protect him after the fact.
No, the thing that might save trump is whoever the next democrat preffering to move on out of some misbegotten desire to preserve "norms" (whatever the hell those are at this point).
Posts
Also appears better to the judiciary that you're not jumping straight to 'abusing' the subpoena power, because as much as some here don't like it the judiciary still gives a shit about norms and precedent...
Or comparing your position to be too much like Nixon...
Fine
Chad Pergram covers Congress for Fox News and has a a quote from Schiff that Sondland literally got a voice mail at 12:30am telling him not to go today.
Wow didn't know Trump had a justice department. Isn't it the us justice department??
I can’t speak to the Nixon or Clinton hearings but in the case of Johnson it was not.
The house voted on a resolution to impeach 3 days after the incident that broke the camel’s back, drew up articles of impeachment, and sent them for trial in the senate within a week.
The only real pattern with presidential impeachment is there is no pattern. They’re all unique.
Lawfare has a good article on this: (from May, but suddenly of greater relevance)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house
TLDR:
In the past, (Nixon and Clinton) there were formal votes in the House to begin impeachment investigations. Those votes were important, as most House committees could only request documents for a "legitimate legislative purpose" otherwise. This is the legal reasoning used by the Trump administration: there's no impeachment, and the documents requested are purely for oversight purposes, so there's no reason to actually give the House the documents. (This has been their playbook for a while, they were using this argument before Pelosi declared impeachment, and have simply continued.)
However, between the Clinton impeachment process and now, the Judiciary Committee in the House got general subpoena and deposition power, available all the time. (Along with most other committees.) They no longer need to be specifically granted these powers in a vote in order to have them, and the subpoenas issued by the Judiciary Committee are as valid as any issued during previous impeachments, even without a formal vote.
That being said, having a formal vote (the same way Nixon and Clinton had) might be useful when subpoenas come before a judge, mostly because an active impeachment investigation has a higher urgency than standard oversight. Trump's administration has been running a strategy of delay: they refuse to respond to subpoenas, then it takes months for their refusal to get ruled on by a judge, then they appeal to get even more time. An impeachment-related subpoena can go through the court system much faster. The main question is whether or not judges will view Pelosi's declaration of impeachment as good enough.
Hence the judge's Owen Wilson impersonation.
I know Matt Gaetz a sitting member of congress is an idiot, but holy shit. Like this feels like flailing from the GOP, "Oh trump said kangaroo court, better do a quick google ok Captain Kangaroo here we go." Tweeter is a former dead spin writer but its mostly the insane video.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I think this came up earlier in the House investigations thread, but iirc, subpoena's require that you make a reasonable request first or you expect that information you are requesting might be destroyed. If you start of with the subpoena, then the court could dismiss it until after you've asked politely.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
(President’s name) + (Executive department) is common shorthand to refer to that department under a specific administration
In this case, I think there's also an acknowledgement that the professional U.S. Justice Department does not exist right now, and the entity wearing its skin is a partisan arm of the Trump Administration.
It was, but I'm pretty sure it actually is the Trump Justice Department these days.
Remember the guy was going to show up voluntarily until the president ordered him not to. The polite-request form was going to work; the committee escalating to playing hardball with subpoenas is a shot at the White House, not at (most of) the individuals whose testimony they're after.
It was, but now...
(especially after Trump finally found and installed Barr, aka "a criminal lawyer")
Examples from years past?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/05/15/house-has-power-arrest-people-who-defy-its-orders/
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
NBC Reporter
So Sondland definitely talked to Trump before sending the 'no quid pro quo to see here' texts, and apparently they're real tight in general.
I can now see why no one in this relationship would be too keen on him getting under oath.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You're right. Here's another WaPo article addressing the question: How would Congress jail Trump officials? History says it’s not easy.
Essentially, jail for contempt of congress hasn't happened since 1935, and it's not likely to start again this year.
I just hope these people are not bright enough to make sure all of them delete everything off the app.
Thus far, given what evidence is in the public domain, they're not (I'm not sure how some of them don't drown in their Cherrios each morning).
Some are, but I'm 99% sure someone, somewhere in the loop hasn't purged their device and said evidence could be gleaned by Congress.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I would guess more than one person saved them for blackmail and/or ass-covering purposes.
This tweet specifically is a non-issue for me. The chief US ambassador to the entire European Union was part of an inner circle of ambassadors? That's, like ... good? In a vacuum? So I don't care.
e: Like, EU, UN, Nato (if there is an ambassador to Nato? I doubt it but just for the record), Mexico, and any nations we have ambassadors to but are particularly tense with (Afghanistan/Iraq, Iran, Russia), should be ones that have more or less direct and immediate access to PotUS. Like, you can just have the rest of the EU nation ambassadors routinely report through the EU ambassador, and only reach out to PotUS when necessary. Lots of people have "functional supervisors" who are not actually in their chain of command, but through whom they report to who actually is. This makes perfect sense to me and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Hopefully we get lucky and benefit once again from old people being unfamiliar with technology and all their messages will be backed up into the cloud.
Side note: This should not be used as ammunition to restrict or ban end to end encryption of communication. Just like there is nothing inherently illegal about peer to peer transfer services (IE Torrents), encrypting communications should be encouraged given the nature of electronic communication.
Just.. you know.. don't violate the many and clear laws about governmental record-keeping as you do so.
Maybe not. You're right, the precedent is pretty dated.
Problem is, what's happening now is unprecedented, in severity, in scale, and in obstruction.
And a failure to do SOMETHING to get to the answers, means setting the precedent that the President can't be oversighted.
That precedent being established is much more problematic than an old precedent being dusted off.
The State Department has encrypted communications cables specifically to allow these kinds of conversations between officials. Just not off the record.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Has the encryption implementation used by WhatsApp been approved by the State Department? I suspect that as far as the US Government is is concerned, they were transmitting this in cleartext.
Which means that the only reason they were using this is to keep the rest of the government out of the loop.
Which, ironically, is the reason he's in this shit.
A more competent Administration would have gotten away wit it, with noone the wiser. He still might (because worst timeline), but everyone who isn't deluded, knows just how big a shitbag he is.
History (assuming we have one) will not be kind.
I mean, I would more hope that what happens is:
Person refuses to appear for subpoena (I mean, I'd rather they show up at the voluntary part)
Sergeant-at-Arm shows up at their office, knocks politely, asks them to come to the hearing.
Person acquiesces, no one actually ends up detained or anything.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Trump will never see jail but nobody wants to do the time in his place
Plenty of them are though.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-house-cohen-trump-hearing-partisan-clash-20190227-story.html
(LA Times newspaper)
I agree with you on the direct line part, especially if they were talking about the EU. But they were talking about Ukraine which Sondland is very much not the ambassador to.
The only reason that the GOP is defending trump right now is because he stole the base out from under them. If he goes down (either from impeachment or losing in 2020) I expect the party to half heartedly clutch some pearls or make some bored statements about how unfortunate this is while doing all of jack squat to defend him.
Because even if he didn't jump to the head of the line, screw the pooch with america's allies, incense the military and intelligence communities republicans at their core loathe weakness, and will do nothing to protect him after the fact.
No, the thing that might save trump is whoever the next democrat preffering to move on out of some misbegotten desire to preserve "norms" (whatever the hell those are at this point).
He's just more openly corrupt on top of being a classist and a bigot
He's also way more blatent about it in ways that have excited the base while making everyone else leery as hell.
I imagine republicans would prefer to be a little more subtle in all this.