White House plans to spurn Democrats' request for documents in impeachment inquiry

Jan 2012
1,045
367
SoCal
Those points, such as they are, still beg the question whether a vote by the full House is REQUIRED BEFORE the HOUSE conducts an impeachment inquiry. Nobody has proven that it is, even though trump worshipers are still claiming it.
Speaking of begging the question... Pelosi and three committee chairpersons are not "THE HOUSE." The actual House is in recess and if these committees are doing to undertake their claimed inquiry then they will have to do so with the full participation of the members of those committees. It also means, as the thread title notes, that since this is claimed as general oversight versus special and specific oversight that would occur within the impeachment proceedings that subpoenas and other powers being claimed won't have full force and resolution of that will have to happen in the courts, or the House will vote for the actual proceedings.

So when we want to discuss claims that should stop being repeated, you should stop repeating the claim that three house committee chairpersons sending a letter while the House is in recess is really the same thing as an impeachment inquiry where committees are actually meeting and undertaking work related to that. You should also stop repeating the claim that the House has the same powers with an inquiry as they would with an impeachment procedure and that the Executive Branch refusing to give up their actual power to enforce and execute the law without that procedure being activated is well within their rights.

So let's flip it now. What is required for an impeachment inquiry. Do the committees in question have to even meet as an example or can the chairperson just usurp the power of the entire House and committee in question and use it as they see fit?
 
Nov 2016
9,507
9,328
USA
But trump worshipers (and their hero, for that matter) are objecting to even “three house committee chairpersons sending a letter while the House is in recess” without a full House vote. They’re the ones essentially calling the recent activities an impeachment inquiry, and are insisting on a full House vote BEFORE conducting further inquiries. They simply have not provided any legal, constitutional or parliamentary justification for that position, despite being asked repeatedly.

I did NOT claim “that three house committee chairpersons sending a letter while the House is in recess.”

Oh, and your last question is a typical gotcha type question (“. . . or can the chairperson just usurp the power . . . “), suggesting bad faith on your part. You won’t answer my question, but you want me to answer yours. That’s dishonest.
 
Jan 2012
1,045
367
SoCal
But trump worshipers (and their hero, for that matter) are objecting to even “three house committee chairpersons sending a letter while the House is in recess” without a full House vote. They’re the ones essentially calling the recent activities an impeachment inquiry, and are insisting on a full House vote BEFORE conducting further inquiries. They simply have not provided any legal, constitutional or parliamentary justification for that position, despite being asked repeatedly.

I did NOT claim “that three house committee chairpersons sending a letter while the House is in recess.”

Oh, and your last question is a typical gotcha type question (“. . . or can the chairperson just usurp the power . . . “), suggesting bad faith on your part. You won’t answer my question, but you want me to answer yours. That’s dishonest.
Let's not focus on whether a fellow forum poster said something wrong or wasn't the best at explaining a position. None of us are going to directly control or influence these matters.

The thread title notes....that the White House won't be cooperating with a letter sent demanding information by three chairpersons from three committees written while the House is on break claiming it is an impeachment inquiry.

The White House response... we will provide general oversight items and have done so in the past. However specific information might still be classified as executive privilege. If you want to argue on that point, hold a vote.

The claims within the letter is that the vote is not necessary to suspend executive privilege and that the House has granted certain members like committee chairpersons what amounts to unlimited subpoena power for any reason at any time. They claim that an impeachment inquiry is now a standard operating procedure.

Now if you want to claim any of these points are wrong, then just post the appropriate information and a citation might be nice as well to convince me of what you say.

My question isn't a "gotcha" it is legitimate. Every person has limits, checks and balances on their powers. That is true of the president. It is true of a committe chairperson in Congress. Law enforcment is not the realm of Congress. It is the realm of the executive branch in fact it is what Congress often calls for a Special Prosecutor in instances that have led to impeachment. Asking the Executive Branch to investigate itself is more within the powers designated each branch than asking Congress to step outside their traditional role of making law rather than enforcing it. The rare times they trade one for the other is impeachment. A few "rule changes" cannot make Congress into the executive branch and cannot declare that as an everyday norm, they engage in law enforcement under the guise of oversight.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,589
A more objective report on this matter (that's one where you can't tell the writer's point of view, AKA Journalism). I have quoted the quotes that support my view. But you can go through the same article and just quote the Democrats to get their views. If all news outlets handled all stories this way we wouldn't be at each other's throats. For example an analysis of the Ukraine phone call would fully explore the legal angles of Trumps "asks" from both party's points of view. I'll bet a lot of you think there is only one take ...... yours.

Trump Challenges House On Impeachment Vote. Pelosi Says She's Unmoved

The White House's letter to Congress is expected to contend that for impeachment to be legitimate, all members in the chambers must have a chance to support or oppose it. Supporters have been making that case for some time already.
The White House demand for a full vote represented the latest tactical skirmish within the broader political war over impeachment, which has sucked all the oxygen out of official Washington and largely sidelined other business between the administration and Congress.
Trump's challenge about a vote also is an attempt to force Pelosi to truly test which of her moderate members, some of whom were elected last year in districts that Trump carried in 2016, are prepared to go on record in support of impeachment.
The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, has emphasized that in his view, Pelosi's statements about impeachment carry no legal weight on their own.
What's more, Collins argues, what he calls a "real" impeachment would permit more of what he called "due process" for the House minority. As it stands, normal procedure in the chamber means that majority Democrats can convene hearings, call witnesses and issue subpoenas. Minority Republicans can't.

If the ongoing House impeachment is real, for Collins and Republicans, they too would get those powers and be able to mount an equal defense of Trump.
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
71,820
49,087
USA
You are correct. The President can claim Executive Privilege and tell Pelosi to pzz up a rope.
If he could, he'd have done so already. In fact, this WH has bent over backwards to AVOID EP claims generally. They've claimed even more expansive privilege and been told by courts it doesn't exist.
Besides ,I bet the old bat doesn't HAVE the votes.
We know already who would vote for it. They've made public declarations. Complete List: Who Supports an Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump?
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
71,820
49,087
USA
It is the realm of the executive branch in fact it is what Congress often calls for a Special Prosecutor in instances that have led to impeachment. Asking the Executive Branch to investigate itself is more within the powers designated each branch than asking Congress to step outside their traditional role of making law rather than enforcing it.
Just because impeachment happens rarely doesn't mean it isn't traditional. It's in the Constitution, FCOL. And Congress's power over the executive branch comes in oversight as well as lawmaking. They oversee the operations of the government all the time. That's quite traditional.
The rare times they trade one for the other is impeachment. A few "rule changes" cannot make Congress into the executive branch and cannot declare that as an everyday norm, they engage in law enforcement under the guise of oversight.
Not sure what this last part means.
 

Rasselas

Moderator
Feb 2010
71,820
49,087
USA
A more objective report on this matter (that's one where you can't tell the writer's point of view, AKA Journalism). I have quoted the quotes that support my view. But you can go through the same article and just quote the Democrats to get their views. If all news outlets handled all stories this way we wouldn't be at each other's throats. For example an analysis of the Ukraine phone call would fully explore the legal angles of Trumps "asks" from both party's points of view. I'll bet a lot of you think there is only one take ...... yours.

Trump Challenges House On Impeachment Vote. Pelosi Says She's Unmoved
Not sure what this report proves. It tells you want each side thinks, but I can't imagine how a statement of opinion from an Republican is EVIDENCE of anything.
 

kmiller1610

Former Staff
Mar 2007
33,054
6,589
Not sure what this report proves. It tells you want each side thinks, but I can't imagine how a statement of opinion from an Republican is EVIDENCE of anything.
Journalism is quoting sources so that the subject is covered. Proving something, when the topic has multiple sides and is not factually based, is exactly what Journalism is not supposed to do. You read the whole piece and find out what people are thinking and get enough information to do your own research.