Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
40 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
BREAKING: DoJ has filed brief arguing the House Judiciary's impeachment inquiry ISN'T ONE. (Original Post) Grasswire2 Sep 2019 OP
ITTMF malaise Sep 2019 #1
Absolutely, K&R. Quit F'ing around the edges ... do it!!! n/t RKP5637 Sep 2019 #3
Okay, what is ittmf? oregonjen Sep 2019 #6
Impeach the treasonous mfer. panader0 Sep 2019 #12
Good to see you malaise Sep 2019 #21
Aw thanks. I'm here most every day, mostly reading. panader0 Sep 2019 #23
Thanks! oregonjen Sep 2019 #22
Barr fighting for t-rump! Iliyah Sep 2019 #2
Of course they have StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #4
Laughable FBaggins Sep 2019 #16
Once again, the inquiry began in June. StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #20
Not when you decide it was true FBaggins Sep 2019 #25
You ask an awful lot of question for someone who seems to think they're an expert on this StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #27
And you dodge a lot of them FBaggins Sep 2019 #30
Even the DoJ now with Barr wants to bring the US down. n/t RKP5637 Sep 2019 #5
Barr wants to command the US Sturmabteilung... Wounded Bear Sep 2019 #18
Would not be surprised at all!!! n/t RKP5637 Sep 2019 #32
As there are no 'laws' and/or 'regulations' about what one IS, elleng Sep 2019 #7
Exactly StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #31
You keep spinning it as Trump's lawyers FBaggins Sep 2019 #34
Random Members don't have power to decide if an impeachment investigation is occurring. Nadler does StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #35
So the f**k what, it is or isn't they can still holding hearings...wtf is the point. Thomas Hurt Sep 2019 #8
Their supeona power is hightened with Impeachment Inquiry The empressof all Sep 2019 #10
yes Grasswire2 Sep 2019 #11
Doesn't make much difference when Trump is ignoring them all... Thomas Hurt Sep 2019 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Sep 2019 #9
I think the answer may be simple... targetpractice Sep 2019 #13
I don't think she's afraid the evidence isn't compelling Poiuyt Sep 2019 #40
Impeachment DOESN'T mean Congress gets to be first in line" and doesn't make everything else the SC StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #14
That's contradictory FBaggins Sep 2019 #19
If you had a better understaning of how Congress worked, you would know that "majority votes" is not StarfishSaver Sep 2019 #26
How odd FBaggins Sep 2019 #28
How do you think SCOTUS will rule on this? Grasswire2 Sep 2019 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author Chin music Sep 2019 #36
Could be part of the plan FBaggins Sep 2019 #17
The DOJ should just be referred to as Trump's attorneys world wide wally Sep 2019 #29
Do anything to obstruct justice Department of Justice. Kid Berwyn Sep 2019 #33
Nadler will respond shortly malaise Sep 2019 #37
oh damn Grasswire2 Sep 2019 #38
ROFL malaise Sep 2019 #39
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
4. Of course they have
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:11 PM
Sep 2019

And some people here will line up right with this BS argument because ... that's what they do

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
16. Laughable
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:30 PM
Sep 2019

Let’s not forget that that group included you until a couple months ago.

Once again... when did the inquiry begin?

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
20. Once again, the inquiry began in June.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:38 PM
Sep 2019
Y'all do realize what happened today, right? And can we give Speaker Pelosi some props for it?

Nadler and the other Judiciary Committee Members made clear that they have opened an impeachment inquiry that could lead to Articles of Impeachment against Trump.

And this has been managed brilliantly.

As many have pointed out, if a vote were taken today on the House floor on whether to open an impeachment inquiry, it would fail and fail badly. Pelosi and Nadler have very skillfully and expertly worked around that possibility. And this didn't just start today.

A month and a half ago, Nadler announced a series of hearings he promised would pursue “targeted legislative, oversight and constitutional remedies designed to respond to these matters.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-03/nadler-plans-mueller-report-hearings-starting-with-john-dean

In his announcement, Nadler very specifically stated that the hearings wouldn't be limited to legislative and oversight purposes, but also are targeted toward "constitutional remedies." The only constitutional remedy available to the House to respond to the behavior described in the Mueller Report is impeachment.

This language was very intentional. Among other things, it positioned the Committee to request grand jury materials under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)'s provision that allows a court to release grand jury materials in connection with a proceeding "preliminarily to" an impeachment inquiry.

Today, the Committee announced not only that it is indeed conducting an impeachment inquiry, Nadler and the others said that this inquiry didn't start today, but has been going on for some time - but this is the first time they have come out and said it.

So we are now exactly where many people have been demanding we be. The House is conducting a full-blown impeachment inquiry. They are about to get a court order compelling Don McGahn to testify or face jail and fines. They are in court seeking the grand jury materials.

And they pulled this off without a House vote that would have gone down in defeat. This was a brilliant move by Pelosi to move the inquiry forward while protecting the more vulnerable and conservative members of her caucus from having to vote for one.

Nicely done, Madame Speaker and Chairman Nadler.

Make no mistake about it. Impeachment is in play, y'all.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212320474

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
25. Not when you decide it was true
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:45 PM
Sep 2019

And not when they decided to change strategy.

When do their official claims say that it began?

But just for curiosity sake... when in June?

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
27. You ask an awful lot of question for someone who seems to think they're an expert on this
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:47 PM
Sep 2019

Go read the pleadings and you'll get your answer. I'm not your research assistant.

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
30. And you dodge a lot of them
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:49 PM
Sep 2019

I no longer think it’s a coincidence

And let’s not forget. Only one of us claims to be a constitutional scholar.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
31. Exactly
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:49 PM
Sep 2019

Impeachment is what Congress says it is. And in this instance, as in most, it is the Judiciary Committee that is delegated the responsibility to pursue impeachment and it the Judiciary Committee says it is conducting an impeachment inquiry, it is conducting an impeachment inquiry, regardless what Trump's lawyers say. The executive branch doesn't get to overrule Congress' representation of how it's doing its business.

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
34. You keep spinning it as Trump's lawyers
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:15 PM
Sep 2019

And of course anyone who disagrees with you on a given day...

... but their position was predictable. It’s also a number of Democrats (including some senior to Nadler) who are saying that the House is not currently considering it. You’re claiming that “impeachment is what the House says it is” (close enough) but also that they delegated that to Nadler despite a lack of a vote doing so and the denial of those whose permission was not even sought.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
35. Random Members don't have power to decide if an impeachment investigation is occurring. Nadler does
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 09:24 PM
Sep 2019

Nadler has said that an impeachment inquiry is underway and since he has the power to initiate an inquiry without a House vote, it doesn't matter what some Members are or aren't saying.

As I said, please go research the pleadings and House rules, procedures, practices and history on impeachment. You may learn something.

Response to Grasswire2 (Original post)

targetpractice

(4,919 posts)
13. I think the answer may be simple...
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:29 PM
Sep 2019

... Nancy is afraid that all the evidence and witnesses that they can't access may not be as compelling as assumed. Afraid it will blow up in the Dems faces.

Poiuyt

(18,123 posts)
40. I don't think she's afraid the evidence isn't compelling
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 10:21 PM
Sep 2019

I think she's afraid that the voters in the purple districts will look upon any impeachment proceedings negatively DESPITE compelling evidence and thus hold it against the Democratic representatives..

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
14. Impeachment DOESN'T mean Congress gets to be first in line" and doesn't make everything else the SC
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:29 PM
Sep 2019

is doing take a backseat.

There is nothing in the law or Supreme Court procedure that requires the Court to put Congress "first in line" in an impeachment investigation. The Court is likely to place a high priority on it, but it doesn't have to.

Moreover, it is up to Congress to decide whether or not it is conducting an impeachment investigation. If the Judiciary Committee says it's conducting an impeachment inquiry, it is conducting an impeachment inquiry, regardless what the departments that report to the subject of said impeachment inquiry claim. And the Committee has said on the record in its official pronouncements and duly passed resolutions that it is indeed conducting an impeachment investigation. It doesn't matter what the Speaker of the House says in interviews or press briefings

This is a ridiculous, frivolous argument by DOJ, just another one of its many stalling tactics.

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
19. That's contradictory
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:34 PM
Sep 2019

Yes... it’s up to Congress. That’s the point.

Congress speaks through majority votes.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
26. If you had a better understaning of how Congress worked, you would know that "majority votes" is not
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:45 PM
Sep 2019

the only way in which Congress speaks.

But the majority of the Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to pursue an impeachment investigation. That is more than enough for this to be an impeachment investigation since vote by the Committee or the full House is not necessary to initiate an impeachment investigation. The chair can undertake an investigation on his or her own prerogative without any vote at all. In fact, previous impeachment have occurred based on investigations taken up in the Judiciary Committee at the direction of the chairman without a vote.

But, speaking of "contradictory" if "majority votes" were really the only way in which Congress speaks, why do you care what Nancy Pelosi says or doesn't say in interviews since what she says in interviews isn't a House majority vote?



FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
28. How odd
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:48 PM
Sep 2019

That same nonsense about me not understanding how things work was what you were claiming when you held exactly the opposite position.

Awfully convenient memory you’ve got there

Grasswire2

(13,569 posts)
15. How do you think SCOTUS will rule on this?
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:30 PM
Sep 2019

And on the right of Congress to investigate criminal actions of a POTUS?

Looks like both will come before the court.

Response to Grasswire2 (Reply #15)

FBaggins

(26,733 posts)
17. Could be part of the plan
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:32 PM
Sep 2019

If a court denies their request on this basis... it might persuade recalcitrant Democrats to change their minds on a House vote.

Kid Berwyn

(14,898 posts)
33. Do anything to obstruct justice Department of Justice.
Fri Sep 13, 2019, 08:53 PM
Sep 2019

Bill Barr, Capitalism’s Invisible Army.



Bill Barr: The “Cover-Up General”

"At the center of the criticism is the chief artic­ulator of Bush's imperial presidency," we reported in 1992, "the man who wrote the legal rationale for the Gulf War, the Panama invasion, and the officially sanctioned kidnapping of foreign nationals abroad"


by FRANK SNEPP
The Village Voice, APRIL 18, 2019

Snip...

For the next two years, as chief of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Coun­sel, Barr played a key role in shaping Rich­ard Thornburgh’s stormy tenure as attorney general. In a job that was essentially politi­cal, he helped maintain the administra­tion’s ideological purity by screening out judicial candidates who weren’t conserva­tive enough. He also drafted two key docu­ments rationalizing the U.S. invasion of Panama and the seizure of General Manuel Noriega.

Snip...

In mid 1990, as Thornburgh’s own prob­lems with Congress deepened, Barr was tapped to run interference, and was named deputy attorney general. The appointment came just in time for him to draft another landmark tract for the administration, the legal pretext for the undeclared war against Iraq. It would have made any Nixonite proud. Explaining it later to Congress, Barr said he believed there was a “gray zone” between a declared offensive war and an emergency defensive action where “there is latitude for the president, if he believes that the vital interests of the United States are threatened by foreign military attack, there is room for him to respond.”

Barr did not make clear how the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait equaled an attack on vital American interests, but to his credit, at the moment of decision itself, he did counsel the president to soften the impact of his unilateral rush to war by seeking a declaration of congressional support. That piece of advice, much akin to Johnson’s leveraging of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, helped to keep the naysayers at bay.

Barr’s service to the administration, how­ever, wasn’t limited simply to such flashes of political savvy. In 1991 he became active in stone-walling the Iraqgate and the BCCI investigations and further gratified conser­vatives by keeping up the tattoo on their favorite hot-button issues. Embracing im­migration policy as his own, he helped craft an exception rule that automatically barred HIV-positive sufferers from entering the country. Civil libertarians charged illegal discrimination and even racism, since many of those excluded were black Hai­tians. Barr assured Congress that the policy was meant only to keep out people who might be thrown back on public welfare.

Flogging another conservative hobby­horse, Barr fought hard as deputy AG to keep federal courts from expanding their right to review state criminal convictions on writs of habeas corpus. As a devout Catholic, he also pandered to the antiabor­tion crowd, even “torquing” the law in Au­gust 1991 to advance their crusade. The challenge came when a federal judge in Wichita issued an order barring anti-abor­tion demonstrators from blocking access to a clinic. The Justice Department inter­vened to try to force a lifting of the ban. Later asked about this by Congress, Barr gave an exquisitely technical rationale, as­serting that though the demonstrators were “lawbreakers . . . treading on other people’s rights,” they “should be dealt with” in state court, not federal court — thus the federal judge’s order was unenforceable.

Continues...

https://www.villagevoice.com/2019/04/18/attorney-general-william-barr-is-the-best-reason-to-vote-for-clinton/



Barr is the rock from under which crawl all manner of the vilest treasons.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»BREAKING: DoJ has filed b...