Dave Jolly has the right idea on impeachment

[NewJeffCT]

Link to tweet

?s=19


text of the tweet:

An impeachment article should be pretty easy to draw up this morning.

Even easier to vote on.

Pass a resolution inquiry by the full House today and subpoena the whistleblower. If WH claims privilege, ask for emergency hearing in federal court on the basis of national security.

[dalton99a]

1. Kick

[NewJeffCT]

3. thanks

I only posted a few minutes ago and it's already sinking?

[ScratchCat]

2. The Democrats need to hold a prime time presser

Explaining that there is no rational basis for the WH to be preventing this complaint from going to Congress and it has left them with no choice but to commence an impeachment inquiry. Make this the "final straw", noting that the conduct reported to the IG is likely both illegal under federal statute and a gross violation of our national security.

[Raven]

4. We've had enough press conferences, we've had enought talk. It's time to act. n/t

[ret5hd]

29. So, a sternly worded letter?

[StarfishSaver]

5. Actually he doesn't

First, no resolution is necessary to investigate this. And second, the House can't subpoena a person whose identity is unknown to them.

I'm sure the House leadership appreciates outside advice from Republican former Congressmen. Buy it would be helpful if the advice was consistent with the reality they're dealing with.

[NewJeffCT]

6. Jolly is a lawyer and a former Congressman

and has been pretty good in his criticism of Trump and his actions.

Laurence Tribe and Joyce Vance were basically proposing an expedited judicial process as well - asking the DC courts for a writ of mandamus and to subpoena the whistleblower and Acting DNI Maguire.

Are you saying that they're all wrong and you can't subpoena the whistleblower? Tribe is considered be many to be the preeminent Constitutional scholar of the last half century.

[StarfishSaver]

7. He's a lawyer and a former Congressman, but he's wrong

The House can't subpoena a person whose identity is unknown to them.

In order to be valid, a subpoena must be personally served on the person being subpoenaed. Unless the whistleblower designates someone to accept service on their behalf, until they are identified to the Committee, there is no way to subpoena them.

[SunSeeker]

12. Enough with the "No we can't" chorus. FFS

The subpoena could be directed at the administration officials to turn over the identity of the whistleblower. It would be like a demand for expert witness disclosures before trial. You know they got 'em. Now they gotta cough 'em up!

Laurence Tribe is right about this and you are wrong. Just like Laurence Tribe was right about our need for a formal impeachment inquiry to get Mueller's grand jury materials. You tried to poo-poo that too. You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

[StarfishSaver]

19. Subpoenaing the administration to turn over the name of the whistleblower so they

can then subpoena the whistleblower isn't isn't the same as subpoenaing the whistleblower.

They can only subpoena the whistleblower IF and AFTER he or she is identified. So, Jolly's demand that the House immediately subpoena the whistleblower, when they don't yet even know who they are, is silly.

[SunSeeker]

21. Silly is refusing to try.

As a poster pointed out to you, the whistleblower has a lawyer. I betwe probably have an idea who the whistleblower is, but regardless, serve the subpoena on his lawyer and see if he'll accept service on behalf of his client.

Geez, JUST TRY IT.

[ancianita]

13. The Whistleblower has a lawyer.

[StarfishSaver]

20. But the lawyer can't accept service on behalf of a client unless specifically authorized

and I doubt that's been done, given the circumstances.

[ancianita]

25. You doubt. Why would you not think authorization's part of this lawyer-client relationship. Express

authorization is the basis of having a lawyer.

[StarfishSaver]

27. Because such an authorization isn't an automatic part of the attorney-client relationship

Otherwise anyone seeking legal advice would subject themselves to subpoena and service of process just by virtue of retaining an attorney.

[ancianita]

28. Fine. Now consider, after retaining a fairly well known attorney, what is likely in this situation.

I'd already assume that the attorney is retained to protect the whistleblower from prosecution by the DOJ.

Other actions he'd likely be authorized to take seem in the interests of the action the whistleblower wants taken and audience the whistleblower wants to reach, the representatives of the people's house.

[StarfishSaver]

30. The scope and extent of the relationship and what the attorney is authorized to do

is all between the attorney and client - and likely will evolve over time.

[ancianita]

32. Over time. Except that right now we are in an emergency situation. DOJ will likely define her as a

"leaker" rather than a whistleblower, and thus indict her without her having protections of the 2012 Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

To be a bona fide national security whistleblower, it is not enough to believe that one is exposing wrongdoing; one must actually do so.

Any DOJ or other legal opponents' arguments will follow the methods now used to deny asylum seekers legal asylum status -- which is the denial of actually doing the act of whistleblowing (similar to preventing asylum seekers from entering the country so that they may not get legal due process as asylum seekers).
Because, again, to be a protected whistleblower, one must actually turn over the possessed information to legally authorized recipients.

Prevention of the whistleblower's act, and thus, protected legal status AS a whistleblower, is what the DOJ will attack. And the "acting" DNI will be at a loss to stop it, since he likely went to the DOJ for authorization of his denial to turn over the whistleblower and info to Congress.

And so the lawyer. And the whistleblower's authorization to ACT on his/her behalf to establish his/her legal status as a whistleblower.

How Congress gets this info, legally or illegality, determines Schiff's and his committee's legal grounding when going for any charge against the prez.

[StarfishSaver]

33. You could be right but none of us at this point know what the terms of the representation are

And we definitely have no reason to think that the whistleblower has designated their lawyer as their agent for acceptance of service of process, which would be highly unusual.

[ancianita]

34. We'll see. With Andrew Bakaj, an unusual lawyer for unusual times, I'd rather err that he's the guy

required for that very authorization.

[BamaRefugee]

16. As a professional process server, having served 100s of Federal subpoenas, I would add that

a SUBPOENA FOR RECORDS could certainly be served on the appropriate parties, to seek the transcript of the phone call. And the records MUST be unaltered when provided, so the name might be on them. Of course being an Intelligence issue there might be a LOT of redactions. Assuming there really WAS an offending phone call, my suspicion is that there is something much bigger here.
They could also subpoena many many people in the various entities that are involved for depositions, one of them just might give up the name of the whistleblower.
There are also John Doe subpoenas being issued nowadays, mostly due to the anonymity provided to harassers and threatening people who post on the internet.
I say issue every f*cking thing they can think of and let the court figure it out, the cost of having a subpoena quashed is $0.00.
GO FOR IT

[StarfishSaver]

22. This isn't a John Doe situation

John Doe subpoenas are issued when the issuing body knows who the person is but
doesn't want them to be publicly identified for some reason. Here, the issuing body doesn't even know who the witness is, so they don't know whom to issue the subpoena to. As a process server, you'd have no one to serve.

[BamaRefugee]

23. In cases involving the internet, for example, the moving party has NO IDEA who they are

looking for.
But also, John Doe subpoenas are issued under the guideline of "Involuntary Public Figures", Limited-purpose public figures must “have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

I would venture that the whistleblower has certainly "thrust themselves to the forefront" here.

But I'm not a lawyer, I just do their dirty work for them

[StarfishSaver]

26. :-)

And great, necessary, if unappreciated, work it is ...

In internet cases, they can't supboena or serve them if they don't know who they are. And being an "involuntary public figure" isn't it the same as being "anonymous." A person can be both an involuntary public figure and anonymous, or they can be an involuntary public figure whose identity is known.

[Kid Berwyn]

8. Great idea.

Please make it so.

The Constitution is counting on us.

[sinkingfeeling]

9. I'm sending an email daily to Speaker Pelosi demanding impeachment.

If you want to do the same, use the contact Speaker form.

[SunSeeker]

10. K & R & Retweeted!

[spanone]

11. K&R...

[blakstoneranger]

14. I really doesn't matter

In this game of chess, the republicans seem to always be one step ahead leaving nadler with no counter punch. When they asked for the whistleblower's information they should have known what was going to happen and had a plan ready to action. But they didn't. It seem the republicans are always ready, they seem more knowledgeable about constitutional law. No matter what they do they always get unexpectedly countered and left with issuing threats but only after they have a meeting about it first and even that will take weeks. They need to just do it, get the ball rolling even though the republicans have already factored in the various steps and avenues they will have to fight and they are ready. Truth is, we really can't beat them at this game, they're just too good. They've been doing it for years and succeeding because they have no respect for the law or the government so it easy for them, they have no conscience. But democrats, we're listening to nancy pelosi make excuses, she's looking for a "smoking gun" and she won't get it!! She's worried out getting trump out of office--understandable, it's a risk, a big one, but it's a risk that has to be taken.

[BamaRefugee]

17. BUT...BUT...BUT...Republicans and tRump are STUPID, I see it posted every day on DU, while they rape

and pillage our Democracy untouched.

[NewJeffCT]

35. so, how could they have anticipated the whistleblower?

he blew the whistle over a month ago, so DNI and then Acting DNI and Barr had a month to prepare before Congress even got a whiff.

and, I think Barry Berke was a pretty damn effective punch to Lewandowski a few nights ago.

Right now, there are several lawsuits working through the courts - at least 2 related to Emoluments, including one that was just reinstated, at least 1 more related to Trump tax returns. lawsuits related to witnesses testifying. Sadly, these things take time to see results. But, if Democrats didn't do them, the GOP would counter-sue and Democrats definitely would get slapped down by the courts.

I see Republicans questioning Lewandowski or Mueller, Cohen or Comey and I see a bunch of idiots mostly without law degrees/licenses angrily shouting out Republican talking points. And, while I feel Nadler is too mild, there are plenty of tough Democrats on the Judiciary committee - Mary Gay Scanlon, Hakeem Jeffries, Steve Cohen, Jamie Raskin, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, etc.

Same thing with the Intel committee - Adam Schiff is far smarter than his counterpart Devin Nunes, and most of the Democrats have law degrees and licenses, where most of the Republicans do not.

The problem is that the system has never had to handle a PRESIDENT that is a TRAITOR and a MAJOR NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT before as well as an AG and DOJ that are submissive to the president and his lawlessness. Without a neutral DOJ enforcing the laws equally, it's a horrible situation. Decades and centuries of norms have been tossed out the window because there was not an actually written law regarding presidential behavior and lawlessness.

[grantcart]

15. I agree

[gibraltar72]

18. Depressing as hell when a GOPER gets it

and we aren't listening.

[diva77]

24. K&R Open Impeachment Investigation NOW!

[ffr]

31. Then we'll see how far down the rabbit hole the Kremlin's men in the WH are.

Republicans are rotten rotten people!