flyangler

When a House Dem Subpoena is Not Really a Subpoena, It Is Quite Toothless and Has No Real Bite. But Why?

Rate this topic

26 posts in this topic

Why aren’t the House Dems actually submitting REAL subpoenas to the WH or any of the other parties from which they seek to compel testimony? Thus far we have seen only threats to subpoena or “letters” that look like subpoenas, but are not. 

 

The letters do not mention that the House Dems will go to an actual court to compel compliance. Instead, if you actually read the print down toward the bottom of one of the letters, the only threat is what can be done within the House, not in courts. That is not a subpoena in any real legal sense of the word, it is toothless in the end. No bite, no ability to force compliance or risk a court finding against the WH. 

 

But why would the House Dems use such a toothless strategy? What is their game plan? Is this about truth-seeking or just political theater? Is this about optics?

 

And why won’t Pelosi allow an official vote on an impeachment inquiry? Are the Dems afraid that the House Dems might actually use real subpoena power including court remedies if denied? 

 

Beyond that, what is being “demanded” are actually things that the WH and Administration have every right to refuse, i.e. foreign policy related discussions, etc. It is as if the Dems are looking to ask for things that they KNOW the WH won’t give up just to create the appearance of a cover up or obstruction. 

 

I think the Dems expected all sorts of obstructive behavior on the Ukraine phone call, and actually go what they wanted, with or without any minor delay. That was part of “the trap” that I suggested Trump created for them. 

 

So, back to the topic, when is a subpoena not an actual subpoena and not about actually getting at the information requested? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the Diplomat today, the Democrats issue a toothless subpoena, it gets ignored, then they holler obstruction.

That looks to be their strategy, using Trump's resistance to being hung as evidence of obstruction of justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 mins ago, dena said:

Just like the Diplomat today, the Democrats issue a toothless subpoena, it gets ignored, then they holler obstruction.

That looks to be their strategy, using Trump's resistance to being hung as evidence of obstruction of justice.

Agree, but there is another aspect here to consider: if the Dems don’t take the WH to court, they cannot be blocked by a judge or have an decision in their favor appealed to a higher court. There is no question that some of what is being requested is seeking to treat the Executive Branch as inferior to the Legislative Branch, rather than as co-equals. And an adverse ruling on subpoena, or on appeal, could not only diminish the House’s options going forward, but could also neuter their “oversight” arguments in front of the American people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 mins ago, tomkaz said:

Agree, but there is another aspect here to consider: if the Dems don’t take the WH to court, they cannot be blocked by a judge or have an decision in their favor appealed to a higher court. There is no question that some of what is being requested is seeking to treat the Executive Branch as inferior to the Legislative Branch, rather than as co-equals. And an adverse ruling on subpoena, or on appeal, could not only diminish the House’s options going forward, but could also neuter their “oversight” arguments in front of the American people.

Good point.

Don't ask, and you can't be denied.

Trump baited them by giving up the transcript, then slammed the door in their face.

Now, they are standing around going hummina hummina hummina, what do we do now George.

They either have to go full bore impeachment, or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, dena said:

Good point.

Don't ask, and you can't be denied.

Trump baited them by giving up the transcript, then slammed the door in their face.

Now, they are standing around going hummina hummina hummina, what do we do now George.

They either have to go full bore impeachment, or shut up.

 

Or Censure. I still think that is the way Pelosi will choose to go. Better for her politically, publicly and the way she can get more Americans to agree with her than an aborted impeachment. 

 

And that last point is likely the most important: Polls show the majority of Americans do not want to see Trump removed from office based on the supposed charges to date. But if asked, I would venture that a majority would agree that Trump should be called out officially, read the riot act and then be thrown a vote of Censure from the House. And, I would guess, that they would get a bipartisan vote as well, with “bipartisan” being any vote where the Dems can get one or two GOP to join them. 

 

To my mind, that is the most winning play by Pelosi. It will anger her rabid impeachment demander, but they will shut up and cool their heels. 

 

And, as I have also said, Pelosi can put all the blame on Schiff and use him as a scapegoat saying he over-reached, blew it, etc. And I think in that, Trump is setting up Schiffty to that end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dems were hoping to run this pseudo-inquiry well into next year, with all the innuendo, claims of collusion, and obstruction of Justice they could muster with flimsiest evidence they can muster.

 

My guess is that they didn't expect Trump to release the transcript at all, and now the first WB has been tainted, they scrambled to get the source. The only problem for this new first hand source is that that source was not the only one in the room, and without corroboration it is hearsay and personal opinion, particularly if the official transcript has the imprimatur of those present.

 

Both sources will be identified, God help them if their party affiliation is Democrat, and their social media partisan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will do anything to keep this thing alive while making sure they don't have to produce any evidence or risking any Democrats getting served a subpoena. Until they are under oath, they can say what they want  and conjure up any make believe witnesses that they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tomkaz said:

 

 

Beyond that, what is being “demanded” are actually things that the WH and Administration have every right to refuse, i.e. foreign policy related discussions, etc.

Why's that, as a generality? All foreign policy info  is privileged? Since when?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tomkaz said:

 

I think the Dems expected all sorts of obstructive behavior on the Ukraine phone call, and actually go what they wanted, with or without any minor delay. That was part of “the trap” that I suggested Trump created for them. 

 

 

I think it was a bigly mistake for trump to release that summary. It didn't put a damper on anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, zybathegeek said:

The Dems were hoping to run this pseudo-inquiry well into next year, with all the innuendo, claims of collusion, and obstruction of Justice they could muster with flimsiest evidence they can muster.

 

My guess is that they didn't expect Trump to release the transcript at all, and now the first WB has been tainted, they scrambled to get the source. The only problem for this new first hand source is that that source was not the only one in the room, and without corroboration it is hearsay and personal opinion, particularly if the official transcript has the imprimatur of those present.

 

Both sources will be identified, God help them if their party affiliation is Democrat, and their social media partisan.

I read that they are a registered democrat......and have some sort of professional relationship with one of the Democrat candidates. Oh joy I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zybathegeek said:

The Dems were hoping to run this pseudo-inquiry well into next year, with all the innuendo, claims of collusion, and obstruction of Justice they could muster with flimsiest evidence they can muster.

 

My guess is that they didn't expect Trump to release the transcript at all, and now the first WB has been tainted, they scrambled to get the source. The only problem for this new first hand source is that that source was not the only one in the room, and without corroboration it is hearsay and personal opinion, particularly if the official transcript has the imprimatur of those present.

 

Both sources will be identified, God help them if their party affiliation is Democrat, and their social media partisan.

The evidence hasn't been remotely flimsy.  The WB isn't remotely "tainted." Anything heard by someone privy to the conversation isn't "hearsay" at all, and doesn't need to be corroborated to avoid that status. The official transcript is a reconstruction.  And God help them whatever their affiliation. Did being Republican do anything here to legitimize criticism of the President, now or in the past, by McCain, Romney, or anyone else? Of course not.  They're damned as Deep Staters by the Cult. 

 

I think the transcript, reconstructed or not, is terrible. I think the EU Ambassador's insistence on avoiding further quid-pro-quo discussions by email is suspicious. I think that the President's refusal to let him testify (among others) is an admission that his testimony would not support the President, any more than Rick Perry's denial that he wanted the President to ask for help in getting dirt on the Bidens has helped (no doubt Perry is another agent of the Deep State.)  Barr is roaming the world trying to get foreign support, something, anything, to support the President's claims that the Deep State went international in its' evidence to interfere with his election, and that's outrageous too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, BrianBM said:

The evidence hasn't been remotely flimsy.  The WB isn't remotely "tainted." Anything heard by someone privy to the conversation isn't "hearsay" at all, and doesn't need to be corroborated to avoid that status. The official transcript is a reconstruction.  And God help them whatever their affiliation. Did being Republican do anything here to legitimize criticism of the President, now or in the past, by McCain, Romney, or anyone else? Of course not.  They're damned as Deep Staters by the Cult. 

 

I think the transcript, reconstructed or not, is terrible. I think the EU Ambassador's insistence on avoiding further quid-pro-quo discussions by email is suspicious. I think that the President's refusal to let him testify (among others) is an admission that his testimony would not support the President, any more than Rick Perry's denial that he wanted the President to ask for help in getting dirt on the Bidens has helped (no doubt Perry is another agent of the Deep State.)  Barr is roaming the world trying to get foreign support, something, anything, to support the President's claims that the Deep State went international in its' evidence to interfere with his election, and that's outrageous too. 

As a court official, how many times has hearsay been dismissed?

 

Is proffered hearsay not tainted by personal opinion and understanding?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, zybathegeek said:

As a court official, how many times has hearsay been dismissed?

 

Is proffered hearsay not tainted by personal opinion and understanding?

 

 

1)  The WB report is not evidence in a trial.  There is no charge; there is no trial. This is a Congressional inquiry, a totally normal thing, like Whitewater and the nine different committee inquiries into Benghazi. 

 

It's a totally ordinary thing, even down at the precinct level, for an investigation to be initiated on the strength of hearsay.

 

2)  If proferred at a trial, certainly, the source of hearsay or any other evidence can be cross examined. The WB can expect that, if he/she ever takes the stand.  

 

3)  The second whistleblower is alleged to have been a witness to the call. No hearsay exception needed. 

 

4) What's your take on the President's desperation to make sure no one with first hand knowledge ever testifies? Or provide documents? 

 

The conduct of which the President is being accused is exactly what he likes to pretend Mueller exonerated him of committing. Striking continuity, don't you think? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, epanzella said:

They will do anything to keep this thing alive while making sure they don't have to produce any evidence or risking any Democrats getting served a subpoena. Until they are under oath, they can say what they want  and conjure up any make believe witnesses that they want.

Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.