bggamers Loc: georgia

Because it was a legal court hearing this isnt they are not following protocol

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

You want to talk corruption and outright evil?

Your girl Hillary has once again walked away unscathed from her treasonous email crimes.

Hillary Clinton divulged more top secret information than Edward Snowden.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

You and Schiff, who has consistently lied to us are claiming lawlessness is ok.

Pariahjf

The issue here is that there is no "normal" way to proceed with impeachment----it's entire up to the leadership of the House on how to proceed in each case.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

BS. There is no rules set in stone. There have been 3 impeachment’s of presidents. Also numerous judges. There has been established norms or precedents set and followed. They’ve only been changed because the Democrats don’t want the American people to participate in the Impeachment as our Founders wanted.

Pariahjf

Maybe this IS the establishment of a new precedent-----we will see going forward. You agreed there were no rules set in stone by the Constitution.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Nope there weren't. But the way it's presently being done is not at all what the Founders envisioned. When you remove a President elected by the people, the people should see exactly why and what proof the House has. Unless you are a complete fool you know why the rules have been changed.

Pariahjf

And I am pretty sure that IF they decide to commence on removal, that they will show the American people the reasons for that removal. They would be complete fools to not do so.

3Jakester25

There is no reason to comply with subpoenas at this time. If fact they should be ignored. The only way the House can have legal impeachment proceedings is if the House v**es for impeachment and lists the charges, which has not happened. They don't have the v**es. Impeachment proceeding if v**ed on are not held in secret. If the House would v**e to institute impeachment proceeding which includes the charges, then they can legally issue subpoenas. Here again the Democrats demonstrate their complete disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law in their attempt to institute socialism and destroy the United States.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

You are completely missing the point.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Welcome jakester....Every Talking ParrotHead is attempting to convince the American people (ignorant or not) that impeachment is imminent.

Liar Schiff and Worthless Pelosi don't want a v**e.

If they pulled this off, it would shock Schiff and Pelosi, the most.

The whole Mueller show, proved the nefarious nature of the phony investigations.

This is just a continuation of the smear campaign.

Comey was first to taunt the President with the Dossier.

Mueller the Milker took the baton, and then handed off to the House for further taunting.

They don't care that they're messing with citizens lives.

The Left....is the Deep State, because they certainly aren't interested for We the People on the right.

Hillary blurted that out like a Tourette's Syndrome victim..."Deplorable's"

The whole systematic plan of harass Trump and rub our face in it by the MSM is a terroristic socialist ploy.

Thanks for joining OPP. The more the merrier.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Remember resist, resist, resist? How does what goes around comes around feel?-Karma BTW, this is anything but legal.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Nicely said! 😀

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

From Wikipedia:

Subpoenas

Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. Committee rules may provide for the full committee to issue a subpoena, or permit subcommittees or the chairman (acting alone or with the ranking member) to issue subpoenas.

As announced in Wilkinson v. United States, a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.

Procedures

Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.

Inherent contempt

Under this process, the procedure for holding a person in contempt involves only the chamber concerned. Following a contempt citation, the person cited is arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House or Senate, brought to the floor of the chamber, held to answer charges by the presiding officer, and then subjected to punishment as the chamber may dictate (usually imprisonment for punishment, imprisonment for coercion, or release from the contempt citation).

Concerned with the time-consuming nature of a contempt proceeding and the inability to extend punishment further than the session of the Congress concerned (under Supreme Court rulings), Congress created a statutory process in 1857. While Congress retains its "inherent contempt" authority and may exercise it at any time, this inherent contempt process was last used by the Senate in 1934, in a Senate investigation of airlines and the U.S. Postmaster. After a one-week trial on the Senate floor (presided over by Vice President John Nance Garner, in his capacity as Senate President), William P. MacCracken, Jr., a lawyer and former Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Aeronautics who was charged with allowing clients to remove or rip up subpoenaed documents, was found guilty and sentenced to 10 days imprisonment.
MacCracken filed a petition of habeas corpus in federal courts to overturn his arrest, but after litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress had acted constitutionally, and denied the petition in the case of Jurney v. MacCracken.

Tug484

They can't issue subpoenas because this isn't an impeachment has not been v**ed on and it requires the whole house of reps.