How clever of you to be able to get into the mind of a woman you don’t know and also don’t know much about. You’ve laid out her thinking, her reasoning, and her approach to the discussion of something that is deadly serious for this country to consider. It’s impressive.
3 Likes
She is also a she, which gets on some people’s nerves. If Pelosi looked like Brat Pitt, the Peanut Gallery would be oohing and moaning about SAVVY…
2 Likes
As a matter of fact she is brilliant.
But I only say to you whether it’s using impeachment among other purposes for investigation or whether it’s using fines as an incentive for people to earlier on supply information that’s–it’s a possibility. It’s not something that–as I said, I’m a big believer in the committee system. I have great confidence in our committee chairs and how they go forward.
1 Like
FYI
Chairman Nadler’s thoughts on the subject of impeachment. I see diplomacy, steadiness and caution because there will be no turning back.
Jerry Nadler: Impeachment is a decision for down the road. But we have to get the facts. Ultimately, impeachment or not impeachment is a political act. And before you do it, the American people have to support it.
We as a country are not at the “we support it” place.
3 Likes
This is why a woman failed to be elected president. A lesser woman, a stronger woman, looks weak with toothless pronouncements. All the accusations that could and will continue to be used women in political office. Thanks for your help
2 Likes
This is precisely the question. Despite your attacks, what @paul_lukasiak appears to be arguing is that Congress’s powers to compel evidence, documentary or testimonial, are different, and weaker, in the context of “oversight” than in the context of impeachment. This is hardly a left-field argument; legal commentators have been stating precisely this for weeks – and they are by no means all, or even mostly, in the Trump camp. It seems quite plausible.
As per above, this is not an “obvious truth”. Sure, Congress has the power to investigate before initiating a formal impeachment inquiry. The question is the reach of those powers, and exactly what it can compel, and what it can’t, without such a formal initiation.
1 Like
Nancy is edging us
2 Likes
Great deflection. With two daughters, my only children, one on the faculty at a major University and the other a physician, I can only be amused by your accusation.
Meh. Maybe some people. Steny Hoyer, quite appropriately, isn’t getting much “oohing and moaning” around here. Shall I link the discussion for you?
And he probably had a magic wand too.
There is jujitsu involved in coming up with implicit or apparently-explicit excuses for not supporting a progressive female presidential candidate. A good one is that Joe Biden has experience (implicit). Another is that “she” (Warren works well here) is unlikely to beat Trump (apparently-explicit, but circular – the only reason “she” would be unlikely to beat Trump is rooted in patriarchy/misogyny). There will be no end to the jujitsu, whose purpose is to avoid honesty.
2 Likes
No.
“Inherent contempt” is an enforcement mechanism – one of three: civil, criminal, and “inherent”.
Congressional Research Service:
The inherent contempt power is not specified in a statute or constitutional provision, but has been deemed implicit in the Constitution’s grant to Congress of all legislative powers. In an inherent contempt proceeding, the offender is tried at the bar of the House or Senate and can be held in custody until such time as the contemnor provides the testimony or documents sought, or until the end of the session. Inherent contempt was most often used as a means of coercion, not punishment.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD):
We also have the power—and I should say I’m speaking for myself here, because I don’t know how many people I’ve been able to convince about this—but we do have the power to exercise the so-called inherent powers of contempt of Congress. It was ruled in the 19th century, in a case called Anderson v. Dunn in 1821, that Congress has the power to enforce its own orders. Just as a court can enforce its orders, Congress can enforce its orders. And in the 19th century, Congress had the sergeant at arms arrest and detain people until they complied with lawful orders of Congress. And we would have the power to fine people who were out of compliance with the law. So that provides another avenue.
Enforcement. Remedies.
The question at issue here is the legitimacy of Congress’s attempt to exercise it subpoena power, which is preliminary to enforcement. It’s the question of whether these particular subpoenas are legally legitimate. More broadly, it’s the question of whether Congress has the power to subpoena anything it wants, whenever it wants, for whatever reason, or whether there are limits on the legitimacy of that power. If there are limits, then the question becomes where they are.
Call me crazy, but I like the idea of limits on government power.
Ooh that has to sting! Trump is all about dignity. When he calls Senator Warren “Pocahontas”, he does it in a very dignified way.
Which I’ve also shredded. Please pay attention.
Two accomplished daughters in successful careers. Good for them. Doesn’t change the fact that you’re willing to call the leader of the Democratic party weak and something less than strong. She’s guiding the party to an outcome which other than some Democrats voters are not yet supporting. The chair of Judiciary is leaning in that direction, and he wouldn’t be on the record with his specific statements on impeachment if she herself were not also supportive.
I believe with all my heart that Harris is the one who could beat trumPP. Joe’s the guy who makes us remember the Obama era, but it’s not enough. He’s got a long record which will be examined in forthcoming debates, and it won’t be pretty. The serious candidates all have long records, all will be examined, but his is longer than most and full of mistakes and missteps.
She doesn’t have show her thinking or display her strategy. To do so would enable the right wing noise machine to go into overdrive. Strategizing is done in the office of House members, not under TV lights.
I wasn’t aware it was my obligation to read your every single post on every topic. Some of your previous “shreds” have been… well, let’s say, not so shreddy. In any event, you’ve now asserted that you’ve “shredded” this claim. Accordingly, that’s your burden to demonstrate. A link would be a good start.
Just about every legal commentator I’ve read has stated, without going into detail, that Congress has more leverage, power, legitimacy, call it what you will – one commentator called it “standing”, which is probably sloppy language – in the impeachment context than with ordinary legislative oversight. These ain’t Trumpists, either. Either they are all wrong, and you’ve “shredded” them all, or, perhaps, just maybe, you are.
Be all that as it may, I’ve read both the opposition and the reply briefs in the preliminary injunction motion in the Deutsche Bank case. I haven’t dug into the authorities either side has cited. I fall out on the side of the opposition (i.e., the committees). The reply brief is plausible in the abstract (in brief, Congress needs a legitimate legislative purpose; its investigative powers are not and should not be unfettered) but under the facts of the case, the committees have demonstrated this purpose, contrary to the claims of the movants.
That said, it doesn’t mean that the principle is false – that an impeachment inquiry would grant greater powers than mere oversight.
You seem to have dropped the “inherent contempt” argument, which was flat wrong and was the sole putatively-legitimate basis of your earlier reply (the rest was fallacious argumentum ad hominem and appeal to motive, with the usual invective and table-pounding tossed in for spice). Progress, of a sort, I guess.
Of course it is. I’m THAT interesting.
So, no link to the “shred” then?
Meanwhile, rather than hurling invective, I’ve actually been having a decent discussion – and disagreement – with @paul_lukasiak. Dealing with, you know, actual substance and issues, like the content of the briefs and the legal positions in the Deutsche Bank case. I think Paul is wrong, for reasons I’ve stated in that thread. But it’s actually productive, since I’m not calling Paul a troll or tossing insults or conclusory assertions around. Try it sometime.