Another threat by Nadler, while we see "nada", nothing.

Talk is cheap when is not followed by actions, and those of you who do not agree with my post, I am sorry, but that is the reality.

How many times in the past month, maybe even last two years, have we heard Nadler and other Democrats threaten the buffoon and members of his party? How many times have the threats turned into real action and have produced real results?

Everyone who is supporting Democrats and want to save our Democracy, we need to get angry about the lack of action, about the empty threats, it takes us nowhere.

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017541785|

Too many folks want what they want and they want it now. Too many folks are clueless about how it all works. Why don't you attack the repubs?

...or why the process is so important.

Please explain...

Explain how someone like Don Jr gets subpoenaed and only accepts to appear with conditions, one of them limiting the questions, please explain how that works.

If we don't get angry about the lack of action from Democrats we will be sorry, its not an attack, its frustration to see one side moving full speed ahead and the other one just talking.

But anyway, you seem to know how it works, so please explain to all of us who are frustrated about the inaction of Democrats, it will help us calm down once we understand the works.

Thank you in advance.

since you're telling everyone that they are not doing everything they could be and 'just talking.'

And then, why don't you tell them. Let us know what they say.

Thank you in advance.

I think many who agree with me would also love to understand what, according to some, we don't seem to understand. Someone please explain what we are missing?

Otherwise you get turned to stone. That's "process."

Your repeated demand that someone explain it to you -- well, the process for our current circumstances has already been explained here many many times. Perhaps someone will post you a link or a dozen links to those posts.

“Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. But, we have reached an inflection point,” Scanlon said in her statement. “The President’s refusal to produce evidence or permit witness testimony defies not only the rule of law but the basic protections of our Constitution. No one is above the rule of law. The time has come to start an impeachment inquiry because the American people deserve to know the truth and to have the opportunity to judge the gravity of the evidence and charges leveled against the President.”

[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142318760|

Someone else seems to think the "process" is not working and other measures must be taken, and this is someone who knows.

I also think that there's more than a little "good cop/bad cop" going on right now, like when Pelosi was saying that we need to be civil to Trump officials in public, and Maxine Waters was promoting confronting Trump officials in public.

Nancy knows what she's doing.

The attitude of "I want it now" and "me, me me!" is all too pervasive in present day society.

Maybe a reading of the children's book, one of Aesop's Fables, "The Tortoise and the Hare" is in good order.

And yes, attacking the republicons is what they should be doing.

I get so tired of these baseless attacks on our Dems from those who think they know it all.

If you were advising Nadler on his next steps, what exactly would you advise him to do that would actually "scare the buffoon" and produce "real results"?

As I understand it, to begin impeachment process allows Democrats to get all the documentation they need, including the unredacted Muller report, to subpoena all involved and the courts will make sure that it is done because it is the law that would support such move.

Impeach Barr, and the buffoon, both. Barr's wings have to be cut, he can no longer stay there.

That is what I would tell Nadler to do, and I would tell him to stop with threats, just tell us what you have done that produced results.

I would also tell him to reject Don Jr's conditions, he must respond to a subpoena and he has no right, by the law, to change the rules. Hillary Clinton appeared in front of a corrupt congress for eleven hours, I am sure Jr can do the same.

Why has he not acted on the "contempt" against Barr?

Its your turn to tell us all how it works, saying that "I don't know how it works" without providing your understanding doesn't help anyone. I would love for you to explain in detail and put my mind, and many others, at ease.

What info do you have that she doesn't?

Perhaps you need to explain that you better know 'how things work,' than someone who's been effectively leading Democrats for over a decade?

Did you get the ACA passed when even Obama didn't think it would work?

I have said what was asked, you and others say you know how it works while calling me "clueless", then stop throwing the ball back at me and explain, I know many of us are dying to hear from the experts.

As I said before, your knowledge on the topic will ease many of our minds, I will even offer to write to Steyer, send him what your expertise provides so that he may also understand he needs to change course.

"If it's a simple as you say, then why isn't Pelosi doing it?"

Why am I not surprised?

You can't. That or you don't have the courage to say what you really think is going on.

You are very aggressive at getting back to me, but ignore that fact that you present yourself as someone who knows, who understands the process but instead your only recourse seems to throw the ball back at me without explaining anything.

And by the way, I have, just scroll and you will find my answers on what I see should be done, if I am wrong then let me know, in full sentences and with facts, I really don't mind being proven wrong as long as it is done with decency.

What you are seeing is exactly what it would look like. Gather information to make a case. There is resistance to gathering that information so these are the steps they have to go through to get it.

In a normal world the repubs would already see the obstruction and criminality, but they have chosen to go all-in and obstruct as well. Congress has to make this case so obvious, so blatant, and so serious that even most R's have to agree that this is unacceptable. We're not there yet.

In fact, it doesn't give them any more ability to get such things as the unredacted Mueller report, to subpoena all involved, or to compel the courts to do rule than they already have.

Everything Nadler is doing is exactly the same thing he would do if an impeachment inquiry had started. He's going through the same processes and following the same requirements, all of which a court would require before ruling on anything - just the same as would occur in an impeachment inquiry.

In fact, it is possible to obtain some of these things easier and quicker through a non-impeachment process. For example, Adam Schiff has already subpoenaed the unredacted Mueller report as part of the intelligence investigation into the Russian interference and compromise investigation. Intelligence Committees often have more justification for such materials and their requests are given more deference because of their sensitivity than other kinds of investigations.

As to your question about acting on contempt against Barr, he HAS acted and is going through the necessary steps complete it.

I understand your frustrations - and share them. But there are processes that must be followed to get what we want and Nadler, Pelosi and the others are doing it. And these processes wouldn't be eliminated or made any easier by an impeachment inquiry.

The problem that I, and many others, feel and the reason we are frustrated is because the course of action you explain is too slow, and there is a chance that it will take us to 2020. I have seen and lived similar situations, I know how fast crooks move, and we can all agree GOP is moving very fast, more now with Barr, that is why I feel Democrats need to find the speediest action to get results that would avoid having these crooks run for office come 2020.

"Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate. And impeachment would give lawmakers that legal matter — the process is essentially a court procedure run by Congress where the House brings charges and the Senate holds the trial …"

[link:http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/is-impeachment-essential-to-house-investigations-of-trump.html|

Indeed, impeachment might not only “trump” executive privilege in a court review of congressional subpoenas, but could also give courts a solid reason to speed up hearings and appeals on the subject, much as the U.S. Supreme Court did in United States v. Nixon, the unanimous decision forcing that president to release tapes which included the famous “smoking gun” evidence of obstruction of justice. In that case, SCOTUS ruled just three weeks after oral argument subsequent to an expedited appeal from a district court.

Thank you for your polite answer. I understand what you are saying, but I am still doubtful anything will happen on time, the danger that Barr poses is tremendous, he can change the laws, that is what is done when you want to stay in power, that is exactly what I have seen done somewhere else, and suddenly those course of actions are no longer valid.

They apparently know more than you do.

Again... if you have some secret information or a magic wand that Pelosi doesn't have, why aren't you in Washington giving her the benefit of your clearly superior understanding on what is at stake.

Perhaps she'll be so impressed that she will step down and demand that Democrats make you speaker.

Lets stop the punches, I am not here to fight with anyone, lets keep the discussion polite and civil, we seem to be on the same side, and I don't think I have insulted anyone here, have I? So please lets be decent when we disagree.

What I understand is that Democrats seem to be worried that impeachment will lower their chances in 2020, that it will create bad sentiment in voters, but I have read that not to be the case, what I understand is that a great percent of voters do want Democrats to start impeachment process.

The problem I have with that thought is that I believe if Democrats do not start impeachment process that many people who want the buffoon out will become very disappointed at Democrats because they will see them as weak and will refuse to even go out and vote.

Once again, my understanding is that the courts would have to support the impeachment process thus making sure Democrats get all the documentation they need and that all subpoenas are answered. That is what I have read.

"If you wanted to be "polite and civil" why are you doing this all over a Democratic discussion board?"

I have been a member of DU for many years, since Clinton was president, never wanted to post, although I may have a couple of times during GW. I am a democrat, and I belong here.

I believe that Tom Steyer does speak for a lot of Democrats, let us not forget he is putting his own money to do this, and I hear the same sentiments here in DU by plenty of people and on the street, on talk shows, I am not alone on this.

"Why don't you tell us what percent of voters want impeachment?" 57% last count...Find your own source, you have access at google as well.

"Speak for yourself. What leads you to conclude that about anyone else"...do you ever read outside of DU or anywhere else that doesn't support your views? I suggest you do that.

I posted a link to what other experts say about impeachment and why they recommend Democrats go ahead with it, so find it and read about it.

You don't provide the knowledge you claim to have, all you do is personal attacks and questions, that is not the way to answer, that is the way to avoid bringing your expertise to the table. you won't prove me wrong if all you do is answer with questions and wanting me to show you links, etc. Bring your own discussion and support your argument.

The retort of someone who can't find the data, or realize that they can't share the source...



Be careful what you ask for:

Majority of Americans oppose Trump impeachment hearings after Mueller report, but questions remain
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/most-americans-oppose-trump-impeachment-hearings-after-mueller-report-but-questions-remain

U.S. Voters Still Say 2-1 Trump Committed Crime, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; But Voters Oppose Impeachment 2-1

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2618

There is no legal requirement that a judge give more weight to a matter because it's part of an impeachment vs. something else. And although the author of the piece you excerpted claimed that "Judges have repeatedly ruled that Congress has a greater claim to sensitive government documents and personal information when it can point to an ongoing legal matter, instead of just a congressional investigation or legislative debate," I am not aware of any such repeated rulings in which judges found that a party had a more valid claim to a document because it was requested in an ongoing legal matter than it would in a congressional investigation - and he didn't cite to any cases to support his claim.

The U.S. v. Nixon case is not really illustrative here. That case didn't arise out of the impeachment proceedings. It as brought by the Special Prosecutor to compel the production of the tapes for a criminal trial, completely separate from impeachment. The Court expedited the proceedings because the case involved the president of the United States and the issue was an important one, not because an impeachment inquiry was occurring.

In my experience, judges determine the urgency of a matter based on the circumstances and if a judge thinks a congressional oversight request is important, they will give it significant weight - just as Judge Mehta did yesterday when he expeditiously and firmly ordered Trump's accountants to turn over his financial information to the House Oversight Committee.

And impeachment won't "trump" executive privilege. Whether executive privilege exists or it doesn't has nothing to do with the context or proceeding for which it is invoked. No court is going to rule that executive privilege exists with respect to a congressional oversight hearing but can't be invoked in an impeachment hearing. If a party is entitled to invoke executive privilege, they are entitled to invoke it everywhere. If they're not entitled to it, it doesn't matter where they try to invoke it.

In fact, you're making the argument that Trump is making, in a way. He waived executive privilege with regard to McGahn's testimony to Mueller. Now he's trying to claim it for congressional testimony. But once it's waived, it can't be re-asserted.

The bottom line is that impeachment offers no guarantee that congress will be able to any more likely to obtain the information it's seeking or that they will be able to obtain any more quickly than they can under its regular oversight process.

so nice to read what I wish I could write.

... with grand jury information.

They do have to go through the process to compel, it's better to have the courts on the side of democrats than not

that impeachment allows Democrats to get all the documentation they need.

What is the process in impeachment if Dotard and the Rs just ignore the request for documents?

It is not my claim, it is what I read, I am not trying to make things up, I am trying to understand and I want to see results.

If the goal is to divide Democrats, per the Republican and Russian game plan, than this divisive crap is effective.

....to be a no-show so the Democrats can take the next step toward impeachment.

These folks - Pelosi, Nadler, Cummings, Neal, Waters - ALL have a coordinated plan. It may take a while, but they're dealing with republican simpletons.

To quote the orange jackass.

Now we have Rump frantically trying to cover shit in a litter box.

We also have more of a case to make to judges that we need subpoenas for evidence, because Trump refuses to cooperate.

Analysis provided by?? (honest question)

Lock him up, anyway.

....that when your opponent is street fighting with broken bottles and shivs (as Trump's team is) you must fight back in a way that inflicts pain. Trump is a mob boss and his fighters are thugs. The dirtiest, unprincipled thugs. They fight dirty and they taunt you while they do so.

The dainty quainty steps of Marquess of Queensbury rules must be set aside as the primary goal here and PAIN MUST BE INFLICTED BY DEMS.

Tag team if you must. Good cop, bad cop them if you must.

But DEMS MUST INFLICT SOME PAIN NOW.

NOW.

NOW.

and he does it well.

But he's never had to govern, represent a diverse constituency, or manage a large, complex organization, he's not a lawyer, not an expert on Congressional processes and procedures, so while his advice is helpful and inspiring, it's certainly not any more dispositive than any other outside observer's is. And the fact that he wants something to happen a certain way doesn't mean that the people in charge of actually doing it have to do it his way.

(Your circle of influence and your experience being significantly less than that of Rev. Al)

In fact, i don't have a "way." I'm simply explaining to people why they're doing it the way they are.

Please be specific. What, under the law, can they do NOW NOW NOW?

That McGahn is tied to mob?

Now I have to put Parallel Lines on my turntable.

Serious question. And please don't tell me the Sgt. at Arms -- that's a fairy tale.

In the real world, who is going to do the arresting?

There will be no arrests, and no amount of wishing otherwise is going to change that reality. This will be settled in court. Nadler knows that and so does every Dem on the committee. I understand that's a slow and frustrating process, and may feel like 'doing nothing' -- but its not, and unless the judiciary wants to set a democracy-ending precedent, Dems will win this battle eventually.

Please share.

...a better end result for Democrats (wins in court & a big victory in 2020) than civil contempt?

I see a lot of people calling for it but so far no one has been able to make a legally sound & realistic case for it.

Thanks.

And one needs criminal, rather than civil charges we have, to merit the perp walk you crave.

To where do those arrested go?

You get the picture

and you know that's not going to happen.

I'm not so confident. Once they win again due to jimmied up voting software, it'll be all regrets and poor me's from the party who flinched. LET'S GO.

...if we wait for 2020 and lose (counting on a fairy tale that the election will be sound and fair) we will have lost our democracy.

Who is willing to take that bet?

It's not the American way --- not the CAN-DO spirit that save democracy for the world more than once.

Not the American way to be weak-kneed.

The world is watching.

Many on this board and most of the party.

Sadly.

To the other extreme we basically have a coup, where we enlist some military or cops to start arresting people, including the (alleged) president of the United States?

If that is too extreme, what is the middle road? I mean, several people HAVE already been arrested. Probably more to come.

"The process" at this point has to include Republicans. If Dems go off and so "something" more drastic (i.e. outside the law?) without R's, THEN what happens?

Maybe had something to do with McGhan not showing?

From recent FEC filing (yesterday I think).

in retaliation to be replaced by the cheaper Scott Walker

https://abovethelaw.com/2019/04/trump-fires-jones-day-to-stick-it-to-don-mcgahn-for-being-vaguely-competent/

[link:http://

Link to tweet

Stop talking about it and fucking DO IT! No more talk. All that hearing accomplished today was to give Collins an opportunity to deliver his bullshit.

I was thinking the same thing.

Please explain exactly what their next steps should be and how they should go about doing it.

Get an arrest warrant and go pick him up?

I suggest you research the process for enforcing a congressional subpoena.

I never claimed to be an expert about this shit, and I don't need to do "research". Our elected officials need to take action and stop talking about it on MSNBC all day long every damn day. We've listened on MSNBC elected officials and pundits and supposedly knowledgable people talk about how they can conduct arrests, fines, etc. for witnesses they call that refuse to show up. All I'm saying now is DO IT and stop talking. I want to see the arrests and fines they've been talking about.

unless you'd like to actually know what you're talking about.

Sorry if you still don't get it.

I make my living as a registered, licensed and bonded process server, for the US District Court and the US Marshals Service, and I know all about serving Federal summonses, subpoenas, writs and levies, etc, but I have no idea how Congressional subpoenas work.
Thanks in advance!

All of them share specific requirements to get the ball rolling.

First, once the subpoena is issued, the witness or holder of documents has to definitively refuse to comply. That means more than just saying they won't, but to take some affirmative step to defy the subpoena, such as fail to appear or produce the documents by the deadline.

In McGahn's case, although he signaled yesterday he wouldn't show up, he didn't trigger anything until he actually didn't show up at the appointed time today. He has now defied the subpoena.

The Judiciary Committee now must make some effort to get him to comply. It might be by letter (the much-derided "strongly worded" letter is mocked around here, but it performs a legal necessity), conversations with him or his attorneys to try to negotiate compliance, or some other method. This is necessary because, down the road, before upholding a contempt citation, a court will require a showing that Congress made a good faith effort to secure compliance prior to issuing the citation.

If those efforts fail, the House Judiciary would hold an executive meeting - aka "markup" - to vote on a contempt recommendation. Markups usually require several days notice and usually, the minority can request a one-week extension.

At the markup, the Judiciary Committee members will discuss the measure and then vote. If a majority of Senators agree, the contempt recommendation will be referred to the floor to be voted on by the full House.

When that happens, the measure will likely be referred to the Rules Committee which will set out the parameters for debate (how long each side has, etc.) and the vote. That usually doesn't take long and there may be ways to avoid having to do a rule on a contempt vote ( I haven't looked into that). The debate and vote are scheduled and then the full House votes. Simple majority carries.

If the measure passes, the Congress has now officially cited the witness for contempt. At that point, there are three different avenues that can be taken for enforcement. The first is already a nonstarter, so there's no point in even trying, unless they just want to make a point. That would be to refer the citation to the US Attorney for DC and ask them to enforce the citation with an arrest or prosecution. Since the US Attorney reports to the Attorney General, that ain't gonna happen. So let's move on.

The next possibility is for Congress to exercise its "inherent contempt" power, a rare tactic, which Congress hasn't done in nearly a century, but is being seriously considered. That could mean imposing a fine or instructing the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the subject and bring them before the body to answer the contempt charge. If they still don't comply, they would be held in custody until they do or until a judge orders them released. While it's possible to do this, it would be very difficult to pull this off logistically in many instances. It might be easier for a McGahn, who is a private citizen. But it's not clear how the Sergeant-at-Arms would go about arresting the Attorney General or other federal official under 24-7 protection of federal agents and whose homes and workplace are virtual fortresses. It will be interesting to see what happens if they go that route.

The third possibility is to go to court and ask it to enforce the citation. If the court rules that the subject must comply, failure to comply would result in a contempt of court citation, in addition to the contempt of Congress. In such cases, the court could enforce by, among other things ordering the US Marshals to arrest a subject, a process you're obviously very familiar with since it's right in your wheelhouse.

The bottom line is that contempt of Congress citations aren't simple things and Nadler can't just snap his fingers and throw someone in jail because they didn't show up this morning. As you surely know from your work, legal processes are complicated, but must be followed.

I hope this is helpful. You can read more about the enforcement of Contempt of Congress citations here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf and here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-hard-hitting-are-u-s-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1SC1YE

Can you share what you know that we don't?

You try disobeying a subpoena and see how fast you get picked up.

If not, perhaps you're not someone who should be complaining about people 'not being arrested right NOW!!" and lecturing on the law.

I guess you are.

I'm asking for action. I keep hearing our elected officials talk about "what they are going to do" on M$M and I would just like them to stop talking about it and start doing it.

I think I made my point clear in my previous post. It's not about OMG ARRESTS RIGHT NOW. But I have heard enough talk about it and am ready to see it. The talk has been going on for a good while now, and yes, I'm getting impatient with it.

Upon a vote of inherent contempt the sergeant of arms of the chamber that passed this resolution would then---with the assistance of CAPITOL POLICE have the necessary authority to arrest and detain whomever the person was which the resolution named. AG Barr has DOJ security around him, but any attempt to use that security to stop this arrest and detainment would be illegal---any DOJ individual who took it upon themselves to resist such action would be also criminally liable--they would be allowed to provide security as all ways-- but no other assisatance such as communications or information. Really no difference then when FEDS show up to arrest state level official--or STATE TROOPERS along with State Law enforcement arrest local officials-- upto and including COUNTY SHERRIFFS AND CHIEF OF POLICE--------their is no jail in the capitol--that originally was to be George Washington's tomb. Can either be help at Capitol Police off site holding facility--or hotel -- as was done in the 1930's------then is brought to trial in the legislative chamber that passed the INHERENT CONTEMPT---punishment set by chamber. YES I AM PROBABLY NOT 100% THIS BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME FOR A REFRESHER FOR ALL OF US

Supreme court & getting away with it like Pres. Jackson, tRumps hero, did. As the executive branch controls the teeth of laws (barr).

and never tried to shut him down so it was a good gig & no, he never went off on HRC & supported her 100% once the primary was over. Big Ed was on there also, RIP, but I quit watching him, listening to him when he wouldn't support HRC. RT had its rightwing nutjobs but much less than fox. Their approach was subtle misinformation, not in you're face fox news style. I'm sure they thought Thom would be an anti establishment mouthpiece but that didn't pan out.

The current fights couldn’t be more serious. The executive branch is asserting that only it can investigate the president. That congress has no right to subpoena evidence or testimony to conduct oversight.

This is historic. If we lose these battles in the supreme court we have almost no recourse.

The power of the purse would be all that is left and I do not think that could be effective if only done surgically.

Yeah we could and should impeach at that point but the senate would still likely acquit. Unless
McConnell refuses to even hold the trial. I’ll bet a dollar on that.

Sorry if that sounds gloom and doom. I don’t think we’ll lose this war in the courts and then we’ll have the evidence we need. I hope I’m right.

Administration had asserted that any member of the executive branch had immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress.

court for failure to appear. That would at least be a first step towards something.

How will he enforce the rule of law?

The system is broken.

Need all our Dems to have a plan B, a next step.

Maybe they need to call the entire nation into the streets to create pressure. Thins like that.

So far I see nothing about a plan for enforcement.

The clock will run out as the courts grind through all this. With Trump insisting on Executive Branch privilege for every aspect of any court order.

So again---How? How? How?

That team Mueller is having reservations about testafying, per CNN a friend just told me.

IF this reporting is correct and true from CNN, it doesn't seem as if Dems are getting any help right now from anywhere in reigning in this tin-horn, despot of a president and his unholy crew of Senate THUGLICANS

Cohen stated during closed testimony Trump would routinely have him call contractors after they billed for completed work, dispute the terms of the original contract and threaten not to pay them anything at all, then pay them only 20 cents on the dollar. Trump bankrupted many contractors and left them holding the bag. Contractors filed suits, but Trump would counter-sue and tie them up in court till they ran out of money. That's what Trump's doing to Congress.

He already stated he would fight every single subpoena, request for documents and claim executive privilege for all his henchmen. Trump intends to drag this whole thing out to the bitter end, whether the Impeachment process goes forward, or not. In either situation he will appeal every case, then probably still thumb his nose and continue to stonewall. Then what? Who will bring him to justice?

They all say Trump's immune from prosecution now as president, but not when he's out of office. My biggest fear is when Trump can finally be prosecuted for all his crimes, the Democrats will say "let's move on...for the good of the country" and do nothing. We'll see.

Right. Keep talking.

If this Evil Clown President and his minions keep stonewalling who makes him/them comply? The Executive branch controls the police and military, the guns.

We are up against it and it’s no slam dunk that we return to any kind of normal anytime soon.

You are big enough.
You are strong enough.
And we like you.
Deliver for us New York.
Thank you Jerry.