All Zimmerman All The Time
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
This isn't going to end well for Democrats. The stick is coming. https://www.scribd.com/document/429369558/White-House-Letter-Impeachment-Group#fullscreen=1
THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON October 8, 2019The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Adam B. SchiffSpeaker ChairmanHouse of Representatives House Permanent Select Committee onWashington, D.C. 20515 Intelligence Washington, D.C. 20515The Honorable Eliot L. EngelChairman The Honorable Elijah E. CummingsHouse Foreign Affairs Committee ChairmanWashington, D.C. 20515 House Committee on Oversight and Reform Washington, D.C. 20515Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen: I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legallyunsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of theUnited States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an "impeachment inquiry." As you know,you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a maimer that violates fundamental fairnessand constitutionally mandated due process. For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to callwitnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counselpresent, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted yourproceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers bytlu·eatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercisefundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the ruleof law, and eve1y past precedent. Never before in our history has the House ofRepresentatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people downthe dangerous path you seem determined to pursue. Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive theAmerican people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparentlyview impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but asa strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one memberof Congress explained, he is "concerned that ifwe don't impeach the President, he will getreelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort tlu·eatens grave and lasting damageto our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.1 Interview with Rep. Al Green, MSNBC (May 5, 2019).
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, andCummingsPage 2 For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the publictransparency hy declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy ofUkraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there isno basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was alsopowerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiffs decision to create a false version of the call and readit to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simplymaking it all up. In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contactwith Chairman Schiffs office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contactcaused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff"clearly made a statement thatwas false. "2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertlyassist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read acounterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as aneutral "investigator." For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless,unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions haveleft the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, theConstitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency,President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutionalinquiry under these circumstances.I. Your "Inquiry" Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers. Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history ofour Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiryagainst the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for thatdecision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadershipclaims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution bymeans of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simplyannounced an "official impeachment inquiry."3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the2 Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 20 I 9).3 Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).
Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, andCummingsPage 3history of the Nation, 4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachmentproceeding. 5 The Committees' inquity also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite SpeakerPelosi's commitment to "treat the President with fairness," 6 the Committees have not establishedany procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due processunder the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House JudiciaryCommittee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his ownparty, that "[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and thatin this context "due process mean[ s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the chargesagainst you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and tohave the assistance of counsel. "7 All of these procedures have been abandoned here. These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispensewith at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court hasrecognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations. 8 Indeed, it hasbeen recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings. 9 Andprecedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence datesback nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President theseelementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and areprotected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated thisunfairly.4 Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undetiaken the solemn responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing a committee to begin the inquity. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 581, I 05th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 525, I 05th Cong. (1998); III Hinds' Precedents §§ 2400-02, 2408, 2412. And before the Judiciary Committee initiated an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, the Committee's chairman rightfully recognized that "a[n) [inquiry] resolution has always been passed by the House" and "is a necessary step." III Deschler's Precedents ch. 14, § 15.2. The House then satisfied that requirement by adopting H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974),5 Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry-where a floor vote was held-he argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that "an hour debate on this momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair." 144 Cong. Rec. HI 0018 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler). Here, the House has dispensed with any vote and any debate "t {II/,6 Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today (Oct. 2, 2019).7 Examining the A/legations ofMisconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (Part II): Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the J11diciG1J', 114th Cong. 3 (2016) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler); Background and HistoJJ' ofImpeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Co11stitutio11 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17 (1998) (statement of Rep, Jerrold Nadler).8 See, e.g., Watkinsv. United States, 354 U.S. 178,188 (1957); Quinnv. United States, 349 U.S. 155,161 (1955).9 See Hastings v. United Stales, 802 F. Supp. 490, 504 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated on other grounds by Hastings v. United States, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993).10 See, e.g., III Hinds' Precedents § 2445.
Bookmark it: Trump will be impeached
"unconstitutional impeachment inquiry"Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
There is no legal basis for their claims. They can claim it is unconstitutional, and that noise will convince those like yourself who want something they feel they can cling to, but there’s no validity to it. The letter makes mostly political points, rather than legal ones, along with a lot of whining.
Does anyone really give a shit? Democrats can vote to impeach in the House and they're still not going to get two thirds in the Senate to convict. Trump is still going to win 2020, Biden's pay for play schemes with Hunter and Ukraine gas will sink his campaign. Second up, The lying Warren which will be easy to beat. If Clinton couldn't get the job done, There is no way Warren will. Biden was the only hope of the Democratic party, in order to secure the Independents.
2012"The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles." pic.twitter.com/eSbj4gX3IL— Beki Knott (@lotsofuss) October 9, 2019
2012"The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles." pic.twitter.com/eSbj4gX3IL
Author
Topic: White House responds to unconstitutional impeachment inquiry (Read 654 times)
