Posted on 10/26/2019 4:14:09 AM PDT by Cboldt
Relatedly, Representative Collins asserts that HJC's investigation cannot be "preliminarily to" an impeachment trial until the full House passes a resolution authorizing a "formal impeachment proceeding." Collins Mem. at 1. DOJ equivocates on this proposed bright line test to meet the "preliminarily to" requirement, Hr'g Tr. at 69:10-11, but seems to indicate that the House must go at least that far, see DOJ Resp. at 28. Like all bright-line rules, this "House resolution" test is appealing in terms of being easy to apply. Yet, the reasoning supporting this proposed test is fatally flawed. The precedential support cited for the "House resolution" test is cherry-picked and incomplete, and more significantly, this test has no textual support in the U.S. Constitution, the governing rules of the House, or Rule 6(e), as interpreted in binding decisions. ...
While close scrutiny of the historical record undercuts that justification for the "House resolution" test proposed by Representative Collins, the more significant flaw with this proposal is as follows: while this test may address political legitimacy concerns, which are best resolved in the political arena, no governing law requires this test--not the Constitution, not House Rules, and not Rule 6(e), and so imposing this test would be an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority both to "determine the rules of its proceedings" under the Rulemaking Clause, U.S. CONST., Art. I, 5, cl. 2, and to exercise "the sole power of Impeachment" under the Impeachment Clause, id. 2, cl. 5. This Court "ha[s] no authority to impose," by judicial order, a particular structure on House proceedings. ...
... Citing the Constitution's Rulemaking Clause, the D.C. Circuit explained that "unless and until Congress adopts a rule that offends the Constitution, the courts get no vote in how each chamber chooses to run its internal affairs."
(Excerpt) Read more at courtlistener.com ...
Howell's decision is that the House need not speak in order for any member to assume the authority of the whole House.
Now, it is likely true that courts are not in a position to cure a dysfunctional House. But that is not the same as finding that the House (and that means the whole House) is exercising a power.
As for the court seeing no issue until a rule offends the constitution, what if the House makes no rules at all? In that case nothing the House does could be offensive to the Constitution.
Collins put this argument in Howell's face, and she blew it off.
So they are saying Ukraine is a bust and they are back to re-investigating Russiagate???
Impeach all Commierats.
I think this decision relates to a lawsuit that was filed back in July.
Docket for Nadler Application for GJ/Mueller Material : Case 1:19-gj-00048
Jul 26: Nadler Application to Unseal Grand Jury / Mueller Report
DC District Court Case 1:19-gj-00048 | Judge Beryl Howell
Sep 13: DOJ Response (Objection) to Application to Unseal
Oct 03: Rep. Collins Amicus Brief - Not an Impeachment Inquiry
Oct 25: Judge Howell Opinion and Order siding with Nadler <- this OP
I'm researching some of the impeachment precedents. Howell does a real crap job in her analysis. Judge Nixon impeachment followed his criminal conviction for false statements and perjury. The House didn't need to do an investigation, it had the criminal case and conclusion in hand.
Judge Hastings, House obtained access to GJ material, case is at 833 F.2d 1438. In the Hastings impeachment, the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit kicked off the affair by appointing an Investigating Committee, and that committee concluded that Hastings had engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts. On September 2, 1986, the Judicial Council adopted the Investigating Committee's report and determined that "consideration of impeachment [of Judge Hastings] may be warranted." The investigation was complete before the issue got to the House. Nobody objected to Judicary taking up the case.
Judge Claiborne impeachment followed his criminal conviction.
These cases are not probative of how the House might exercise its criminal investigation power ... wait, that is an EXECUTIVE BRANCH function.
Government is rotted beyond salvage.
It’s all in their impeachment case.
They wanted impeachment before he was sworn in and before any of this was revealed in the press.
Democrats wanted Nixon impeached before Watergate as well.
Anything they can use as an excuse is “valid”.
Well Libs should be concerned. When Micheal Cohen’s office was raided and records seized, there went that protection and now Grand Juries may no longer be secret. So in the future what is to prevent raiding a lawyer’s office and breaking the Grand Jury secrecy? So I guess we can use these precedents against Libs.
I recall seeing the movie, “All the President’s Men” and becoming convinced that the whole case against Nixon was a set-up. I do not think that was the producer’s intent, but I certainly got that from the movie.
I think Nixon gave up too easily, and that if he would have fought harder, the DemocRATs would now be less quick to frame people and assassinate character.
I also think that Newt Gingrich gave up too easily in the 1990s when the MSM started attacking him for the Contract With America.
We need more America-first politicians with backbone. The more they stand up for what is right, the more the left reveals itself as power-hungry bullies who do not care about the people at all. We’re never going to win by caving.
“...we can use these precedents against the libs...”
The cowards on our side won’t do it. Although one can make an argument that our side would prefer to be the party that follows the rule of law and would not use these sick precedents for that reason, which would be valid in a certain way.
All The President’s Men was the first of a trilogy of conspiracy films by the same director.
Parallax View was the second one. It is about a corporation that trains patsy killers for political assassinations (with a nod to the murder of RFK) and coverup investigations (with a nod to the murder of JFK).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSMfrfpj9FQ
The same media that doctored footage of a Kentucky gun expo to present as “War footage” in Syria is the same media that ran forged “national guard memos” on the eve on a presidential election.
They will do whatever it takes to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and push the CommieRat line.
Thanks, but I don’t think I’ll bother watching the other two movies.
Yeah, right. It doesn't work that way. Courts are outcome oriented (outcome first, rationale second), and either there are enough precedents that it is trivial to find the one that gives the outcome, or (like this case), the effort literally has no precedent, so the court can bootstrap or hallucinate the outcome into existence.
Separately, on my point that Howell just blew off the "impeachment power not delegated to any committee" fact ...
Representative Collins shifts gears with an alternative challenge to HJC's petition, contending that, even if no House rule prohibits HJC from beginning an impeachment investigation without a House resolution, the House has not "delegate[d] such authority to the Committee," and HJC has no powers except those expressly granted to it. Collins Mem. at 6. Pressing this point, he argues that the House has thus far delegated only "legislative and oversight authority to the Committee," not "impeachment authority," id. at 5, and, further, that the Speaker of the House may not "unilaterally delegate to the Committee the House's impeachment power," id. at 13-14. These contentions are, at worst, red herrings and, at best, incorrect.At the outset, the distinction drawn by Representative Collins between Congress's "legislative and oversight authority" and Congress's "impeachment authority," is not so rigid as he makes out. Nothing "in the Constitution or case law . . . compels Congress to abandon its legislative role at the first scent of potential illegality and confine itself exclusively to the impeachment process." Mazars, 2019 WL 5089748, at *18.37 In any event, the House has
sufficiently delegated to HJC the authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry in at least two ways. Jefferson's Manual--which under House Rule XXI "`govern[s] the House in all cases to which [it is] applicable and in which [it is] not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House'"--provides that impeachment can be "set[] . . . in motion" by "a resolution introduced by a Member and referred to a committee" as well as "facts developed and reported by an investigating committee of the House." Jefferson's Manual 603. 38 Additionally, the full House has authorized, in Resolution 430, HJC to bring this suit and simultaneously granted HJC "any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution." H.R. Res. 430, 116th Cong. (as passed by House June 11, 2019) (emphases added). 39
---
37 The distinction between Congress' legislative and impeachment authority, even if otherwise sound, has questionable relevance to the Rule 6(e) analysis. The "preliminarily to" requirement depends on the "primary purpose" disclosure would serve, not the source of authority Congress acts under.
38 Jefferson's Manual is one of the "fundamental source material[s] for parliamentary procedure used in the House of Representatives." Thomas J. Wickham, Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and Rules of the House Representatives of the United States One Hundred Fifteenth Congress at v (2017).
39 Challenge to a specific committee action on grounds that HJC's authority was in doubt would be unreviewable. "[U]nless and until Congress adopts a rule that offends the Constitution," judicial review of House rules is inappropriate. Mazars, 2019 WL 5089748, at *24. Here, neither DOJ nor Representative Collins complains that HJC's actions or authorizing House rules suffer from a "constitutional infirmity." Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1173 (D.C. Cir. 1983). That distinguishes this case from Tobin v. United States, 306 F.2d 270 (D.C. Cir. 1962), which Representative Collins heavily relies on; there the House resolution at issue raised "serious and difficult" constitutional issues. Id. at 275; see also Mazars, 2019 WL 5089748, at *24 (similarly distinguishing Tobin).
Howell takes the general proposition that routes to impeachment can vary, and applies the general fact to this particular case. If an outside investigation or event indicates a basis for impeachment (see criminal convictions of judges, and even judicial self-policing) then sure, a resolution introduced and referred is fine. I don't think anybody would object to that.
So the issue comes down to whether or not H.Res. 430 delegates something akin to an Trump impeachment inquiry power. It does not. It delegates power to report an opinion on finding Barr or McGahn in contempt for failing to comply with House subpoena.
House Report 116-105 is Committee position that Barr should be found in contempt, IF the whole House votes so. The House has not voted on this issue. There is additional cheesy language in H.Res.430 that delegates House power to sue for subpoena enforcement, without a vote by the whole House on each individual instance of target neglecting a subpoena.
This is typical liberal "hide the ball" activity, used to empower a minority to assert power over an unwilling majority. This works until the majority gets fed up.
I don't view the governments actions in this matter to be legitimate. They stink to high heaven. Not ususual for an out of control tryannical minority to find that its putative subjects are revolting ;-)
Deep Throat himself was later sentenced to prison for authorizing black bag breakins to spy on the Weathermen terrorist bomber group. Richard Nixon even testified on his behalf.
They faced a daily deluge of left-wing propaganda, much like today, but with no opposing arguments.
And, of course, their GOP “colleagues” were as spineless then as they are now.
Yes, I know how they operate. The October Surprise is a common phrase because of them.
I remember supporting Trump in part because his life was so public prior to entering politics that it would be very difficult to dredge up some bimbo to claim he sexually assaulted her 30 years ago, since such a thing would have already been public. I was naive. While it is true the left couldn’t use fake claims like that against him, they just invented other stuff. Like trying to claim that doing business in Russia is illegal, or that foreign policy that differs from leftist foreign policy is somehow a high crime and misdemeanor. And the left is brazen about repackaging leftist politicians’ crimes and ethical lapses and presenting them as Trump’s. The entire Ukraine accusation is purely a repackaging of Biden’s very real (but “discredited”) unethical behavior.
bkmk
Nixon got caught in obstructing a third rate break in of the Watergate. The evidence of that involving him was not contestable. The BandE crew were attempting to wire the DNC headquarters. No one ever went forward with what they were hoping to gain except the general comment info about what the DNC planning. There was a rumor the DNC was running an “escort service” out of that location. That would not surprise me.
Nixon was never impeached, he was driven out of office by the prospect he would be impeached. I think that is what the dems are hoping for here. I hope Trump jams that up the backsides of the dems on that issue.
When planning for the hearing, the dem attorney in charge wanted to set the rules. One question raised was whether Nixon would be allowed legal representation. The individual who reviewed prior impeachment records said he would not be allowed one per historical records. When the attorney reviewed the records himself, he determined that in deed, prior presidents had been given the right to counsel. The reviewer was fired. Her name was Hitlery Clinton. That devious monster has been running amok for a long time and no one has ever laid a glove on her.
“So I guess we can use these precedents against Libs.”
Perhaps not. The goal of the Dems is to ensure their opposition never holds power. See California, the one party state, for the future of the US once the Dems gain control of the White House and both houses of Congress. The rules will be rewritten, and the processes designed, to ensure the federal government works just like the California state government does today.
The DNC had already given Howell her "ruling".
LOL, thanks.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.