Trump White House To Democrats On Impeachment: We're Not Cooperating, So Come And Get Us

  
Via:  Heartland American  •  2 weeks ago  •  52 comments

Trump White House To Democrats On Impeachment: We're Not Cooperating, So Come And Get Us
The White House signaled that it will block any cooperation with the House’s impeachment inquiry, calling Democrats’ effort “illegitimate” and “dangerous,” setting up a constitutional clash with Congress. In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the three committee chairs leading the impeachment probe, White House counsel Pat Cipollone all but declared that the Trump administration will refuse to engage with a process it considers to be constitutionally invalid.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


41724fc8-1a25-4051-aed9-4d70fd822625.png

Source: AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

The Trump White House is throwing down the gauntlet. They’ve had it. After three years of being under siege by the Democrats and their allies in the media, the Trump administration is done playing nice. No one from the administration is going to cooperate. In the meantime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi  has declared  the president will be held accountable. The White House flat-out told Democrats to go pound sound with their impeachment inquiry. It’s a kangaroo court, which this White House has zero time to entertain (via  Politico ):


The White House signaled that it will block any cooperation with the House’s impeachment inquiry, calling Democrats’ effort “illegitimate” and “dangerous,” setting up a constitutional clash with Congress.
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the three committee chairs leading the impeachment probe, White House counsel Pat Cipollone all but declared that the Trump administration will refuse to engage with a process it considers to be constitutionally invalid.

The letter is eight pages and outlines why this impeachment inquiry is a total circus. House Democrats executed this impeachment push based off of a July phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where it was alleged in a whistleblower report that Trump had threatened to withhold military aid unless Zelensky opened a corruption probe into Hunter Biden. The transcript refuted all of that; there is no quid pro quo. The report is based on second-hand accounts. This person, who is reportedly a CIA agent and registered Democrat, never listened in on the call. They also worked with a 2020 candidate. Need I say more about the shoddiness of this attempt? It’s a witch hunt that is fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome of the most extreme sort (via  The White House ):  For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and eve1ypastprecedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.


Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is "concerned that if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

[…]

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that,in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

The White House press office also did their part: the president didn’t do anything wrong.


The President has done nothing wrong, and the Democrats know it.  For purely political reasons, the Democrats have decided their desire to overturn the outcome of the 2016 election allows them to conduct a so-called impeachment inquiry that ignores the fundamental rights guaranteed to every American. These partisan proceedings are an affront to the Constitution—as they are being held behind closed doors and deny the President the right to call witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses, to have access to evidence, and many other basic rights.

Today, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, Pat Cipollone, Counsel to the President, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings.  The letter demonstrates that the Democrats’ inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, and even the most elementary due process protections.  Democrats are pursuing purely partisan goals, including influencing the upcoming 2020 election.  In the process, they are violating civil liberties and the separation of powers, threatening Executive Branch officials with punishment simply for exercising their constitutional rights and prerogatives.  All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent.  For these reasons, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to, and will not participate in, this exercise of partisan political theater. 

President Trump and his entire Administration will, however, keep fighting for the American people, growing the economy, building prosperity, and protecting America’s interests at home and abroad.

You can read the full letter  here .




Recommended from Townhall



Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 weeks ago

This response is perfect and what us Trump supporters wanted.   We will back him all out come what may on this

 
 
 
lib50
1.1  lib50  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 weeks ago

So you think Trump is above the law?  He can do anything and nobody can check that?  Even though its in the Constitution?  So all that talk up til now about strictly following it is out the window?  What kind of values do Trump voters have anyway?  They don't care if if he lies, doesn't read any briefs, funnels our tax dollars into his pockets, literally in front of our faces.  They don't care if he is inhumane to children, sucks up to dictators and authoritarians and trashes relationships with our allies and starts trade wars WE are paying for.  You don't care that he is amoral and has broken almost every commandment.  He has literally trashed the reputation of the country, especially after this betrayal of the Kurds.  Pretty disgusting, the day will come that Trump's base will deny they ever supported him and I'll remind them til my last breath.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lib50 @1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump is doing the right thing.  We support him in this.  If Nancy and the House votes to initiate an impeachment inquiry and it’s done in regular order for such things, then there will be compliance with it.  Until then they can pound sand and we who support him will back him to the limit come what may on this.  Trump opponents; read the letter and weep.  

 
 
 
lib50
1.1.2  lib50  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump is currently obstructing justice by not following the law and turning over documents to congress.  That letter means nothing.  And the weeping is America for the values you want Trump to bring.  I don't know what religion his supporters follow, but it must be nasty and against the tenets of Jesus. 

I find it very sad as a human being how low people allow themselves to go in the name of 'sticking it',  comes from a hateful destructive place.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @1.1    2 weeks ago
So you think Trump is above the law? 

No, but he has a right to defend himself as aggressively as anybody else does.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.4  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Exactly and as the letter below points out neither he nor his lawyers, nor the House minority were being allowed to defend him.  The house is effectively trying to run a Star Chamber with their “inquiry”

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lib50 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

congress has no power to make him do anything until they formally vote on the record to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry.  If that happens, we will urge the President to fully cooperate as the rules of such allow.  Until then our message to the House leadership and those in the public supporting their present position is to go pound sand.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  lib50 @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

To comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidenceandtestimony. Likewise,theCommitteesmustprovideforthedisclosureofall evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called totestifyintheinquiry. TheCommittees'currentproceduresprovidenoneofthesebasic constitutional rights.

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.

As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process.  https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/7065/trump-white-house-to-democrats-on-impeachment-were-not-cooperating-so-come-and-get-us#cm1176691

 
 
 
TTGA
1.1.7  TTGA  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

HA,

Notice that, once again, they are trying to make us out to be Trump lovers.  Hell, I don't even like the son of a bitch, but I totally despise commies and commie lovers.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.8  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

"But does the House need to hear from the target of an impeachment before deciding whether to impeach? McCarthy and Cipollone assert that the subject of impeachment should be able to present evidence to the House, object to the admittance of evidence, and cross-examine and recommend witnesses. They want something like a trial before an impeachment vote. Of course, the Constitution specifies that an impeached officer is entitled to a trial—in the Senate after a successful impeachment vote. The Constitution imposes no such procedural burdens or fact-finding requirements on the House, and it does not guarantee a federal officer the right to such procedures before being impeached.

Cipollone accuses the Democratic majority in the House of seeking to “overturn” the presidential election through a “highly partisan and unconstitutional effort,” but the House Democrats cannot “overturn the popular will of the voters,” as House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler put it back when a president of his party was threatened with impeachment. Impeachment is the beginning of a constitutional process, not the end. If a democratically elected president is to be displaced from office, it will only be as a result of a bipartisan supermajority of senators voting to do so after a trial. If the House could by itself and by majority vote oust a president, then there would be good reason to demand a robust process before reaching that decision. If the Democrats held it within their power to remove a sitting president, then there would be good reason to object to a partisan process that did not give a fair hearing to the other side. But as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been sure to point out , the Democrats do not have it within their power to remove the people’s choice of a president without Republican cooperation.

Impeachment has frequently been analogized to a grand jury indictment, and the analogy is informative here. The House is a prosecutorial body in an impeachment context. The House members themselves must decide what steps they think are necessary to satisfy themselves that a particular impeachment is warranted and to prepare a credible case that can be argued in the Senate, where the defense will have an opportunity to poke holes in it. It might be prudent for the House to create a more robust adversarial proceeding in order to help the House members themselves assess the strength of the case, but any such process is for the benefit of informing the House, not protecting the accused from a possible impeachment. A federal officer has no particular right not to be impeached, and the bar for impeachment is consequently set low.

The Senate trial, by contrast, provides an opportunity for an accused officer to mount a robust defense, plead his or her case, and seek total vindication. The procedural bar for a Senate conviction is set high. There, the House can have no expectation of a sympathetic hearing and the defendant can make use of the fact that a bipartisan supermajority in the upper chamber will almost always be necessary to remove him or her from office. It might not be possible to impeach a ham sandwich in the House, but the accused has no expectation of a fair or bipartisan hearing in the lower chamber."

Trump is the one playing the political game. Neither he nor his WH counsel seem to know anything about the Constitution, and I doubt that they really care.

As to overturning an election, it is surprising that republicans didn't think of that during the impeachment proceedings against Nixon. He won by a larger margin than Trump did, or would, in his wet dreams. Of course, the republicans of that time had bigger cajones than the ones of today. They saw the light and told Nixon he was done before the trial before the Senate could begin.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.9  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.8    one week ago

A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. What Pelosi is trying for is a star chamber effect with a queen of hearts verdict before trial.  In order to determine whether there are grounds for an impeachment, there must be input from the target of such and their representatives as well as from the minority within the house itself.  That means ranking committee members having subpoena power and the ability to call witnesses before their committee.  Any thing less than that will be viewed as a sham and with sheer and utter contempt for the findings, the persons who reach those rigged findings, and for the lemmings who follow after such contemptible nonsense.  Any impeachment vote reached by the house not having followed prior proceedings on such matters by the House should be ignored by the Senate.  

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.10  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @1.1.9    one week ago
 In order to determine whether there are grounds for an impeachment, there must be input from the target of such and their representatives as well as from the minority within the house itself.

Um, no. There must not. You have much to learn about Constitutional law.

Refer to my other reply to you.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.1.11  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Steve Ott @1.1.10    one week ago

If there is no cooperation as in past events we will simply expose for all to see the hyper partisan nature of the effort and will contribute to the white hot political rhetoric to make the whole thing all about a democrat house wanting to get rid of a GOP President without any GOP support or participation and build popular support for the GOP Senate to dismiss it out of hand as in dead on arrival.  Without the vote to have a formal inquiry we have a lot more leverage to not cooperate in any way and then let them have their partisan outright impeachment vote and then see how all the democrats in swing districts vote on it in an election year.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 weeks ago

If Pelosi refuses to put impeachment to a vote, Trump can continue to insist that the process is constitutionally illegitimate denying him rights and the minority members rights. It will go to Court. We have never had an impeachment circus like this before. All democrats can say is that Pelosi has a right to do it this way, but the unprecedented way she chose does limit rights and that is why I think the President wins in Court.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 weeks ago

Theres no doubt that without an on the record vote to begin a formal impeachment inquiry President Trump would ultimately prevail in court.  The letter his firm sent is on extremely solid constitutional and legal grounds.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.2.2  Steve Ott  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    2 weeks ago

"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."

This is all the Constitution says about the House and impeachment. It does not say how it must be done, it does say a vote is required to start an inquiry. It says only that the House has the SOLE POWER!!!!!

The prez can defend himself during the trial, which occurs in the Senate.The House proceedings are akin to Grand Jury. The trial is in the SENATE. Please learn something about the constitution you claim to defend.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.2    one week ago

If you do it your way it will be nothing more than a partisan witch hunt and sham as would a house vote without the members hearing from council of the Target as well as from subpoena info from ranking members of applicable committees and witnesses they call.  Doing it the way you advocate for is grounds for the senate majority to vote to change their precedent and procedures as well to vote to simply not hear it at all.  If the house does as you promote above, the senate should simply ignore it or go straight to a vote with no trial.   

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.2.4  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.3    one week ago

I can't believe how on point you are.

I'm just pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say how it should be done and the House rules don't require a vote for an inquiry because Republicans nixed that rule when they were in charge of the House. (As I once told a project manager, "Don't you hate it when you get what you asked for?")

So yeah, it will all be partisan politics, ala the last 40 years. Unless, the House actually can discover irrefutable evidence of Trump doing something that even Republicans can't ignore. Unless of course, Republicans choose to ignore the Constitution and the rule of law.

Why don't you go learn some history and study the impeachment inquiry against Nixon or Clinton? You are the perfect example of partisan politics. You are like some little kid saying, "it should be like this or that". May be it "should". But it isn't and doesn't have to be. So all of your whining about due process and Trump getting his say have no precedent in history, the constitution, nor the rules.

The only time Trump will get the benefit of due process will be in the trial. If the Republicans decide to hold one.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.5  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.4    one week ago

If we don’t get due process in the house there won’t be a trial in the senate.  It really is that simple.  If it’s going to be strictly partisan and political in the House the Senate will act in kind.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.4    one week ago

I and Republicans in general intend to contribute nothing but white hot partisan political rhetoric as long as this process is being carried out as it is now as you advocate for.  We all know there is nothing that can be revealed that will get 20 or more Republicans to make Mike Pence our next president.  So, we can stonewall and refuse to participate in any way and force Pelosi to go to court for each and every witness and each and every single document until we are into next year. Then as Dems have their debates and primaries Trump can go to rally after rally railing against the house, Pelosi, and the squad.  We will call it scorched earth resistance to the faux impeachment inquiry.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.7    one week ago
I and Republicans in general intend to contribute nothing

Agreed. Why change when you can continue contributing nothing, and instead spend all your resources trying to hold progress back, like trying to hold back the tides. The conservatives of today would be unrecognizable to the conservatives of the 1950's, so that proves we've come a long way despite them. We've still got a long way to go, and as they clearly admit to contributing nothing, let's march on with or without them.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2.9  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.8    one week ago
Agreed. Why change when you can continue contributing nothing, and instead spend all your resources trying to hold progress back, like trying to hold back the tides.

Or...alternatviely...spend our resources providing for our families and paying taxes.

The conservatives of today would be unrecognizable to the conservatives of the 1950's, so that proves we've come a long way despite them. We've still got a long way to go, and as they clearly admit to contributing nothing, let's march on with or without them.

So.... these people who would be "unrecognizable to the conservatives of the 1950's"....you're angry with them...because they're too much like the 1950's.....

Riiiiiight.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.10  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2.9    one week ago

Interesting...

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.2.11  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.5    2 days ago

Lord have mercy. When are any of you going to understand that an inquiry REQUIRES NO DUE PROCESS AND NEVER HAS? The due process part comes in the trial in the Senate, if the Senate holds a trial. If you are going to comment about political process, please learn how the process works, not how you want it to work.

If you want it to work differently, get yourself elected and change the rules.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.11    2 days ago
Lord have mercy. When are any of you going to understand that an inquiry REQUIRES NO DUE PROCESS AND NEVER HAS? The due process part comes in the trial in the Senate, if the Senate holds a trial. If you are going to comment about political process, please learn how the process works, not how you want it to work.

The answer to your question is NEVER. They've been gaslighted and are such sycophants that no amount of facts will convince them that they're being lied to. It's almost as if they would rather believe lies instead of documented facts. 

I've told them that the House rules have changed since the prior Impeachments. I've quoted the House rules. I've explained to them about how Congressional depositions work in the most rudimentary way possible. I've explained how Committees are set up and how the Chairman decide who participates and whether depositions are released. I told them that the Minority members of all three Committees of jurisdiction are allowed to participate in the depositions. 

Yet they still keep parroting that same sad 'due process' bullshit ad nauseam.

"Unless you do it the way we want you to, we're not playing"

It's the equivalent of holding their breath and throwing themselves on the floor in a tantrum. 

The irony is that despite Trump's stonewalling, the Committees of jurisdiction are getting the facts anyway. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.2.13  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @1.2.12    2 days ago

No they are not.  If it goes to the senate not following due process or past procedures a GOP Senator will make a motion to dismiss with prejudice and put it up for a majority vote.  

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.13    yesterday
[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.13    yesterday

                               THE SHAKEDOWN
                     “Do us a favor though…” – President Trump

On September 25, the White House released a record of President Trump’s call with
Ukrainian President Zelensky, which paints a damning picture of Trump abusing
his office by pressing a foreign government to interfere in our 2020 elections.

President Trump has betrayed his oath of office, betrayed our national security and b trayed the integrity of our elections for his own personal political gain.

In President Trump’s own words:

 “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine…. I wouldn’t say that it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”

“There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.”

“I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General
Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I’m sure you will figure it out.”

the Pressure Campaign
      

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
                                                              – U.S. Ambassador Bill Taylor

In recent weeks, the nation has learned more about how President Trump abused the
power of the presidency by using multiple levers of government – from Vice President
Pence to the State Department, including Secretary Mike Pompeo, Ambassador Gordon
Sondland, and Ambassador Kurt Volker – to advance a scheme to undermine our 2020
elections for his political gain, and then to obstruct the congressional inquiry into that
scheme.

Vice President Pence is entangled in this scandal. According to press reports, in September, Pence met with Ukrainian President Zelensky in Poland and “conveyed the news that hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine was not going to be released amid concerns about the country’s lagging efforts to combat corruption.” The withholding of aid may have been an effort to pressure Ukraine into announcing investigations into President Trump’s 2020 political rival to help the president’s reelection.

 Secretary Pompeo was a fact witness to President Trump’s stunning abuse of power.
The Secretary listened to the July 25 phone call between President Trump and President
Zelensky in which Trump pressed the Ukrainian leader to interfere in our 2020 election
by opening these sham investigations. Secretary Pompeo appears to have said nothing to
stop President Trump from this inappropriate pressure campaign.

Text messages between Ambassadors Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland and Bill Taylor
paint the picture of a President who waged a months-long pressure campaign to shake
down Ukraine for his own personal political gain, potentially using a White House pre-
sidential visit and critical military assistance to Ukraine as leverage:

THE TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN U.S. OFFICIALS:
State Department officials discuss a White House visit in exchange for a Ukraine
statement:

[8/9/19, 5:35:53 PM] Gordon Sondland: Morrison ready to get dates as soon as Yermak
confirms.

[8/9/19, 5:46:21 PM] Kurt Volker: Excellent!!! How did you sway him? :)

[8/9/19, 5: 47:34 PM] Gordon Sondland: Not sure i did. I think potus really wants the
deliverable.

Concerns About Ukraine Becoming an “Instrument” in U.S. Politics:

[7/21/19, 1:45:54 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday
was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being
taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.

[7/21/19, 4:45:44 AM] Gordon Sondland: Absolutely, but we need to get the conversa-
tion started and the relationship built, irrespective of the pretext. I am worried about the
alternative.

Ambassador Taylor Sought Clarification and Expressed Concerns About Withhol-
ding U.S. Military Assistance in Exchange for Launching an Investigation:

[9/1/19, 12:08:57 PM] Bill Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH
meeting are conditioned on investigations?

[9/1/19, 12:42:29 PM] Gordon Sondland: Call me

...

[9/9/19, 12:37:16 AM] Gordon Sondland: Bill, I never said I was “right”. I said we
are where we are and believe we have identified the best pathway forward. Lets hope it
works.

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] Bill Taylor: As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold
security assistance for help with a political campaign.

                                   the cover up
     

“The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election…I am concerned these actions pose risks to U.S. national security...”
                                                   – Unclassified Whistleblower Complaint

On September 26, the House Intelligence Committee released the redacted version of a whistleblower complaint filed with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, which the IG found to be of “urgent concern” and “credible.”

The White House’s record of the July 25 presidential call between Presidents Trump
and Zelensky corroborates allegations made in the whistleblower complaint, in particular that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by using the U.S. government and outside actors to advance his scheme to shake down the Ukrainian government to interfere in the 2020 elections.

    The whistleblower complaint states:

“I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. … The President’ s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

 “I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government’s efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.”

“[S]enior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call… the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system… used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature.”

“One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security
perspective.” 

 
 
 
Ender
1.2.16  Ender  replied to  Dulay @1.2.15    yesterday
Shakedown
Breakdown
Takedown
Everybody wants into the crowded line
Breakdown
Takedown
You're busted
Let down
Your guard
Honey, just about the time you're thinkin' it's alright
Breakdown
Takedown
You're busted
 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.2.17  Steve Ott  replied to  Heartland American @1.2.13    yesterday
 If it goes to the senate not following due process or past procedures

How many times do you have to be told? This is basically a Grand Jury, there is no DUE PROCESS. You say you believe in TRUTH, yet you refuse to acknowledge TRUTH. What a freaking hypocrite.

As to past procedures, now suddenly you don't like the fact that the REPULICANS changed the rules? I'll bet you were all for it at the time. Ask yourself, come on, be honest with yourself if you can. Would you still be screaming the same BS if it was Republicans in the House and a Democrat as President? No, you wouldn't. Your partisanship is showing its strength. You want to cry about Democrats being partisan? Take a good look in the mirror little buddy.

 
 
 
pat wilson
1.2.18  pat wilson  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.17    yesterday

384

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Steve Ott @1.2.17    yesterday
This is basically a Grand Jury

No, Its not at all a "grand jury." Impeachment is a political process.  Calling it a grand jury is like calling football "basically" war because it  uses militaristic terms. 

Of course Democrats in the House can be as unfair and secretive as possible. Maybe they are too stupid to realize that the impeachment doesn't actually do anything and it's up to the Senate to remove the President. Because any smart person who could think beyond the nose on their face would be planing on how to win the public (and the majority of Republicans it will take) to favor removal. How idiitoic do you have to be believe proceeding to overthrow an election in secret and in the most partisan way possible is the way to win over Republicans? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    yesterday
Calling it a grand jury is like calling football "basically" war because it  uses militaristic terms. 

First of all, saying that it is 'basically a Grand Jury' isn't CALLING it a Grand Jury. 

Secondly, the Heritage Foundation is my go to reference for essays on Constitutional principles. Here is the relevant part of their essay on Impeachment:

Early on, some delegates expressed the apprehension that those serving in the federal government would be disinclined to monitor each other. Accordingly, John Dickinson proposed "that the Executive be made removeable by the National Legislature on the request of a majority of the Legislatures of individual States." James Madison opposed the idea because it would subject the executive to the "intrigues" of the states. After defeating Dickinson's proposal, the members of the Convention also turned aside George Mason's and Gouverneur Morris's initial fears that the impeachment power might render the executive the servant of the legislature. Instead, the Framers opted for the procedure that had been followed by the English and by the constitutions of most of the states. The appropriate place of bringing charges of impeachment, which power is analogous to the bringing of criminal charges by a grand jury, is in the lower house of the legislature. Just as the grand and petit juries are popular institutions, so it made sense to have the branch closest to the people charged with this indictment-like power. https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/11/impeachment

The author of that essay is a member of the Federalist Society, the Heartland Institute and writes for the American Spectator. No raving liberal there...

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.2.21  Steve Ott  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    7 hours ago

Didn't say it was a Grand Jury. It can only best be compared to one, political or not. Is the trial in the Senate not a trial because it is political?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.2.19    3 hours ago

Once confronted, Sean leaves the building. 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3  squiggy  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 weeks ago

What kind of dumbass would say, "Yes officer, you can search my car."?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.3.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  squiggy @1.3    2 weeks ago

What kind of dumbass would say, "Yes officer, you can search my car."?

One with nothing to hide.

 
 
 
squiggy
1.3.2  squiggy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

That didn't work out well for ya, did it?

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.3  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Is this the same legal mindset that all pleading the 5th are to be presumed guilty?  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.3.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Heartland American @1.3.3    2 weeks ago
Is this the same legal mindset that all pleading the 5th are to be presumed guilty?

 "If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment," Trump said as a candidate in 2016, complaining about aides to his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  squiggy @1.3    one week ago

The same kind of one who would tell us to respect the proceedings of the House without a vote, without input from the targets council, and without the ranking committee members having subpoena power or ability to call witnesses. That’s the kind we are talking about.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  squiggy @1.3    one week ago

The same kind that says verdict first, trial after.  That is the kind of dumb ass that is Nancy Pelosi and her minions in the house.  The are worthy of nothing but the sheerest and most utter of contempt.  I’d be proud to be in contempt of her House.   

 
 
 
Heartland American
2  seeder  Heartland American    2 weeks ago

 The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker

House ofRepresentatives Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Eliot L. Engel Chairman

House Foreign Affairs Committee Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

The Honorable Adam B. Schiff Chairman

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings Chairman

House Committee on Oversight and Reform Washington, D.C. 20515

THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON

October 8, 2019

I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the United 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 fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedingsinsecret. Youhaveviolatedcivillibertiesandtheseparationofpowersby tlu·eatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule oflaw, and eve1ypastprecedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the AmericanpeopleofthePresidenttheyhavefreelychosen. ManyDemocratsnowapparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member ofCongress explained, he is "concerned that ifwe don't impeach the President, he will get reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort tlu·eatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system offree elections, and to the American people.

Interview with Rep. Al Green, MSNBC (May 5, 2019).

 1

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 2

For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency hy declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Therecordclearlyestablishedthatthecallwascompletelyappropriateandthatthereis nobasisforyourinquiry. Thefactthattherewasnothingwrongwiththecallwasalso powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiffs decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.

In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact withChairmanSchiffsofficebeforefilingthecomplaint. Hisinitialdenialofsuchcontact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff"clearly made a statement that was false."2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiffcannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral "investigator."

For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutionaleffortstooverturnthedemocraticprocess. Yourunprecedentedactionshave leftthePresidentwithnochoice. InordertofulfillhisdutiestotheAmericanpeople,the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry 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 of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decisionbyvotingtoauthorizesuchadramaticconstitutionalstep. Here,Houseleadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an "official impeachment inquiry."3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the

 2

3

Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4, 20I9).

Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 3

history of the Nation,4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. 5

The Committees' inquity also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi's commitment to "treat the President with fairness,"6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process undertheConstitutionandbyfundamentalfairness. ChairmanNadleroftheHouseJudiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member ofhis own party, that "[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and that in this context "due process mean[s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to havetheassistanceofcounsel."7 Alloftheseprocedureshavebeenabandonedhere.

These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations.8 Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings.9 And precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated this unfairly.

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),

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/,

Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today (Oct. 2, 2019).

7

8 9

United States, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993). 10 See, e.g., III Hinds' Precedents § 2445.

 4

5

6

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 ofthe H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. 17 (1998) (statement of Rep, Jerrold Nadler).

See, e.g., Watkinsv. United States, 354 U.S. 178,188 (1957); Quinnv. United States, 349 U.S. 155,161 (1955). See Hastings v. United Stales, 802 F. Supp. 490, 504 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated on other grounds by Hastings v.

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page4

To comply with the Constitution's demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidenceandtestimony. Likewise,theCommitteesmustprovideforthedisclosureofall evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called totestifyintheinquiry. TheCommittees'currentproceduresprovidenoneofthesebasic constitutional rights.

In addition, the House has not provided the Committees' Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House's failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House's utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.

As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened­ without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena-that "[a]ny failure to appear" in response to a mere letter request for a deposition "shall constitute evidence of obstrnction."12 Worse,theCommitteeshavebroadlythreatenedthatifStateDepartmentofficials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld. 13

The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long­ established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for adepositionislegallyunfounded. Notsurprisingly,theOfficeofLegalCounselatthe Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instrncted not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for

11 H.R. Res. 581, 105th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974).

12 Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to George P. Kent, Deputy

Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of State I (Sept. 27, 2019).

13 See Letter from Eliot L. Engel, Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs, et al., to John J. Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State 2-3 (Oct. I, 2019).

 

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 5

following such instructions. 14 Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests ofthe Executive Branch, and the Office ofLegal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions. 15 In addition, any attempt to withhold an official's salary for the assertion of such interests would be unprecedented and unconstitutional. 16 The Committees' assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.

II. The Invalid "Impeachment Inquiry" Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020.

The effort to impeach President Tnnnp-----without regard to any evidence of his actions in office�is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before. 17 In fact, your transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported "impeachment inquiry." The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election. The decision as to who will be elected President in 2020 should rest with the people of the United States, exactly where the Constitution places it.

Democrats themselves used to recognize the dire implications of impeachment for the

Nation. For example, in the past, Chairman Nadler has explained:

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeaclnnent supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Suchanimpeachmentwillproducedivisivenessandbitternessinour

14 See, e.g., Testimonial Immunity Before Congress a/the Former Counsel to the President, 43 Op. O.L.C. _, * 19 (May 20, 2019); Prosecution/or Contempt a/Congress ofan Executive Branch Official Who Has Asserted a Claim ofExecutive Privilege, 8 Op. O.L.C. IOI, I02, 140 (l984)("The Executive, however, must be free from the threat of criminal prosecution if its right to assert executive privilege is to have any practical substance,,,)

15 At/empted Exclusion ofAgency Counselfi'om Congressional Depositions ofAgency Employees, 43 Op. O.L.C. _, * 1-2 (May 23, 2019).

16 See President Donald J. Tmmp, Statement by the President on Signing the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (Feb. 15, 20 19); Authority ofAgency Officials To Prohibit Employees From Providing !,?formation to Congress, 28 Op, O.L.C. 79, 80 (2004).

17 See Matea Gold, The Campaign To Impeach President Trump Has Begun, Wash. Post (Jan. 21, 2017) ("At the moment the new commander in chief was sworn in, a campaign to build public support for his impeachment went live....").

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 6

politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. 18

Unfortunately, the President's political opponents now seem eager to transform impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a conventional political weapon to be deployed for partisan gain. These actions are a far cry from what our Founders envisioned when they vested Congress with the "important trust" of considering impeachment. 19 Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the countryandcreatinglong-lastingriftsinthebodypolitic.20 Unfortunately,youarenowplaying outexactlythepartisanrushtojudgmentthattheFounderssostronglywarnedagainst. The American people deserve much better than this.

III. There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your "Impeachment Inquiry"; Instead, the Committees' Actions Raise Serious Questions.

It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry. YourcurrenteffortisfoundedonacompletelyappropriatecallonJuly25,2019, betweenPresidentTrumpandPresidentZelenskyyofUkraine. Withoutwaitingtoseewhatwas actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an "impeachment inquiry" based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call.21 To rebut those falsehoods, and to provide transparency to the American people, President Trump secured agreement from the Government of Ukraine and took the extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing therecordofthecall. Thatrecordclearlyestablishedthatthecallwascompletelyappropriate, thatthePresidentdidnothingwrong,andthatthereisnobasisforanimpeachmentinquiry. Ata joint press conference shortly after the call's public release, President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate. 22 In addition, the Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation.23

Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the callandtoreadhismade-uptranscripttotheAmericanpeopleatapublichearing.24 This

18 144 Cong. Rec. HI 1786 (daily ed. Dec. 18, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler).

19 The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).

20 See id.

21 Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 20 19).

22 President Trump Meeting with Ukrainian President, C-SPAN (Sept. 25, 2019).

23 Statement ofKerri Kupec, Director, Office ofPublic Affairs, Dept. ofJustice (Sept. 25, 2019) ("[T]he Department's Criminal Division reviewed the offieial reeord of the eall and determined, based on the faels and applieable law, that !here was no eampaign finance violation and that no further aetion was warranted.").

24 See Whistleblower Disclosure: Hearing Before the H Select Comm. 011 Intel., I 16th Cong. (Sept. 26, 2019) (statement of Rep. Adam Schiff).

 

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 7

powerfullyconfirmsthereisnoissuewiththeactualcall. Otherwise,whywouldChairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version? The Chairman's action only further undermines the public's confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his Committee.

The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiffs office, and perhaps others-despite initial denials-were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaintwasfiled. Initially,whenaskedonnationaltelevisionaboutinteractionswiththe whistleblower, Chairman Schiff unequivocally stated that "[w]e have not spoken directly with thewhistleblower. Wewouldliketo."25

Now, however, it has been reported that the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee with information-and received guidance from the Committee-before filingacomplaintwiththeInspectorGeneral.26 Asaresult,TheWashingtonPostconcludedthat Chairman Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. "27 Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower's complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter-particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.

Allofthisraisesseriousquestionsthatmustbeinvestigated. However,theCommittees are preventing anyone, including the minority, from looking into these critically important matters. At the very least, Chairman Schiff must immediately make available all documents relatingtotheseissues. Afterall,theAmericanpeoplehavearighttoknowaboutthe Committees' own actions with respect to these matters.

***

Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch carmot be expected to participate in it. Because participating in this inquiry under the current unconstitutional posture would inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lastingdamagetotheseparationofpowers,youhaveleftthePresidentnochoice. Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances.

Your recent letter to the Acting White House Chief of Staff argues that "[e]ven if an impeachment inquiry were not underway," the Oversight Committee may seek this information

25 Interview with Chairman Adam Schiff, MSNBC (Sept. l 7, 2019).

26 Julian Barnes, et al., SchiffGot Early Acco1111t ofAcc11satio11s as Whistle-Blower's Co11cerns Grew, N.Y. Times

(Oct. 2, 20 l9).

27 Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Co111111i//ee Had Not Spoke11 to the Whistleblower, Wash, Post (Oct. 4, 2019).

 

 Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and Cummings

Page 8

as a matter of the established oversight process. 28 Respectfolly, the Committees cannot have it bothways. ThelettercomesfromtheChairmenofthreedifferentCommittees,ittransmitsa subpoena "[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry," it recites that the documents will "be collected as part of the House's impeachment inquiry," and it asserts that the documents will be "shared among the Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciaryasappropriate."29 Theletterisinnowaydirectedatcollectinginformationinaidof legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshodoverdueprocessandtheseparationofpowers. IftheCommitteeswishtoreturnto the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the Americanpeople. ThePresidenthasacountrytolead. TheAmericanpeopleelectedhimtodo this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescriptiondrugprices,andaddressingmassshootingviolence. Wehopethat,inlightofthe many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

 cc:

28

Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Minority Leader, House of Representatives

Hon. Michael McCaul, Ranking Member, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Hon. Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Hon. Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and Reform   https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wh

 
 
 
lib50
2.1  lib50  replied to  Heartland American @2    2 weeks ago

Now we know republicans only use the Constitution as a prop. Because the Constitution gives congress oversight on the president and they are following the law, Trump is obstructing.  Can you imagine if this were Obama or Clinton?  A couple of years ago Pompeo, Trump, Pence and all the gop were screaming about Benghazi and Hillary testified for HOURS.  Now you all try to pretend its fine for Trump to break the law.  Fortunately more and more Americans want impeachment hearings and half already want him removed from office.  And we haven't even started  Nothing coming out in the future that will help Trump (obviously), so it can only get worse. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @2.1    2 weeks ago

Actually it is liberals who don't like the Constitution, especially one of it's main pillar's - due process. Progressives continue to want to prosecute under the rules of the Red Queen - "Verdict first, trial afterward!"

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Great points and right on.  They all want to say figuratively what the queen of hearts loved to say regarding his Presidency but without going formally on the record.  Perhaps Pelosi intended it this way to placate the squad types knowing what Trump would do and then protest loudly now before letting it go.   Or she could prove she’s completely under the thumb of AOC and Tlaib and gang and let the house vote on a formal impeachment inquiry.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
Or she could prove she’s completely under the thumb of AOC and Tlaib and gang and let the house vote on a formal impeachment inquiry.  

She now finds herself in a tough spot. She had so much pressure from the left to do this, thus she declared an impeachment without a vote. She can make her own rules. It gives her lots of space and absolute control over the minority and a fall guy should things go bad - Adam Schiff. The problem now is that the President has forced her to either vote for the articles of impeachment or go to court for documents and witnesses. It is starting to look more & more like she is between a rock and a hard place!

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @2    yesterday

I laughed out loud while reading that letter Xx.

The gaslighting going on in that letter is disgusting and anyone that believes it's legal arguments is willfully obtuse. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
3  seeder  Heartland American    2 weeks ago

Here’s a link to a hard news AP backed story on this issue.    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-white-house-not-comply-pelosi

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Heartland American @3    one week ago

I’m glad that Trump is doing this.  His council here is right on.  

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @3    yesterday

That's not an 'AP backed story' Xx.

That fact that you tried to make shit up merely proves to me that you realize that the bullshit by Fox can't stand on it's own merit. Well done. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4  Paula Bartholomew    yesterday

Come after you?  We are doing just that Trump.  Be afraid, be very afraid.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

dave-2693993
Heartland American
loki12
Paula Bartholomew
Dignitatem Societatis


101 visitors