Time to investigate

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

What is congressional oversight?

Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress of the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation.


https://courses.lumenlearning.com/bo...n-of-congress/

Congressional oversight does not include investigations into criminal acts. The house by issuing those subpoenas are causing a Constitutional crisis as congress is overreaching of its "implied" power of oversight of the Executive branch.

None of those subpoenas are directed for information about a federal agency (the executive branch is not an agency) and congress does not have the power to investigate if a crime occurred.

Excuse me but from your link

Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.

Found nothing supporting your claim from your link.


On the other hand....

Investigations & Oversight
https://history.house.gov/Institutio...ons-Oversight/

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

And more specifically....

What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Excuse me but from your link



Found nothing supporting your claim from your link.


On the other hand....

Investigations & Oversight
https://history.house.gov/Institutio...ons-Oversight/

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation. George Mason of Virginia said at the Federal Convention that Members of Congress “are not only Legislators but they possess inquisitorial powers. They must meet frequently to inspect the Conduct of the public offices.”

And more specifically....

What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

From your site:

The doctrine of separation of powers also places limits on congressional authority to investigate. Congress cannot, under the guise of an investigation, usurp the power of another branch of government. It cannot investigate matters where the means of redress is purely judicial. Nor can Congress investigate matters committed to the President’s discretion. For example, Congress could not undertake an investigation to determine an individual’s entitlement to a pardon because the Constitution granted the pardon power to the President, not Congress.

What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

Congress can investigate acts, acts which turn-out to be criminal, but not to investigate crimes. That power belongs to the DoJ which is under the executive branch.

Again, Congress has the power investigate upon the opening of formal impeachment.

Your sites agree with me. I have been telling you throughout our discussion Congress has no prosecutorial power. The prosecution and investigation of crimes are the jurisdiction of the executive branch. Nothing in your reference sites disagree with me.

FYI Congress "implied" powers are

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap,

For your edification, the landmark Supreme Court case on Congress' "implied" powers.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank. Arguably Chief Justice John Marshall's finest opinion, McCulloch not only gave Congress broad discretionary power to implement the enumerated powers, but also repudiated, in ringing language, the radical states' rights arguments presented by counsel for Maryland. ...............................................

.................In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Marshall, the Court ruled that the Bank of the United States was constitutional and that the Maryland tax was unconstitutional. Concerning the power of Congress to charter a bank, the Court turned to the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, which expressly grants Congress the power to pass laws "necessary and proper" for the execution of its "enumerated powers." The enumerated powers of Congress include the power to regulate interstate commerce, collect taxes, and borrow money. Said the Court famously, "let the ends be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adopted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." In other words, because the creation of the Bank was appropriately related to Congress's legitimate power to tax, borrow, and regulate interstate commerce, the Bank was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause...................[emphasis added]

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/suprem...mcculloch.html

Among the enumerated powers of Congress, per the Constitution, the power to investigate crimes is not found.

Congress has no enumerated prosecutorial authority as Congress' "implied' powers are limited to its enumerated powers in the Constitution. Since the power to investigate crimes is not enumerated Congress does not have the power to investigate crimes, through its "implied" powers of oversight.

[elysiantraveller]

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1128350674725560321

Weird flex but okay...

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status...50674725560321

Weird flex but okay...

Not a true statement. The President lawyers said no such thing.

A lawyer for the president, William Consovoy, asserted on Tuesday that the Democrats’ subpoena fell outside of Congress’ legislative function and that the House was claiming “unbridled” power to investigate Trump

“They have made clear that this is not about legislation................

.............Mehta disputed that, saying Congress could legitimately investigate whether Trump is complying with the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which bars Trump-owned businesses from receiving payments from foreign governments.

“That would be a proper subject of investigation,” the judge said...............

..........................Mehta said he was reluctant to question the House’s motives so long as there is a reasonable justification for the subpoena.

Even so, the judge indicated some sympathy for the president’s position, saying that there had not been a clear statement from the committee on the scope of its investigation.

“It really does open the door, it seems to me, to the accusation, valid or not, that this really is sort of an effort — if not to harass the president — then to get into his private affairs for political purposes,” Mehta said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1SK13A

Judge Metha did question if past investigations, Watergate, would have been prevented. However, he neglected to acknowledge those investigations happened during formal impeachment proceedings.

Judge Metha did not rule on the subpoena's validity, but as the article stated his decision no matter what, his decision would be appealed.

A tweet about more fake news.

[Lemon Drop Husker]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status...50674725560321

Weird flex but okay...

Walls are closing in.

Dems, Comey, Brennan, Hillary, Obama, et al are panicking.

Dots are being connected.

Won't be long now.

[Show Me the Wire]

hcap,

Since you claim you cannot find any sites supporting the definition of oversight, I will help you out.

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation.................................................. .............


......Hearings are most commonly held for three reasons: to consider pending legislation; to investigate issues that may require legislation in the future; and, to investigate and oversee federal programs. They reflect the most important issues of the day and what occupies congressional attention. This means that Congress holds hearings on a variety of issues, from steroid abuse in professional sports to the use of weather satellites. Hearings have also been used to further the rights of minority groups. Congressional investigations not only help legislators make better policy decisions, but they are central to the system of checks and balances. Investigatory hearings can uncover presidential abuses of power and corruption, such as the Teapot Dome scandal in the 1920s or Watergate in the 1970s. But hearings have also been used for less noble purposes, such as the blacklisting of private citizens during the “un-American activities” hearings in the 1950s. While the power to investigate is broad, the Supreme Court has since ruled that Congress must confine itself to “legislative purposes” and avoid the strictly private affairs of individual citizens.

[emphasis added]

https://history.house.gov/Institutio...ons-Oversight/

Investigating crimes is not a legislative power.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Lemon Drop Husker

Dots are being connected.

Was that your homework for today?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Excuse me but from your link



Found nothing supporting your claim from your link.


On the other hand....


What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.

[emphasis added]

The bolded sentence sums up exactly what I have been stating about the obstruction issue.

Congress' recourse upon the finding of a crime, uncovered in an investigation, is to refer the matter to the DoJ to investigate and potentially prosecute.

The DoJ has already investigated the "crime" through Special Counsel, an employee of the DoJ, and the DoJ declined to prosecute.

The DoJ declining to prosecute ends the case and its investigation.

However, Congress has another remedy, it is impeachment. If Congress believes the President committed an impeachable offense, they should impeach.

Congress is causing a Constitutional crisis by not exercising its power of impeachment, in favor of an attempt to usurp prosecutorial powers of the executive branch.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Not a true statement. The President lawyers said no such thing.

Your own post...

Mehta questioned whether under Consovoy’s argument many historic investigations by Congress would have been improper, including the probe into the Watergate scandal that forced President Richard Nixon from office.

Convenient Snipping is Convenient.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by elysiantraveller

Your own post...



Convenient Snipping is Convenient.

However, the tweet is untrue. The President's lawyers never argued that:

that Congress didn't have the power to investigate him for corruption, and suggested that both the Whitewater and Watergate investigations were invalid attempts at "law enforcement."


The judge brought up the Whitewater and Watergate issue, on his own, and not because the President's attorneys argued that either of the investigations were invalid attempts at law enforcement.

As I said the judge neglected to consider that the Watergate investigation happened under a formal impeachment process and the presidents, personal financial records were not an issue.

The tweet is factually incorrect regarding the argument of President Trump's lawyers.

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

However, the tweet is untrue. The President's lawyers never argued that:

that Congress didn't have the power to investigate him for corruption, and suggested that both the Whitewater and Watergate investigations were invalid attempts at "law enforcement."


The judge brought up the Whitewater and Watergate issue, on his own, and not because the President's attorneys argued that either of the investigations were invalid attempts at law enforcement.

As I said the judge neglected to consider that the Watergate investigation happened under a formal impeachment process and the presidents, personal financial records were not an issue.

The tweet is factually incorrect regarding the argument of President Trump's lawyers.

I know... it was even worse... the Judge argued it for them.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

[emphasis added]

The bolded sentence sums up exactly what I have been stating about the obstruction issue.

Congress' recourse upon the finding of a crime, uncovered in an investigation, is to refer the matter to the DoJ to investigate and potentially prosecute.

The DoJ has already investigated the "crime" through Special Counsel, an employee of the DoJ, and the DoJ declined to prosecute.

The DoJ declining to prosecute ends the case and its investigation.

However, Congress has another remedy, it is impeachment. If Congress believes the President committed an impeachable offense, they should impeach.

Congress is causing a Constitutional crisis by not exercising its power of impeachment, in favor of an attempt to usurp prosecutorial powers of the executive branch.

Let me emphasize the part that is relevant and why I posted it from this site


What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.
It has been running in parrallel to the Mueller report. No matter which which branch of government moved first to investigate

[newtothegame]

Originally Posted by hcap

Let me emphasize the part that is relevant and why I posted it from this site


What, Exactly, Does Congress Have the Authority To Investigate?
http://www.mololamken.com/news-knowledge-34.html

While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution. If a congressional investigation uncovers evidence of criminal activity, however, Congress may refer the matter to the Department of Justice for investigation and, potentially, prosecution. Sometimes, the DOJ investigation predates the congressional investigation. No matter which branch of government moves first to investigate, however, the end result is that a congressional investigation often will run parallel to a criminal investigation. As a result, evidence developed in a congressional investigation might be used by the DOJ in its criminal investigation or in a prosecution.
It has been running in parrallel to the Mueller report. No matter which which branch of government moved first to investigate

It DOESNT MATTER!! Who cares anyway.....
ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME!! ))))

[Dave Schwartz]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

hcap,

For your edification, the landmark Supreme Court case on Congress' "implied" powers.

[I]McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank. Arguably Chief Justice John Marshall's finest opinion.........

What's this? A factual and unbiased piece of evidence?