Showing posts with label Cicilline-David. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cicilline-David. Show all posts

Thursday, November 17, 2022

Futility

Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) is eyeing legislation that would bar former President Trump from serving in office under the 14th Amendment “for leading an insurrection against the United States.”

  The Hill
It should happen, but it won't.
“Given the proof – demonstrated through the January 6th Committee Hearings, the 2021 impeachment trial, and other reporting – that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th with the intention of overturning the lawful 2020 election results, I have drafted legislation that would prevent Donald Trump from holding public office again under the Fourteenth Amendment,” Cicilline wrote.

[...]

Cicilline argued that Trump should be barred from holding office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, known as the “Disqualification Clause,” which says individuals should not be allowed “to hold any office” if they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

[...]

It is unclear when the congressman plans to introduce the bill.
Why write it if you're not going to introduce it?
If he introduces the bill, Cicilline will have to lay out the process for how the measure would use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the text is vague.

“It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it. Courts have produced mixed results on this question,” the CRS report reads.

“Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress ‘to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment’ by appropriate legislation,’” it adds.
Don't talk about it if you have no intention of doing it.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Thursday, January 7, 2021

Impeach Trump


That's great, but what happened to Ilhan Omar?  She said she was drawing up articles.  Nobody wanted to sign on with her?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:
Currently, there are TWO -- read ‘em dos -- dueling impeachment resolutions. One resolution introduced by Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and one impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).

One Democratic source tells your Huddle host that the Cicilline/Raskin/Lieu bill is moving forward "over" Omar’s, noting how “Judiciary staff attorneys worked with those members to craft the articles last night.”

  Politico

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Moving on impeachment



Three months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. When the redacted report finally became available to Congress and the American people, it painted a damning picture of a corrupt president who welcomed and encouraged an attack on our country, capitalized on it, and then tried to cover up what he had done.

[...]

Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.

Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.

[...]

We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process.

  The Atlantic
At least they're calling it an impeachment process now.  They're not shying away from the word.
Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.

Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
Nadler made the announcement:



Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Go home, Nancy


According to a Washington Post report, Judiciary Committee chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) has met privately with [Speaker of the House Nancy] Pelosi to recommend starting an impeachment inquiry but was reportedly rebuffed by the Speaker who argued the move lacks support among other caucus members and it could undermine other ongoing House investigations.

[...]

During a leadership meeting on Monday, Pelosi and allies in House leadership, including Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), pushed back on calls from other Democratic leaders, including Reps. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), to begin impeachment proceedings, Politico reported citing multiple sources.

[...]

After his meeting with Pelosi, Nadler, while he did not rule out impeachment, appeared sympathetic to Pelosi’s perspective, according to the Post, citing a Monday ruling from a federal judge upholding a Democratic subpoena as evidence other institutions could support oversight of the Trump administration.

[...]

Pelosi and her allies argued the dispute over impeachment is stealing oxygen from Democratic messaging on other political issues.
  The Hill
Then stop disputing it.
Raskin, a former law professor, argued that even if the House did not outright impeach Trump, an impeachment inquiry could allow the party to both make the case for removing Trump and pursue its legislative agenda at the same time, according to Politico.

Pelosi reportedly pushed back, asking Raskin if he wanted to “tell [Rep.] Elijah Cummings [D-Md.] to go home,” referencing ongoing investigations into the Trump administration by the House Oversight Committee chairman as well as four other committees engaged in similar investigations.
Cummings' investigations can't be integrated into an impeachment hearing?*  YOU go home, Nancy.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:



UUPDATE:  Also, as noted in Judge Mehta's recent ruling saying Trump cannot block a House Committee subpoena of his financial records , the Oversight Committee, according to House Rules, may investigate anything, even if it's being investigated by another agency:

Saturday, March 2, 2019

It hurts more when it's true

Twitter dust-up between W Bush's spokesperson Ari Fleischer and Congressman David Cicilline:







Ouch.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Goodlatte covering Sessions

Representative Cicilline is once again pissed off that Sessions keeps getting away with saying he's not going to answer questions without having a proper procedural reason for the refusal.  He's demanded that Chairman Goodlatte either make a ruling that will allow Sessions to avoid answering or make him answer.  Goodlatte gavels Cicilline down.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

Unbelievable

Rep. Cicilline asks Sessions a question, to which Sessions answers, "I can't answer that question."  Cicilline asks, "Why?"  Sessions asks him to repeat the question, because maybe he misunderstood it.

This guy is pathetic.  And now he's nervous.


...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.