Are there not laws about bringing anything before the court without evidence that would stand up in court? The speech and debate, political speech excuse is one thing but political investigations are not cheap maybe this should be looked at under filing a false prosecution if it goes to the impeachment stage? Or maybe a political contribution at the very least all the money for these investigations is political campaigning on the tax payer’s dime using House resources.
Would not the test be if the evidence for this inquiry not pass a legal court’s standard for evidence?
The burden of proof determines which party is responsible for putting forth evidence and the level of evidence they must provide in order to prevail. In most cases, the plaintiff (the party bringing the claim) has the burden of proof. As an initial matter, they must meet the burden of production. This requires the plaintiff to put forth evidence in the form of witness testimony, documents, or objects. After the plaintiff presents his or her case-in-chief, the burden of production shifts to the defendant, who then has the opportunity to provide evidence either rebutting the plaintiff’s evidence or supporting the defendant’s own arguments.www.justia.com/...
This diary points out the justification has already been debunked.
Here’s what Jordan tried to sell on Fox & Friends as justification for an impeachment inquiry. www.dailykos.com/...
”[President Joe Biden] told Ukraine, ‘If you don’t fire the prosecutor, you’re not getting the money.’ That’s exactly what they accused President Trump of doing, which he didn’t do and they impeached him over that. He did it. And he did it — remember, Dec. 4, 2015, Devon Archer and Hunter Biden are meeting with the head of Burisma, Mr. Zlochevsky, and they called D.C. Now, Devon Archer says, ‘I stepped away. I don’t know who they talked to in D.C.’ Now, come on. They called D.C. And then five days later, the vice president of the United States, the current president of the United States, goes to Ukraine and starts the process into getting the prosecutor fired.”www.dailykos.com/...
The above is the claim for the impeachment inquiry.
What are the “official resources” to which this basic rule applies? Certainly the funds appropriated for Member, committee, and other House offices are official resources, as are the goods and services purchased with those funds. Accordingly, among the resources that generally may not be used for campaign or political purposes are congressional office equipment (including the computers, telephones, and fax machines), office supplies (including official stationery and envelopes), and congressional staff time. Among the specific activities that clearly may not be undertaken in a congressional office or using House resources (including official staff time) are the solicitation of contributions; the drafting of campaign speeches, statements, press releases or literature; the completion of FEC reports; the creation or issuance of a campaign mailing; and the holding of a meeting on campaign business. The same prohibition applies to any activity that is funded to any extent with campaign funds, even if the activity is not overtly political in nature. The misuse of the funds and other resources that the House of Representatives entrusts to Members for the conduct of official House business is a very serious matter. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct may result in not only disciplinary action by the House, but also criminal prosecution. ethics.house.gov/...
What are the “official resources” to which this basic rule applies? Certainly the funds appropriated for Member, committee, and other House offices are official resources, as are the goods and services purchased with those funds. Accordingly, among the resources that generally may not be used for campaign or political purposes are congressional office equipment (including the computers, telephones, and fax machines), office supplies (including official stationery and envelopes), and congressional staff time.
Among the specific activities that clearly may not be undertaken in a congressional office or using House resources (including official staff time) are the solicitation of contributions; the drafting of campaign speeches, statements, press releases or literature; the completion of FEC reports; the creation or issuance of a campaign mailing; and the holding of a meeting on campaign business. The same prohibition applies to any activity that is funded to any extent with campaign funds, even if the activity is not overtly political in nature.
The misuse of the funds and other resources that the House of Representatives entrusts to Members for the conduct of official House business is a very serious matter. Depending on the circumstances, such conduct may result in not only disciplinary action by the House, but also criminal prosecution. ethics.house.gov/...
The above is the proof the claim is false and the GOP knows this.
Are there not laws about bringing anything before the court without evidence that would not stand up in a court of law ? The speech and debate, political speech excuse is one thing the GOP can say anything they want in Congress or the campaign trail.
But Congressional investigations are another matter, they are not cheap maybe this should be looked at under filing a false prosecution if it goes to the impeachment stage? Or maybe a political contribution at the very least all the money for these investigations is political campaigning on the tax payer’s dime using House resources.
This diary points out the justification has already been debunked. You can’t start an investigation in a court and I would presume Congress with evidence that has already been disproven?