Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[RationalityIsLost101]

he's actually living up to most of his campaign promises

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/471735-trump-draws-ire-after-retreat-on-drug-prices-pledge

Funny you bring that up. I read he's reneged on a promise to fight to negotiate drug prices in effort to curb the inflation of cost of drugs. That was a campaign promise that I was actually looking forward to. I guess you can't win them all, maybe he will reconsider come closer to the election but I think pharma has pressured him through leveraging republican senators. He's in a bad spot for many different reasons, he's entire administration is now beholden to RNC interest groups, the same ones that people wanted an outsider. Like I said before, in another thread, once I noticed how he lost the governorship of KY and Louisiana to democrats even after campaigning for the republican candidate (He held rallies three times and even cut a personal televised ad for Louisiana). This shows the RNC that Trump needs them much more then they need Trump. I've long since strayed off-topic so I'm going to wrap up.

Ok, I've entertained you long enough. We obviously will agree to disagree. You haven't presented anything of substance other than some weak right-wing talking points to excuse the alleged impeachable behavior that is being discussed in the inquiry. You certainly have failed on many counts to prove his assertion of executive privilege holds grounds despite precedent but if you firmly believe that executive privilege overrules congressional oversight even in a formalized impeachment inquiry, then you are entitled to that belief.

I stand by my arguments that historical precedent isn't on your side. And albeit unrelated a recent ruling of Trump's tax returns have raised all the way to the Supreme Court (each time against him in favor of congress). He's been losing in the courts in many areas. I anticipate he will fail just as Nixon and Clinton as the Courts held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth took precedence.

By the way, Executive privilege isn't granted directly by the constitution, but by the supreme court in ruling of separation of powers, which is also where congress gets its oversight of the executive branch. I'd thought it was worth sharing.

"However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]"

 

[cots]

By the way, Executive privilege isn't granted directly by the constitution, but by the supreme court in ruling of separation of powers, which is also where congress gets its oversight of the executive branch. I'd thought it was worth sharing.

"However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]"

And like I said until a court that has the authority to order Trump to comply with Congress's demands he's in his right to deny their demands. If he tries to disobey the court then we'd have problems, but currently there's no problem. Congress has a problem and that's their latest impeachment attempt is going to backfire on them, but that's their problem not mine or Trump's. Unless you want to allow Trump to start being able to order Congress around I don't support allowing Congress to order him around. Maybe I should insert disclaimers into my texts that state that I'm probably never going to go along or support the Liberals on their latest impeachment attempt. I'll accept the outcome, but I'm not going to support this nonsense.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

And like I said until a court that has the authority to order Trump to comply with Congress's demands he's in his right to deny their demands. If he tries to disobey the court then we'd have problems, but currently there's no problem. Congress has a problem and that's their latest impeachment attempt is going to backfire on them, but that's their problem not mine or Trump's. Unless you want to allow Trump to start being able to order Congress around I don't support allowing Congress to order him around. Maybe I should insert disclaimers into my texts that state that I'm probably never going to go along or support the Liberals on their latest impeachment attempt. I'll accept the outcome, but I'm not going to support this nonsense.

You still misunderstand what separation of powers states and what checks and balances actually are in our government. Trump ordering congress is absolutely against a three branch government. Congress investigating the executive branch is not and is part of the separation of powers.

Furthermore Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security and because of that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. This is one of the only instances I can think of that have gone in Executive branch's favor. I see no national security at risk.

I'll post a link for you to read as it's approachable for most. With that I yield in this discussion. Please become more informed on how our government works before continuing your assertions and false equivalencies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separ...nited_States_Constitution#Checks_and_balances

Legislative

• Writes and enacts laws
• Enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget
• Has sole power to declare war
• May start investigations, especially against the President
• The Senate confirms presidential appointments of federal judges, executive department heads, ambassadors, and many other officers, subject to confirmation by the Senate
• The Senate ratifies treaties
• The House of Representatives may impeach, and the Senate may remove, executive and judicial officers
• Creates federal courts except for the Supreme Court, and sets the number of justices on the Supreme Court
• May override presidential vetoes

Executive

• May veto laws
• Vice president presides over the Senate
• Wages war at the direction of Congress
• Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders
• Influences other branches of its agenda with the State of the Union address.
• Appoints federal judges, executive department heads, ambassadors, and various other officers
• Has power to grant pardons to convicted persons
• Executes and enforces orders of the court through federal law enforcement.

 

[cots]

You still misunderstand what separation of powers states and what checks and balances actually are in our government. Trump ordering congress is absolutely against a three branch government. Congress investigating the executive branch is not and is part of the separation of powers.

I never said Congress can't try to impeach him. Heck, there's nothing in writing saying that planning on impeaching him from the start without a reason is illegal (it's just fucked up). However, just because someone accuses you of something doesn't mean you have to provide them with the things they request of you, especially if what they are requesting of you could be used against you (now or later). Seeings as the Democrats started their impeachment without a reason (we plan to impeach and will just find any reason) I wouldn't put it past them to then use whatever they might find in the requested documents to further go after Trump when whatever they find might not even be related to quid pro quo. Trump is under no legal obligation to provide them with anything they request of him. Congress has given him subpoenas in something you admit isn't an actual legal proceeding. Until a court with the actual power to do so orders him to go along with those subpoenas he doesn't have to give Congress jack shit. What he's doing is not only legal, but it's also ethical, moral and the right thing to do. Seeings if I had a group of people that planned to ruin me from the start because they challenged me and lost and couldn't get over it do you think I'd help them in any fashion in doing so? Fuck no I would not.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

However, just because someone accuses you of something doesn't mean you have to provide them with the things they request of you, especially if what they are requesting of you could be used against you (now or later).

This isn't some civil case where this is his personal business. This is an impeachment inquiry. This oversight is a function of the legislative branch. Go read what I wrote and the source I linked before stating how you feel our government is supposed to operate.

The president can plead the 5th. That is all. The executive branch is still subject to investigation by the legislative branch and that includes the president himself.

Trump is under no legal obligation to provide them with anything they request of him. Congress has given him subpoenas in something you admit isn't an actual legal proceeding.

If this truly was the case then he would be immune to obstruction of an impeachment inquiry. However that is fantasy and he is obligated. This is a legal proceeding and you mischaracterized my own statement. I said this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. BOTH are legal proceedings. You have a lot to learn...

 

[omgcat]

Cots, for someone who really loves their constitution, you sure seem to be ignorant of whats in it. for example:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and a Misdemeanor.

The impeachment hearings are based on the obstructions of justice laid out in the Mueller report, and are piling up as that line of questioning is being unwoven. ANY obstruction of justice is a Misdemeanor at the lightest and a felony at the harshest. Withholding aid to a country unless they investigate a political opponent even after the aid was appropriated, approved, and ready to send, is Bribery at the lightest and Extortion at the harshest. Witness intimidation is a Misdemeanor at the lightest and a felony at the harshest.

As an added bonus in relation to executive privilege:

The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists.

Also as an extra bonus:

Attorney-client privilege does not hold when a crime has been committed involving said attorney.

 

[cots]

Cots, for someone who really loves their constitution, you sure seem to be ignorant of whats in it. for example:

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides:

The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II, Section 2 provides:

[The President] ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and a Misdemeanor.

The impeachment hearings are based on the obstructions of justice laid out in the Mueller report, and are piling up as that line of questioning is being unwoven. ANY obstruction of justice is a Misdemeanor at the lightest and a felony at the harshest. Withholding aid to a country unless they investigate a political opponent even after the aid was appropriated, approved, and ready to send, is Bribery at the lightest and Extortion at the harshest. Witness intimidation is a Misdemeanor at the lightest and a felony at the harshest.

As an added bonus in relation to executive privilege:

The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists.

Also as an extra bonus:

Attorney-client privilege does not hold when a crime has been committed involving said attorney.

"Article II, Section 4 provides:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and a Misdemeanor."

This the only part you got correct about the latter subject. The following text you posted after your verbatim quote of the Constitution are simple interpretations of Congresses power copied word for word from publications related to what people think it means this year, who might add interpreted it just for the very reason of impeaching Trump, which is clearly evident as you've included what's currently going on in it. Sorry bud, but the Democratic interpretation of something doesn't make it an actual law or even what the Constitution meant, especially in the Mueller investigation, who he cleared the President of collusion or this shit show that is basing impeachment on assumptions.

The privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and is unavailable elsewhere to an appropriate investigatory authority. The president may not prevent such a showing of need by granting absolute immunity to witnesses who would otherwise provide the information necessary to show that “important” evidence exists.

The President hasn't "granting absolute immunity to witnesses". He's simply telling them not to testify and refusing to obey subpoenas for information. He's not made any executive orders related to the matter trying to interfere with it nor has he granted anyone immunity using his constitutional powers. Your claims aren't based in reality. Nice stretch, but you lost. For someone who thinks they can tell me they know more than I do about the subject you're not winning any brownie points because you're clearly not paying attention.

Anyway, once after the fact that the courts probably will order Trump to hand over whatever Congress wants it'll be entertaining to see that they don't contain any damning evidence. Well, the Democrats might claim it does, considering they're already stated that second hand testimony is worth more than first hand testimony and that assumptions and hearsay are admissible evidence with comparable worth. You people are really something else. You have no fucking clue about how shit works or what you're even doing. First hand testimony and direct real evidence are the only things that are worth shit. The rest of what you've presented isn't worth the paper it's being printed on. "I assume" ... Fuck off. You know what, I assume that the President isn't guilty. So my assumption is valid? Case closed! Yeah, well, that's not how it works. I support Trump not bowing down to you fucking idiots latest attempt to oust him from office. You're going to lose no matter what you do. Just like you lost the 2016 election. I just had to include that fact because your "end game" is still not going to produce the results you want. I realize that no matter what the plan is to "attack the President". You may be able to fool some of the indoctrinated school children on this forum, but I see right through your bullshit.

 

[cots]

The president can plead the 5th. That is all. The executive branch is still subject to investigation by the legislative branch and that includes the president himself.

If this truly was the case then he would be immune to obstruction of an impeachment inquiry. However that is fantasy and he is obligated. This is a legal proceeding and you mischaracterized my own statement. I said this isn't a criminal trial but a political one. BOTH are legal proceedings. You have a lot to learn...

I'm sure if he takes the 5th you people will still find a reason to bitch and moan. No matter what he does or what he says you're going to attack him. Attacking him regardless of what he does is in your DNA. Admitting you voted for Trump around your type gets you discriminated against. Your planned impeachment based on your hatred and refusal to accept the election results is clearly evident. You're not fooling the majority of the public. This entire fiasco was planned from the start and you can't even get it right.

Political trials are turning out to be more full of shit than civil or criminal. Especially considering you said that a political trial can be won by the impression of guilt with no real evidence needing to be presented, which is actually turning out to be true. Fucking moronic politics. "We don't like him so we're going to impeach him and we don't need any evidence to do so". Fuck off. Seeings as the rules for civil and criminal trails don't apply to this legal proceeding I feel even more empowered to keep repeating myself that Trump is under no obligation to hand over anything Congress is demanding without an actual legal court order telling him to. The Democratic goal was to remove the President at all costs for whatever reason they could find and they are still failing at their latest attempt. You guys really need to fucking get a clue before you start shit you can't handle.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm sure if he takes the 5th you people will still find a reason to bitch and moan. No matter what he does or what he says you're going to attack him. Attacking him regardless of what he does is in your DNA. Admitting you voted for Trump around your type gets you discriminated against. Your planned impeachment based on your hatred and refusal to accept the election results is clearly evident. You're not fooling the majority of the public. This entire fiasco was planned from the start and you can't even get it right.

Political trials are turning out to be more full of shit than civil or criminal. Especially considering you said that a political trial can be won by the impression of guilt with no real evidence needing to be presented, which is actually turning out to be true. Fucking moronic politics. "We don't like him so we're going to impeach him and we don't need any evidence to do so". Fuck off. Seeings as the rules for civil and criminal trails don't apply to this legal proceeding I feel even more empowered to keep repeating myself that Trump is under no obligation to hand over anything Congress is demanding without an actual legal court order telling him to. The Democratic goal was to remove the President at all costs for whatever reason they could find and they are still failing at their latest attempt. You guys really need to fucking get a clue before you start shit you can't handle.

You bring nothing to support your claims on this process other than your feelings. Nothing has changed since you commenced your involvement in these discussions. I could equally point out a few bad actors in the republican party and try to paint every republican with the same brush but that would be illogical and idiotic to believe that represents reality.

I invite you back to the impeachment hearing thread to discuss actual evidence if you think there is nothing of substance. I've laid out Trump's own words that admits he withheld military aid. There is a reason you ignore information presented which shows Trump has at best pitiful poor judgement and at worst used the power of the executive branch for personal benefit. Continue attacking the process because at this point, I feel that's all that is left for the Trump administration defense if they can't/won't produce witnesses from senior officials or documents that say otherwise.

 

[omgcat]

except your argument fell apart in literal real time...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...wh-counsel-mcgahn-must-testify-under-subpoena

A judge has ruled that "The Justice Department’s claim to “unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity,” Jackson wrote, “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” ".

Edit: adding more links as this develops.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

A federal judge on Monday ordered Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the Trump WH's top lawyer, a ruling that will add pressure on other Trump officials tied to the impeachment probe. Decision here: http://ow.ly/g7TL50xkrnj

I'm not sure if he is going to seek an appeal or not. If all he was wanting to do is cover his ass and not obstruct then I wouldn't see the need to pursue an appeal.

In part of that decision, rational was given in the quote below:
“However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires," Judge says

Other news of FOIA working to give public transparency on this issue:
Judge orders release of documents of communications between the Pentagon’s comptroller, DOD and White House OMB over the delay in stalled Ukraine aid. Must turn over 106 pages to Center for Public Integrity by Dec. 12. Another 100 by Dec. 20 in FOIA suit https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2019cv3265-17 …

In addition to the above, on Friday:
https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

"On Friday evening, the State Department released nearly 100 pages of records in response to American Oversight’s lawsuit seeking a range of documents related to the Trump administration’s dealings with Ukraine.

Among other records, the production includes emails that confirm multiple contacts in March of 2019 between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, at least one of which was facilitated by President Trump’s assistant Madeleine Westerhout.

American Oversight is reviewing the production to assess whether the State Department has fully complied with the court’s order."

----
TLDR: This is strong evidence that Trump's administration is abusing executive privilege and is blocking a formalized congressional impeachment inquiry. If normal citizens through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) can have the courts force the Executive branch to produce documents then congress is certainly entitled to them via an impeachment inquiry.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

whoops I meant for this to go in another thread. It's not necessarily offtopic here but not what was intended.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

This is rather bulky, for a full read it would be best to refer to my link of the Don McGahn decision

---Page 4-5
DOJ’s arguments to the contrary are rooted in “the Executive’s interest in ‘autonomy[,]’” and, therefore, “rest[] upon a discredited notion of executive power and privilege.” Id. at 103. Indeed, when DOJ insists that Presidents can lawfully prevent their senior-level aides from responding to compelled congressional process and that neither the federal courts nor Congress has the power to do anything about it, DOJ Case 1:19-cv-02379-KBJ Document 46 Filed 11/25/19 Page 6 of 120 5 promotes a conception of separation-of-powers principles that gets these constitutional commands exactly backwards. In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny. See The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 120 (1976). Thus, when presented with a case or controversy, it is the Judiciary’s duty under the Constitution to interpret the law and to declare government overreaches unlawful. Similarly, the House of Representatives has the constitutionally vested responsibility to conduct investigations of suspected abuses of power within the government, and to act to curb those improprieties, if required. Accordingly, DOJ’s conceptual claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity on separation-of-powers grounds—essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable Executive branch authority—is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.
--- Page 7
And in reaching this conclusion, “[t]he Court holds only that [McGahn] (and other senior presidential advisors) do not have absolute immunity from compelled congressional process in the context of this particular subpoena dispute.” Id. at 105–06. Accordingly, just as with Harriet Miers before him, Donald McGahn “must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.”
---

I think this is a big blow to Trump's order of refusing aids to appear to testify before congress. If this is not appealed then others may follow suite but I expect Trump who has not been forthcoming with witnesses or documents will have no desire to stop obstruction and continue to hang this decision among any others in court as long as possible through appeals.

 

[cots]

except your argument fell apart in literal real time...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...wh-counsel-mcgahn-must-testify-under-subpoena

A judge has ruled that "The Justice Department’s claim to “unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity,” Jackson wrote, “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.” ".

Edit: adding more links as this develops.

My argument didn't fall apart you fucking tool. I said that unless a court orders the White House to comply they don't have to comply. Seeings as a court has ordered the White House to comply this is exactly what I said could happen. Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice. Sonland choose to ignore Trump. You're still falling for typical main stream media bullshit. No immunity was granted from the President, which is what I was talking about. So what, someone said in the Justice Department that this guy was immune. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump granting him immunity? Hint, not a god damned thing. Stretching shit is a Democratic tactic, but I'm working in the realms of reality. So shit didn't fall apart. If anything what I said would have to happen just happened. So I was right twice in a row.

Now the question is whether this court has the power to make the Executive Branch comply. As far as I know there's only 1 court that can do that. Would be interesting if this guy still refuses to testify and The White House defends him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I think this is a big blow to Trump's order of refusing aids to appear to testify before congress. If this is not appealed then others may follow suite but I expect Trump who has not been forthcoming with witnesses or documents will have no desire to stop obstruction and continue to hang this decision among any others in court as long as possible through appeals.

What you think is irrelevant based on the fact that the majority of the people support Trump not caving into the Democrats latest scheme. He's under no obligation to give the Democrats shit. Like I predicted it took a court order to force him to comply. Now seeings as that has happened I assume anything that is turned over to be abused and used out of context. Furthermore, I expect imaginary lines to be made between all sorts of other "impressions of guilt" found in this stuff to be used against Trump now or in the future. You people still aren't fooling anyone. You've stated your agenda years ago - You hate Trump and remove him from office at all costs regardless of any wrongdoing.

 

[omgcat]

My argument didn't fall apart you fucking tool. I said that unless a court orders the White House to comply they don't have to comply. Seeings as a court has ordered the White House to comply this is exactly what I said could happen. Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice. Sonland choose to ignore Trump. You're still falling for typical main stream media bullshit. No immunity was granted from the President, which is what I was talking about. So what, someone said in the Justice Department that this guy was immune. What the fuck does that have to do with Trump granting him immunity? Hint, not a god damned thing. Stretching shit is a Democratic tactic, but I'm working in the realms of reality. So shit didn't fall apart. If anything what I said would have to happen just happened. So I was right twice in a row.

Now the question is whether this court has the power to make the Executive Branch comply. As far as I know there's only 1 court that can do that. Would be interesting if this guy still refuses to testify and The White House defends him.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



What you think is irrelevant based on the fact that the majority of the people support Trump not caving into the Democrats latest scheme. He's under no obligation to give the Democrats shit. Like I predicted it took a court order to force him to comply. Now seeings as that has happened I assume anything that is turned over to be abused and used out of context. Furthermore, I expect imaginary lines to be made between all sorts of other "impressions of guilt" found in this stuff to be used against Trump now or in the future. You people still aren't fooling anyone. You've stated your agenda years ago - You hate Trump and remove him from office at all costs regardless of any wrongdoing.

Seems to me that your "realms of reality" are not holding up to constitutionality and court precedence. If you are willing to throw out the rule of law, what else is there? The entire reason Mcghan had to go to court was the supposed idea of executive privilege and immunity to congressional subpoenas. He thought that he had immunity from testifying because trump told him not too and his ass would be protected by executive privilege. The judge threw that out because it has no legal basis. Also calling someone "a fucking tool" is pretty childish. I would like you to come up with a reasonable argument as to why it would be OK for the executive branch to be able to shrug off congressional oversight, write it down on a piece of paper, tack it to your wall, and then look at it the next time a democratic president decides to flagrantly try to stifle congressional oversight.

 

[cots]

Seems to me that your "realms of reality" are not holding up to constitutionality and court precedence. If you are willing to throw out the rule of law, what else is there? The entire reason Mcghan had to go to court was the supposed idea of executive privilege and immunity to congressional subpoenas. He thought that he had immunity from testifying because trump told him not too and his ass would be protected by executive privilege. The judge threw that out because it has no legal basis. Also calling someone "a fucking tool" is pretty childish. I would like you to come up with a reasonable argument as to why it would be OK for the executive branch to be able to shrug off congressional oversight, write it down on a piece of paper, tack it to your wall, and then look at it the next time a democratic president decides to flagrantly try to stifle congressional oversight.

If the Republicans lose the 2020 election and start impeachment plans for the Democratic President before he or she is elected and then use public resources for two years to go after the President based on lies and then found out to be wrong and after the fact try to use that for one of their many impeachment attempts do you think I would go along with their latest attempt? Do you think I would then support the Republicans latest attempt when the testimony produces witnesses that either claim they have no evidence of any illegal activity with a single one of them stating "I assume he's guilty because that's why I think, but I don't have any actual evidence". Answer - Fuck no. If the Republicans tried to pull this kind of shit I would not support them, but seeings as the Democrats are getting away with it who is making a precedent that could be used to justify doing this again in the future to another President that wins based solely on the fact that the losing side wouldn't admit defeat in a contest they agreed to?

To this day Trump has not used his executive privilege to grant immunity to anyone that was refusing to testify. The people refusing were doing so on their own free will. Now that a court has ordered one of them to testify we'll see how things go. Technically, there's only 1 court in the entire country with the legal authority to tell The White House what to do. If the White House decides to back this witness if the witness still refuses to testify The Supreme Court is the only court that can solve the issue. I'd support him refusing, based on the situation (the situation I highlighted in the first paragraph). If and when he does testify it's not like the Democrats are going to use whatever he says fairly. Seeings as they twisted and misused what Sonland said and value "assumptions" over proof whatever this guy says won't be used fairly. I do understand though, the mission is to remove Trump from office at all costs regardless of guilt, which has been the plan before he even became President.

You are a tool if you support this nonsense, because either you're ignorant (in which case there's hope for you) or you're part of the party that openly admits to trying to remove Trump from office for any reason regardless of guilt.

 

[Deleted User]

can someone get the fire alarm? because someone is burning shit in here, and it reeks of bullshit.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity.

Just to be clear we understand what immunity was being exerted: we aren't talking about him extending pardons. We are talking about him exerting executive privilege to prevent people from even appearing before congress to testify. You are oblivious to what Trump's administration is even doing yet you come at those with complaints of this overreach of executive authority with dismissive attitude or vitriol? Really?

Please go read the judge's decision linked above. Digest the information of what the DOJ actually presented as their case, and what the judge ruled. I even pulled out some relevant parts to add to our discussion. I do so much lifting to push this discussion along with something grounded in reality and historical evidence. Let's try to use more than feelings to discuss this. If you have a historical case that refutes this feel free to provide an argument based on that.

Trump has still not to this day used his Executive Powers to grant anyone not testifying immunity. He's simply suggested that they don't testify and it's up to them as individuals to make that choice.

The Judge that ruled on this case and the DOJ that is planning to appeal contradict this statement you are making.

Furthermore, this letter linked below which was given to the Speaker of the House contradicts you. The President is not suggesting. Its an order via Office of Legal Counsel at Trump's direction.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...te-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08

Page 4 last paragraph which extends to page 5

"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 a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for following such instructions."

The fact that you can't even show enough curiosity to question what is the Administration doing that has people riled up makes you part of the problem. If you were at least informed when touting your position I would be able to respect it, even if I disagree, and retain hope that we can hold discourse. Unfortunately, I cannot condone blatant ignorance as a valid position.

 

[cots]

Just to be clear we understand what immunity was being exerted: we aren't talking about him extending pardons. We are talking about him exerting executive privilege to prevent people from even appearing before congress to testify. You are oblivious to what Trump's administration is even doing yet you come at those with complaints of this overreach of executive authority with dismissive attitude or vitriol? Really?

Please go read the judge's decision linked above. Digest the information of what the DOJ actually presented as their case, and what the judge ruled. I even pulled out some relevant parts to add to our discussion. I do so much lifting to push this discussion along with something grounded in reality and historical evidence. Let's try to use more than feelings to discuss this. If you have a historical case that refutes this feel free to provide an argument based on that.


The Judge that ruled on this case and the DOJ that is planning to appeal contradict this statement you are making.

Furthermore, this letter linked below which was given to the Speaker of the House contradicts you. The President is not suggesting. Its an order via Office of Legal Counsel at Trump's direction.

https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...te-House-Letter-to-Speaker-Pelosi-Et-Al-10-08

Page 4 last paragraph which extends to page 5

"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 a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for following such instructions."

The fact that you can't even show enough curiosity to question what is the Administration doing that has people riled up makes you part of the problem. If you were at least informed when touting your position I would be able to respect it, even if I disagree, and retain hope that we can hold discourse. Unfortunately, I cannot condone blatant ignorance as a valid position.

No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so. This never happened. Instead, like I predicted, the Courts ordered that the testimony be made. Trump supported the DOJ, but neither the DOJ nor Trump granted anyone immunity. There's also nothing making these subpoenad witnesses obey the order. Sonland chose to ignore the order and so can anyone else. Fuck your historical nonsense. What is going on how isn't based on anything historical. We all know what this is about. Premeditated impeachment motivated by the inability to face the 2016 election results. Remove Trump at all costs no matter his guilt. Yeah, well, now the people Congress are legally required to testify, but don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. Furthermore, the DOJ is appealing the decision. It's like you want me to get all wrapped up in this minor situation and totally ignore what's happening and why it's happening. You're not going to be able to distract me from the issue at and by trying to nitpick about minor decisions, especially when you're treating them like some major win.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so. This never happened. Instead, like I predicted, the Courts ordered that the testimony be made. Trump supported the DOJ, but neither the DOJ nor Trump granted anyone immunity. There's also nothing making these subpoenad witnesses obey the order. Sonland chose to ignore the order and so can anyone else. Fuck your historical nonsense. What is going on how isn't based on anything historical.

The way you frame this is part of your problem in understanding our checks and balances. Perhaps this is just a communication error but you are asserting there is a lack of any legal ground for them to appear until the court rules a decision. The Subpoena that was served by congress to Don McGahn was indeed valid and he should have complied.

The court merely reinforced its validity with its ruling and was forced to do so because the Office of Legal Counsel, at Trump's direction, asserted the following claim in defiance of complying with that lawful subpoena:

"that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch."

This isn't splitting hairs on presentation of events. You aren't recognizing Separation of Powers that gives Congress the Power to perform congressional oversight. If Don McGahn showed up and answered the questions presented to him with one repetitive phrase: "This is covered under executive privilege" where it accurately applies. Then I would not have a problem with executive privilege being applied. But it cannot prevent someone from being summoned before congress. Historical precedent listed by even that judge is evidence of that. You provide nothing, not one iota of legal standing on any case to say otherwise. You refuse to even discuss the ruling beyond your own emotional response.

No immunity was being exerted. The DOJ said it would hold anyone who didn't want to testify immune to doing so.

You keep spreading a lie despite myself and others presenting information that the White house and DOJ contradicting you. Immunity to a congressional subpoena was asserted by the DOJ in that case. A judge ruled today that isn't legal and the Congressional Subpoena is valid. If I'm wrong about the immunity, Prove it.

Finally, read the quote from the Whitehouse Letter I am now quoting for the 2nd time. It did not state "anyone who didn't want to testify" but in fact it stated "have been instructed". If I'm wrong, prove it.

By the way Just so you know, because you really don't strike me as a detailed oriented individual, Gordon Sondland was blocked from testifying by the White house the first time. He then was served a subpoena and defied the White House legal counsel's instruction to not cooperate as did every witness that was deposed during the impeachment inquiry, the reason they complied with the subpoena is because it is lawful and Trump's order is not. They complied because they can't be penalized by the White House for complying with a lawful subpoena. Again, if I'm wrong, prove it.

 

[cots]

The way you frame this is part of your problem in understanding our checks and balances. Perhaps this is just a communication error but you are asserting there is a lack of any legal ground for them to appear until the court rules a decision. The Subpoena that was served by congress to Don McGahn was indeed valid and he should have complied.

The court merely reinforced its validity with its ruling and was forced to do so because the Office of Legal Counsel, at Trump's direction, asserted the following claim in defiance of complying with that lawful subpoena:

"that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch."

This isn't splitting hairs on presentation of events. You aren't recognizing Separation of Powers that gives Congress the Power to perform congressional oversight. If Don McGahn showed up and answered the questions presented to him with one repetitive phrase: "This is covered under executive privilege" where it accurately applies. Then I would not have a problem with executive privilege being applied. But it cannot prevent someone from being summoned before congress. Historical precedent listed by even that judge is evidence of that. You provide nothing, not one iota of legal standing on any case to say otherwise. You refuse to even discuss the ruling beyond your own emotional response.

You keep spreading a lie despite myself and others presenting information that the White house and DOJ contradicting you. Immunity to a congressional subpoena was asserted by the DOJ in that case. A judge ruled today that isn't legal and the Congressional Subpoena is valid. If I'm wrong about the immunity, Prove it.

Finally, read the quote from the Whitehouse Letter I am now quoting for the 2nd time. It did not state "anyone who didn't want to testify" but in fact it stated "have been instructed". If I'm wrong, prove it.

By the way Just so you know, because you really don't strike me as a detailed oriented individual, Gordon Sondland was blocked from testifying by the White house the first time. He then was served a subpoena and defied the White House legal counsel's instruction to not cooperate as did every witness that was deposed during the impeachment inquiry, the reason they complied with the subpoena is because it is lawful and Trump's order is not. They complied because they can't be penalized by the White House for complying with a lawful subpoena. Again, if I'm wrong, prove it.

The witnesses were promised immunity from testifying they were not given immunity as the end result was that the promise was ruled not legal by the current court. At any point in time, just like Sonland, they could have chosen to ignore or defy Trump's orders. Nothing was legally stopping Sonland or any of the others from testifying. They weren't having their lives threatened. They did so on their own volition. So now if and when the witnesses show up they can simply refuse to answer any questions. Trump and the DOJ promising immunity was not illegal, but following through with it would have been (which, is the recent court ruling, which may be overruled). Since immunity was never actually granted the issue is behind us. So the question is now will the subpoenaed witnesses show up and testify or refuse wait until a higher court rules that they have to (per the appeal)? Seeings as they can simply refuse to answer any questions they don't want to during their testimony this is no a "big win" for the Democrats. Taken into context regarding the fact the Democrats are out to impeach Trump regardless of guilt Trump was doing to right thing from not cooperating with them. Just because some psycho ex-bitch who vowed to ruin your life 3 years ago because you dumped her brings you to court again and again doesn't mean you have to cave into her demands in her latest attempt, especially if the courts are colluding with her on the entire pre-planned fiasco.

Why would anyone in their right mind cooperate with a group of people that openly admit to wanting to remove you from office at all costs regardless of guilt? So, you have nothing to hide. Good. That's not reason to cave into their every demand. Just because you're not guilty of something doesn't mean you should just hand over whatever the people accusing you of a crime want you to give them. I think the way the White House handled this is just fine. I support them giving the Democrats hell to every extent legally permitted. If it takes a court to decide what is legal or not then so be it. The White House should not just cave into everything demanded of them by Congress, especially considering the plan was to remove Trump for office at all costs with or without any wrongdoing. This entire "quid pro quo" is just a convenient excuse to go through with their plans. When you look at what's going on and ignore the back story or take it out of context then it would seem that the Democrats are doing the "right thing" or "winning" and they expect the average citizen to fall for this, but considering they think their own party are made up of idiots you can see where their motivations lie and how this is going to end up.