What is illogical is that #3 says the judicial can't intervene or make a ruling on this matter yet you keep insisting you support a court of a higher power making a ruling if this is appealed. You can't even admit that because either you refuse to take the time to digest the facts presented or you actually don't have an opinion and will say that you support the court decision
"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."
I see you woke up, but not in the hip way. I support the DOJ using its legal power to assist the White House not giving into Congress demands by following through with their claims that a federal court can't force White House witnesses to testify. This much I've made clear. Yes, I am also insisting that the Supreme Court, the only court with the final say has the final say. Up until they order that #1 #2 or #3 are unconstitutional I will go along with whatever the DOJ chooses to do regarding the issue (which, they are currently appealing the lower federal courts ruling). Up until the Court of Courts says what the DOJ is doing is unconstitutional then I'm not going to treat it as such.
'Holy Projection Batman!' Also to point this out again, you have yet to cite a single quote from a source in this entire discussion and have proven that you don't even read quotes that are presented and address them, much less actually preview their source.
I read them and frankly I don't care what the Democrats have to say. With the intentions of this impeachment being evident and their failure to interpret and relay basic facts in the testimony (I did watch the boring ass Sonland testimony to see exactly how they were handling business) I feel justified in my position to just ignore any bullshit they're using for bait. I know what they want right now - they want the witnesses to testify and they want the documents they're requesting. So I support Trump not giving handing them over. And why is it that everyone on the Internet wants you to provide a source to back up what you're saying, but then when you provide a source and they don't agree with it all they do is spend time ripping it apart. What's the even the point? Well, sorry, not interested. Not everything in life can be explained or justified by linking to a website (especially websites that anyone with an account can edit or alter the information, including groups of people with common interests, focus groups, organizations and/or Governments).
If you'd like to prove me wrong you can start here. Can you even explain the basis of what is being presented 'on separation of powers grounds' in the #3 assertion? I find it funny, in the quotes below, you have demonstrated 'faith' not 'logical reasoning', because at this point you aren't working in actual understanding of what is being stated, in the DOJ's assertions that stopped a congressional subpoena in court?
Because at this point I believe the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay proper oversight and nothing further. This is clearly made evident in assertion #3 but you've since been too uninterested to even understand what our government is participating in to obstruct congressional oversight only because you support the end goal. That much you have abundantly stated over the past few hours of back and forth discussion.
Your goal is to remove Trump from office regardless of guilt and my goal is to give him a fair shot at defending himself from this onslaught. Clearly, we'd both have different viewpoints per our own motivations. I believe your assessment that the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay what Congress wants is exactly what they are doing and it's what they should be doing. Seeings as its their legal right to do so. Now per say if Trump were to try to use his executive powers to outright stop the impeachment or try to overthrow and take control of the House I'd have issues with that, but simply not wanting to hand over witnesses and documents, per the circumstances I keep repeating and repeating is fine by me. So if you want to call it "obstructing congressional oversight" then whatever. Good for them. Keep at it boys.
With that you aren't someone who is interested in obtaining an informed opinion on anything that appears to conflict with how you 'feel' about a situation. You believe you know everything you need to know and desire to learn nothing else. With that I'm going to point out your own words to conclude my response.
"The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading" - .
"They PWN themselves almost every time they try to do something as most of what they say and do is fueled by the hatred and intolerance they have for others."
Both of these statements seem to apply to you more than they apply to other members present on these threads that try to actually discuss the facts revolving around a significant moment in our nation. You've knotted yourself into a pretzel by supporting assertion #3 as it is a direct conflict. You also refuse to address assertion #2 as it shows very plainly that you were incorrect about immunity being 'granted' (which means it must be given on condition) when the DOJ was asserting an alleged already present absolute testimonial immunity of all employees of the executive branch.
No pretzel. It's not that hard to understand my position. #3 may or may not be ruled unconstitutional and until which time the highest court in the land does make that ruling I'm fine with the DOJ appealing to get it to them. Trump used what the DOJ came up with to demand (possibly what actually happened was he talked to them and asked nicely) that the White House staff not testify. No immunity was granted, it was only implied. The staff can go testify to their hearts content without any penalty for disobeying Trump. I support them not testifying and waiting for the appeal to go through (if that's what they chose to do). If at which time the Supreme Court orders that they do have immunity then I guess they ended up having it and if they don't I guess they ended up not having it and will have to testify.
"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."
Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which only applies if specified conditions are met."
You are arguing that it is granted, applying with specified conditions - that would be a qualified immunity. But instead the DOJ is arguing an absolute immunity. Don't argue terminology if you don't know what you are talking about. It just highlights your ignorance.
I think you're forgetting to include the definition of "alleged" in your little dictionary exercise. Anyway, I'm not biting.
One thing you did make me realize by posting the DOJ stuff is that's what Trump is using to justify offering the White House Staff that choose not to testify immunity from prosecution is that the blame could be shifted onto the DOJ for making the rules. Trump could simply blame his actions on being told by the DOJ that what he's doing is okay.
Small goals for a small minded person. How pitiful.
I do realize why you included the "own Liberals" comment in your last reply - to distract from any points I'm making, but you'll only be distracting the Liberals who are reading this so that's fine by me. I really don't care what they think about me or what they even have to say. The day I start needing the approval of a Liberal is the day I'm probably diagnosed with Alzheimers and terminal brain cancer at the same time and simply forget who I am (as I wouldn't willingly be choosing to give a shit - I'd just be confused).
You said you're here many times to seek entertainment based on discussion revolving around the impeachment of the President. Since your initial appearance it's clear that you support the impeachment and just want to be entertained by the Liberals attempt, which I might remind you is failing and bound to fail. Though, I do question your motivations for "simple entertainment" seeings as how hard you're trying to justify a simple matter like Trump not caving into a couple of Congresses demands.
I don't have any goals. I just sit back and participate on a bunch of forums that are populated by Liberals and am entertained by their responses. Once this impeachment effort backfires in their faces and Trump is still in office it'll just be another thing they get all triggered about. So I guess once you're done posting here, because the impeachment issue will be over, I'll still be here laughing at the Liberals replies. I've sort of outgrown playing video games for hours on end or binge watching TV. This shit right here is much more entertaining.
Last edited by cots,