Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[RationalityIsLost101]

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 wait until a higher court rules that they have to? 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.

I'm sorry try again. Prove it. Not give your feelings.

 

[cots]

I'm sorry try again. Prove it. Not give your feelings.

I did just prove it. I gave you my observations based on assumptions and the stated how I personally felt about some of the issues.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Provide a document, some source that validates your claim. You bring nothing. You expect people to just take your word or interpretation as truth? You have a judge that says otherwise. You have refused to address my specific points that were raised with any proof.

 

[cots]

Provide a document, some source that validates your claim. You bring nothing. You expect people to just take your word or interpretation as truth? You have a judge that says otherwise. You have refused to address my specific points that were raised with any proof.

Seems you should be using that line of reply to the entire impeachment process. Its just fine when your party basis it's entire impeachment case using the same logic I did regarding this issue. So remind me, why should I take the Democrats premeditated impeachment effort seriously when it's just their words based on their interpreted truths, which are rooted solely on assumptions and motivated by how they feel about Trump?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Seems you should be using that line of reply to the entire impeachment process. It's just fine when your party basis it's entire impeachment case using the same logic I did regarding this issue. So remind me, why should I take the Democrats premeditated impeachment effort seriously when it's just their words based on their interpreted truths, which are rooted solely on assumptions?

I'm sorry, This does not address the question. You provide proof or something that substantiates your claim. Finish this discussion, then we can move on to another topic. I'm not going to have someone bicker and lie then change the topic when called out on their misinformation.

 

[cots]

I'm sorry, This does not address the question. You provide proof or something that substantiates your claim. Finish this discussion, then we can move on to another topic. I'm not going to have someone bicker and lie then change the topic when called out on their misinformation.

I applied the same logic that the Democrats are using for their impeachment effort on the issues you brought up (in my last detailed reply) - to prove a point. I stand by my observations that are based on assumptions and motivated by how I feel about the subject. If this is good enough for you to support impeaching the President then it's good enough for me to make a point with.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I applied the same logic that the Democrats are using for their impeachment effort on the issues you brought up - to prove a point. I stand by my observations that are based on assumptions and motivated by how I feel about the subject. If this is good enough for you to support impeaching the President then it's good enough for me to make a point with.

You provide an observation, an incorrect one that is contradicted by two sources I provided and list nothing to substantiate your own claim. If you want to discuss evidence that supports or refutes an impeachment we can do that in another thread. This thread is about executive privilege and impeachment inquiry. The ruling for McGahn to testify is relevant to this thread. Your feelings on impeachment not being fair isn't.

I actually somewhat agree with you, attempting to change the conversation does prove a point: that you don't have anything to support your position and can't or won't find something that will. It may have not been the point you wanted to prove or that you state above but that is now your personal problem.

 

[cots]

You provide an observation, an incorrect one that is contradicted by two sources I provided and list nothing to substantiate your own claim. If you want to discuss evidence that supports or refutes an impeachment we can do that in another thread. This thread is about executive privilege and impeachment inquiry. The ruling for McGahn to testify is relevant to this thread. Your feelings on impeachment not being fair isn't.

I actually somewhat agree with you, attempting to change the conversation does prove a point: that you don't have anything to support your position and can't or won't find something that will. It may have not been the point you wanted to prove or that you state above but that is now your personal problem.

No, I just wanted to apply the logic the Democrats are using in this entire mess to my last drawn out reply and see how you'd react to it. Clearly, their logic is flawed. The only thing you verified is your bias. If that somehow invalidates the rest of my comments in your eyes then applied to the Democrats it should invalidate the entire impeachment effort.

Anyway, so now a court with no actual authority over the White House ruled that the White House members who are personally refusing to testify must do so and will not be granted immunity (which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be). The DOJ is appealing (which is legal and they're doing so because the current court has no final say in the matter), meaning the witnesses may or may not testify. If they do testify they don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. If they don't testify we'll have to wait until a higher court rules that they must testify (with the results being the same, they can refuse to answer any questions). So until a court that has authority over the White House rules that the witnesses must testify or the White House caves into a lower courts demands there's no definitive decision about the matter one way or the other. That's my interpretation of the facts. Linking to the actual rulings or matters of how I came to my conclusion would be futile because you'd simply try to discredit everything I link to (plus, you linked to many of them already). I'm paying attention to what's going on and unlike the Liberals I'm not claiming Trump is guilty or not guilty (that's yet to be decided on).

I'm also not going to ignore the situation or why this is all happening. That would be playing into the Democrats hand. The Democrats have planned this all along and according to them they're trying to remove Trump from office regardless if he's guilty or not.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

No, I just wanted to apply the logic the Democrats are using in this entire mess to my last drawn out reply and see how you'd react to it. Clearly, their logic is flawed. The only thing you verified is your bias. If that somehow invalidates the rest of my comments in your eyes then applied to the Democrats it should invalidate the entire impeachment effort.

Anyway, so now a court with no actual authority over the White House ruled that the White House members who are personally refusing to testify must do so and will not be granted immunity (which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be). The DOJ is appealing (which is legal and they're doing so because the current court has no final say in the matter), meaning the witnesses may or may not testify. If they do testify they don't have to answer any questions they don't want to. If they don't testify we'll have to wait until a higher court rules that they must testify (with the results being the same, they can refuse to answer any questions). So until a court that has authority over the White House rules that the witnesses must testify or the White House caves into a lower courts demands there's no definitive decision about the matter one way or the other. That's my interpretation of the facts. Linking to the actual rulings or matters of how I came to my conclusion would be futile because you'd simply try to discredit everything I link to (plus, you linked to many of them already). I'm paying attention to what's going on and unlike the Liberals I'm not claiming Trump is guilty or not guilty (that's yet to be decided on).

I'm also not going to ignore the situation or why this is all happening. That would be playing into the Democrats hand. The Democrats have planned this all along and according to them they're trying to remove Trump from office regardless if he's guilty or not.

You are projecting bias on to me. Sorry that's not how bias works. Try again.

You do state something true, but then state something false and misleading.

the current court has no final say in the matter - this is true.

(which, none of them had been granted immunity, only promised to be)

"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."

See that based on privileges or immunities part. That matters. Sorry you keep failing to read and digest this quote. I understand this is the 3rd time now but repetition is the key to learning. If you think I'm wrong. Go find the court case and read it, pull a quote of what the DOJ asserted that contradicts this white house letter and you'll actually have an argument based on a fact and not feeling and/or incorrect interpretation of words.

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

This isn't a granted or promised of immunity. The white house straight up said 'they are immune to congressional subponeas' and the court said 'nope'. This is paraphrased for those who struggle with reading comprehension of the actual case ruling.

Maybe that is more understandable? I mean this isn't a hard concept to grasp, especially if you'd stop being lazy and actually read the court ruling.

 

[cots]

You are projecting bias on to me. Sorry that's not how bias works. Try again.

You do state something true, but then state something false and misleading.

the current court has no final say in the matter - this is true.

"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."

See that based on privileges or immunities part. That matters. Sorry you keep failing to read and digest this quote. I understand this is the 3rd time now but repetition is the key to learning. If you think I'm wrong. Go find the court case and read it, pull a quote of what the DOJ asserted that contradicts this white house letter and you'll actually have an argument based on a fact and not feeling and/or incorrect interpretation of words.

They were promised immunity and may or may not get it. If they testify because a court orders them to then they ended up not getting immunity. If the only court in the land that has the final say rules that they don't have to testify then they will end up getting immunity. If they chose to testify themselves they give up any such promised immunity.

Your bias is apparent because I used the same logic that the Democrats are using to justify their latest impeachment attempt, yet when I use it it's a valid reason to discredit everything I have to say. When they use it it's perfectly fine. Logic being that observations based on assumptions rooted and motivated by feelings justify such actions over actual facts and proper logic.

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

The white house straight up said 'they are immune to congressional subponeas' and the court said 'nope'.

Well, the lower court invalidated the White Houses promise. Whether or not they're going to testify based on the promised immunity is yet to be seen. If the DOJ and White House would have agreed to this lower courts ruling the issue would be over. However, they are appealing. It's okay though, if they choose to testify, which has been their choice all along, they can simply decline to answer any questions : )

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

They were promised immunity and may or may not get it.

If I get you specifically what was said in court ruling, an actual legal source then what, you'll pretend you are still right and still provide nothing? Not even a quote, is this because you are lazy or because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong because your poor pitiful pride would be tarnished? If you just read at least the first page instead of basking in your ignorance, well this issue could be avoided but you prove time and time again that you think you know the facts but don't seek them out. You rely on how you feel rather than actually support your claim with anything of substance.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

First page of the introduction:

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

This is what the DOJ was asserting. This is why this is a 'big deal'.

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

@cots

So you see nothing wrong with any of the three assertions?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

For reference purposes only, also from the same legal ruling:
---
In response, DOJ renews its (previously unsuccessful) threshold objections to the standing and right of the Judiciary Committee to seek to enforce its subpoenas to senior-level presidential aides in federal court, and it also robustly denies that federal courts have the authority to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over subpoena enforcement claims brought by House committees with respect to such Executive branch officials. (See Def.’s Mot. at 32–33, 43, 53); see also Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 65–94.

DOJ further insists that the Judiciary Committee’s claim that McGahn is legally obligated to testify fails on its merits, primarily because DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel
(“OLC”) has long maintained that present and former senior-level aides to the President, such as McGahn, are absolutely immune from being compelled to testify before Congress if the President orders them not to do so. (See Def.’s Mot. at 60–74.)
---

 

[cots]

If I get you specifically what was said in court ruling, an actual legal source then what, you'll pretend you are still right and still provide nothing? Not even a quote, is this because you are lazy or because you are incapable of admitting you were wrong because your poor pitiful pride would be tarnished? If you just read at least the first page instead of basking in your ignorance, well this issue could be avoided but you prove time and time again that you think you know the facts but don't seek them out. You rely on how you feel rather than actually support your claim with anything of substance.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000

First page of the introduction:

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

This is what the DOJ was asserting. This is why this is a 'big deal'.

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

@cots

So you see nothing wrong with any of the three assertions?

Considering the circumstances and motivation behind the DOJ's decision making then no I do not consider anything wrong with Trump demanding anyone in the White House not testify. Especially considering the people don't have to follow his demands and all. Now that this lower court has ordered them to comply with any subpoenas I would also support them (any witnesses) that chose to refuse to follow the courts orders until a final decision is made in any appeals. Furthermore, I would also support them if they chose to go along with the subpoenas.

Sonland impressed me that he chose to testify regardless of Trump's demands and with all the hype surrounding him I was sort of let down that all he had to present was his personal assumptions. After the fact it did irritate me for a few minutes that his testimony was taken out of context and misrepresented to attack Pence and some other White House officials, but after the initial "well that's not what happened or what he said" stuff went through my mind I just told myself that these are the same scum that planned on impeaching Trump for any reason they could find regardless of actual guilt.

So no. I don't think what Trump demanded was wrong of him to do regardless of what any court says. I stand my initial support for not caving into the Democrats demands and holding out as long as possible to intentionally interfere with this shit show.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Considering the circumstances and motivation behind the DOJ's decision making then no I do not consider anything wrong with Trump demanding anyone in the White House not testify. Especially considering the people don't have to follow his demands and all. Now that this lower court has ordered them to comply with any subpoenas I would also support them (any witnesses) that chose to refuse to follow the courts orders until a final decision is made in any appeals. Furthermore, I would also support them if they chose to go along with the subpoenas.

Sonland impressed me that he chose to testify regardless of Trump's demands and with all the hype surrounding him I was sort of let down that all he had to present was his personal assumptions. After the fact it did irritate me for a few minutes that his testimony was taken out of context and misrepresented to attack Pence and some other White House officials, but after the initial "well that's not what happened or what he said" stuff went through my mind I just told myself that these are the same scum that planned on impeaching Trump for any reason they could find regardless of actual guilt.

So no. I don't think what Trump demanded was wrong of him to do regardless of what any court says. I stand my initial support for not caving into the Democrats demands and holding out as long as possible to intentionally interfere with this shit show.

Ok so you now admit and you are completely convinced, finally, that he demands people not to testify. but you still haven't addressed immunity. Please do so. I've made all those pretty quotes for you to read and respond to.

Bonus* So because the white house doesn't retaliate (which would be illegal) its okay for the President of the United States to demand someone not to testify? Whew, well maybe we really should just move to a monarchy as long as he's being a nice guy?
We don't have an example of someone coming before congress to testify after this order was made without a subpoena. So speculation is all that is left here which I think we've got enough hard facts to discuss without wandering in the weeds on that topic.

The fact of the matter is that circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given above. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

To be fair... I'm asking you to do something that I cannot and I've tried all evening while reading through this court ruling. I can't think of a valid reason for making such assertions. They are unconstitutional in my eyes. If you don't agree and can explain it then take each one, one at a time and explain how the DOJ has a leg to stand on based on our Law or Constitution.

 

[cots]

Ok so you now admit and you are completely convinced, finally, that he demands people not to testify. but you still haven't addressed immunity. Please do so. I've made all those pretty quotes for you to read and respond to.

Bonus* So because the white house doesn't retaliate (which would be illegal) its okay for the President of the United States to demand someone not to testify? Whew, well maybe we really should just move to a monarchy as long as he's being a nice guy?
We don't have an example of someone coming before congress to testify after this order was made without a subpoena. So speculation is all that is left here which I think we've got enough hard facts to discuss without wandering in the weeds on that topic.

The fact of the matter is that circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given above. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

To be fair... I'm asking you to do something that I cannot and I've tried all evening while reading through this court ruling. I can't think of a valid reason for making such assertions. They are unconstitutional in my eyes. If you don't agree and can explain it then take each one, one at a time and explain how the DOJ has a leg to stand on based on our Law or Constitution.

Trump can demand anything he wants. He demanded his staff not testify and promised them immunity. Seeings as they have an option to ignore his demands my stance on this issue hasn't changed since my first reply I made about it. Since he promised them immunity, which looks like it'll never be granted your entire dance around the subject using word games has not produced me to change my mind about it. Thus, seeings as no immunity has been granted he hasn't abused his executive powers. Additionally, a higher court may overrule the current ruling and it might turn out immunity will be granted and it's totally legal (though, I doubt this outcome). Just like even though he threatened to without aid from Ukraine (which, was a normal way of doing business - as aid always comes with conditions) the aid was eventually delivered.

Edit: So I went back to see the language I was using that you previously claimed was invalid and now trying to claim I agree was invalid.

The President hasn't "granting absolute immunity to witnesses".

That's still correct.

You can try to dance around the subject using schematical folly, but even with my short memory you're not going to confuse the subject.

I'm not in the DOJ nor do I make laws so I can't saw how a future court may rule on the matter. I just understand what motivated them to back Trump (which is the entire reasoning behind the Democrats latest impeachment attempt). The DOJ has a legal right to appeal so I support them standing by their original decision in the matter. Circumstances and motivations are plenty enough to justify the DOJ decision making. They're trying to help defend the President against the Democrats latest premeditated impeachment attack. So you cite precedent, but what precedent has been set in the past to defend from such an attack? Not a single impeachment attempt in the past was planned before the President took office in an attempt to appease voters who refused to accept the results of an election. No impeachment attempt in the past was run on a basis of "well, if he's not guilty it doesn't matter". You can cite previous precedents until you turn blue in the face, but nothing in the past compares to the shit the Democrats are trying to pull.

What you're seeing are precedents being made by a sitting President that's being attacked multiple times from all sides simply because they don't like him. Abusing the impeachment process is setting up a precedent that it's okay to do it. So you want me to cite laws to back up my position as if that would justify defending the President from these attacks? No matter what I cite or present you'll just attack it because you've already made up your mind that you want Trump impeached regardless of guilt. You'll just have to wait and see how the higher courts rule on this issue and any laws the lawyers use to justify the rulings. In the meantime I support Trump's defense as he's only guilty after being proven of the fact and that'll only happen if he's removed from office. If he's guilty he'll go if not he'll stay. I'll accept either outcome. Will you?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Thus, seeings as no immunity has been granted he hasn't abused his executive powers. Additionally, a higher court may overrule the current ruling and it might turn out immunity will be granted and it's totally legal.

There is no immunity to begin with if you look at US Law or the Constitution. The DOJ gave no further reasoning to support this to my understanding. But nevertheless the DOJ did allege an absolute testimonial immunity (not something that is granted or presented but something that is innate at the time of becoming an executive branch employee and even after you leave) which is why they (DOJ) maintained that a president can demand that his aides (both current and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues.

Look I'm asking something that has purpose because if you do what I'm requesting, (which you so obviously avoided), you would see the issue I'm raising. You won't address the three assertions but keep talking about your feelings of unfairness. This will get us nowhere. Just give it a try.

Lets try this again:

'The fact of the matter is that I'm stating circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given below. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.'

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

If you say you can't then that's fine too. Furthermore, I could not find any US law or anything in the constitution to validate these assertions. If you can I'm all ears.

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that correct?

 

[cots]

There is no immunity to begin with if you look at US Law or the Constitution. The DOJ gave no further reasoning to support this to my understanding. But nevertheless the DOJ did allege an absolute testimonial immunity (not something that is granted or presented but something that is innate at the time of becoming an executive branch employee and even after you leave) which is why they (DOJ) maintained that a president can demand that his aides (both current and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues.

Look I'm asking something that has purpose because if you do what I'm requesting, (which you so obviously avoided), you would see the issue I'm raising. You won't address the three assertions but keep talking about your feelings of unfairness. This will get us nowhere. Just give it a try.

Lets try this again:

'The fact of the matter is that I'm stating circumstances and motivations aren't reasons to state the assertions given below. I specifically want you to take each one and explain how circumstance and motivation of the DOJ would validate the assertion.'

"First, DOJ argued that a duly authorized committee of Congress acting on behalf of the House of Representatives cannot invoke judicial process to compel the appearance of senior-level aides of the President for the purpose of receiving sworn testimony."

"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."

"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."

If you say you can't then that's fine too. Furthermore, I could not find any US law or anything in the constitution to validate these assertions. If you can I'm all ears.

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that correct?

I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine. There's tens of thousands of laws on the books and many don't have anything to do with the Constitution and many of them openly defy it (thinking restricting Gun rights). Maybe you should pick up the phone, call and ask them what laws they used when making their decision? I do however understand what's motivating both sides and I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.

Go Trump! Give em' hell!

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine. There's tens of thousands of laws on the books and many don't have anything to do with the Constitution and many of them openly defy it (thinking restricting Gun rights). Maybe you should pick up the phone, call and ask them what laws they used when making their decision? I do however understand what's motivating both sides and I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.

Go Trump! Give em' hell!

So you are saying i want to be uninformed and Cheer for my 'team'?

If their basis includes things not even cemented in law? And you think historical precedent is irrelevant?

But you are a supporter of the constitution?

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that still correct or are you now against what you said because you need to 'own the libs'?

 

[cots]

So you are saying i want to be uninformed and Cheer for my 'team'?

If their basis includes things not even cemented in law? And you think historical precedent is irrelevant?

But you are a supporter of the constitution?

Already I presume you disagree with the 3rd assertion and think it is unconstitutional because you believe a higher court can decide a 'subpoena-related stalemate'. Is that still correct or are you now against what you said because you need to 'own the libs'?

This impeachment fiasco is not motivated or cemented in law. To the contrary it is based on the inability and out right refusal to accept the results of a lawful election. Some of the historical precedent should possibly be considered, but like I said there's no precedent on how to handle a premeditated impeachment that can openly be won in the House of Congress regardless of any wrong doing.

I do support the Constitution, but not the Democrats interpretation of it or their apparent abuse of the impeachment process. Seeings as there's ten of thousands of laws on the books; many of which address issues that aren't covered in the Constitution and many that outright defy it I see no reason to think it's unconstitutional for the DOJ to fight such apparent abuse (using whatever laws or reasoning they're justifying it with).

The federal courts in this instance did in fact order the White House staff to testify, but the DOJ is standing by #1, #2 and #3 by appealing thus I'll agree with their statements and rules and until a court with the power to rule them unconstitutional does so I will not say it is either way or the other. Up until then I don't think it's unconstitutional based on the fact they came up with the rules due to the fact the Democrats are abusing the Constitution by trying to impeach Trump for any reason they can regardless of guilt.

I also don't need to 'own Liberals. They're the ones who need their brown slaves. As per @Xzi comments on the rats fighting on a sinking ship; at least the Conservatives have fight in them and wouldn't cower and beg for mercy while kneeling covered in their own feces. Almost every thing that comes out of the Liberals mouths on this forum is enough to satisfy my desire to constantly laugh at them and their outrage. 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. The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading. Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

This impeachment fiasco is not motivated or cemented in law. To the contrary it is based on the inability and out right refusal to accept the results of a lawful election. Some of the historical precedent should possibly be considered, but like I said there's no precedent on how to handle a premeditated impeachment that can openly be won in the House of Congress regardless of any wrong doing.

I do support the Constitution, but not the Democrats interpretation of it or their apparent abuse of the impeachment process. Seeings as there's ten of thousands of laws on the books; many of which address issues that aren't covered in the Constitution and many that outright defy it I see no reason to think it's unconstitutional for the DOJ to fight such apparent abuse (using whatever laws or reasoning they're justifying it with).

The federal courts in this instance did in fact order the White House staff to testify, but the DOJ is standing by #1, #2 and #3 by appealing thus I'll agree with their statements and rules and until a court with the power to rule them unconstitutional does so I will not say it is either way or the other. Up until then I don't think it's unconstitutional based on the fact they came up with the rules due to the fact the Democrats are abusing the Constitution by trying to impeach Trump for any reason they can regardless of guilt.

I also don't need to 'own Liberals. They're the ones who need their brown slaves. As per @Xzi comments on the rats fighting on a sinking ship; at least the Conservatives have fight in them and wouldn't cower and beg for mercy while kneeling covered in their own feces. Almost every thing that comes out of the Liberals mouths on this forum is enough to satisfy my desire to constantly laugh at them and their outrage. 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. The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading. Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.

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."

No matter what I cite or present you'll just attack it because you've already made up your mind that you want Trump impeached regardless of guilt.

'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.

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.

I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine.

I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.

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.

"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.

Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.

Small goals for a small minded person. How pitiful.