Question/Poll: Executive Privilege vs Formalized Impeachment Inquiry Subpoena

[cots]

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.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

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.

Alleged is what the court ruling cited. There was no alleged in the actual statement of the DOJ's claim. You would know that if you weren't too lazy to read.

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

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 want to understand the law of it because I seek to understand how our government is designed to operate and how it actually is operating. This is part of being an informed citizen in legal rulings that can impact how our government operates in the future. While it is entertaining to discuss this specific part is something that I have vested interest to become more knowledgeable in.

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

#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.

If #3 was constitutional and wasn't challenged then our judicial review process would be broken as they would not even have heard the case to make a ruling. You have thought about this at all but are spouting partisan feelings of unfairness.

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

So if you want to call it "obstructing congressional oversight" then whatever. Good for them. Keep at it boys.

Per Nixon and Clinton it will give warrant to dem's argument for drafting an article of impeachment on obstruction.

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

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 haven't once engaged when I've provided ample evidence to support my position how can anyone take you seriously? That your opinion should be viewed as an informed one? The problem is you haven't engaged in a discourse. All you have done is repeat how you feel and yet you attack others on these threads for what you perceive as similar actions. I repetitively point this out to show your hypocrisy.

 

[cots]

I want to understand the law of it because I seek to understand how our government is designed to operate and how it actually is operating. This is part of being an informed citizen in legal rulings that can impact how our government operates in the future. While it is entertaining to discuss this specific part is something that I have vested interest to become more knowledgeable in.

Well, since you're being blinded by your support for ousting Trump regardless of guilt you're missing half of the picture. While I could care less about the nuances at least I'm open to the fact that regardless that the impeachment process is being abused that Trump is innocent until proven guilty. If you wanted a clear picture on how the Government is operating you'd have to at least take a neutral stance and not care on way or the other if Trump is removed from office. That way you could see that a premeditated impeachment effort was the wrong thing for the Democrats to do or are you only interested in learning "How to remove a President you didn't vote for from office because you can't deal with the fact you lost the election"? If that's your focus then I'm sorry to inform you you're going to learn "What happens to morons that try to remove a President they didn't vote for from office because they can't deal with the fact they lost the election". When the Democrats lose will you then go back to take on the Republican viewpoint and perspective to see what they did right and how they won or will you simply keep denying the fact that you lost?

If #3 was constitutional and wasn't challenged then our judicial review process would be broken as they would not even have heard the case to make a ruling. You have thought about this at all but are spouting partisan feelings of unfairness.

I'm not a Conservative so there's no partisanship involved. Have you been paying attention to the center leaning moderate democrats or the actual independent party lately? They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly. There's a reason why they call the Liberal minority a minority.

Per Nixon and Clinton it will give warrant to dem's argument for drafting an article of impeachment on obstruction.

Yes, I noticed that after the fact that both of them did the same thing Trump is doing and lost the battle that they just tacked on an extra impeachment reason. So depending on how this plays out in court that may or may not happen. Though, I wouldn't support the claim based on the circumstances involved. If this was a proper impeachment attempt like with Nixon and Clinton I could see supporting it, but since it's a premeditated impeachment that was started without a reason (you know, to simply impeach Trump for any reason the Democrats could find) I think what Trump is doing is simply self defense. I'm pretty sure that the Senate would understand the circumstances and probably agree.

You also double posted - you might want to delete your entire first reply. Edit: That was quick. Did you flag a moderator or do you have permission to delete posts?

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Trump is innocent until proven guilty.

I agree to that as Trump, or any american, should not receive any criminal sentencing without due process.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

If you wanted a clear picture on how the Government is operating you'd have to at least take a neutral stance and not care on way or the other if Trump is removed from office.

It appears you project your belief of bias unto anyone who doesn't agree with you. I'm impartial to whether or not Trump is impeached and I will accept the result either way. I

That way you could see that a premeditated impeachment effort was the wrong thing for the Democrats to do or are you only interested in learning "How to remove a President you didn't vote for from office because you can't deal with the fact (you lost the election"? If that's your focus then I'm sorry to inform you you're going to learn "What happens to morons that try to remove a President they didn't vote for from office because they can't deal with the fact they lost the election". When the Democrats lose will you then go back to take on the Republican viewpoint and perspective to see what they did right and how they won or will you simply keep denying the fact that you lost?

For there to be a premeditated impeachment effort that I would recognize it would require the majority of the democrats to be on board from the beginning. Otherwise, I treat it akin to the Obama birther conspiracy theory republicans propagated against Obama. I've presented the math of the 2017 impeachment vote with you multiple times, I garnered sources and drew my distinction on what could be measured - AKA house votes on impeachment. The history of Trump's impeachment process conflicts with your misinformed narrative. The most significant thing I recall was a few bad actors who were reprimanded immediately and appropriately (ie those two FBI agents). Is this congressional oversight any different then the process of what occurred while republicans have pushed countless investigations on Hillary Clinton throughout the years in anticipation of her running for office? I think government transparency to the public transcends bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I trust the american people to make the right decision when given the information to make an informed decision, this is the basis of my position.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm not a Conservative so there's no partisanship involved. Have you been paying attention to the center leaning moderate democrats or the actual independent party lately? They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly. There's a reason why they call the Liberal minority a minority.

Lack of a particular party affiliation does not exclude one from being partisan.

Google defines Partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

As far as polling, care to cite your polling that you reference? I have my own assumptions that people realized it won't be a simple process and for the appropriate information to come forth for congress to make an informed decision on impeachment there will require court action.

"They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly."

Was this derived directly from the poll or was this you pushing your narrative in the form of a fact and not an opinion of your interpretation of the polling? Maybe this is why you don't like citing things because then you have something that anchors your assertions? Who knows? I still presume your issue is rooted in laziness and a strong belief that you know what you already need to know.

 

[cots]

Lack of a particular party affiliation does not exclude one from being partisan.

Google defines Partisan - a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person.

As far as polling, care to cite your polling that you reference? I have my own assumptions that people realized it won't be a simple process and for the appropriate information to come forth for congress to make an informed decision on impeachment there will require court action.

"They agree that this is a waste of time and Trump isn't getting treated fairly."

Was this derived directly from the poll or was this you pushing your narrative in the form of a fact and not an opinion of your interpretation of the polling? Maybe this is why you don't like citing things because then you have something that anchors your assertions? Who knows? I still presume your issue is rooted in laziness and a strong belief that you know what you already need to know.

I'm not interested in playing poll games with you. Seeings as the comment sections on Fox and ABC are full of people discussing the results based on the News articles both sites have been posting related to them they shouldn't be that hard to find.

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

For there to be a premeditated impeachment effort that I would recognize it would require the majority of the democrats to be on board from the beginning. Otherwise, I treat it akin to the Obama birther conspiracy theory republicans propagated against Obama. I've presented the math of the 2017 impeachment vote with you multiple times, I garnered sources and drew my distinction on what could be measured - AKA house votes on impeachment. The history of Trump's impeachment process conflicts with your misinformed narrative. The most significant thing I recall was a few bad actors who were reprimanded immediately and appropriately (ie those two FBI agents). Is this congressional oversight any different then the process of what occurred while republicans have pushed countless investigations on Hillary Clinton throughout the years in anticipation of her running for office? I think government transparency to the public transcends bad actors on either side of the political spectrum. I trust the american people to make the right decision when given the information to make an informed decision, this is the basis of my position.

I guess you've been living under a rock. It's been part of their platform. I could link you back to the Wikipedia page which covers the headlights of their planned attempts, but you already have the URL. Not that Wikipedia is any sort of valid source, but it's popular with the kids. Though, if you've just been watching and listening to the actual general public excluding their leaders you'd realize how I'm right about this issue. Then couple in the fact their leaders support it. Sure, there's a few high key players, but these players are major influencers that run shit. Look, I'm also not interested in your trying to discredit common knowledge. Have fun, but I'm not going to play along. The Liberal Democrats planned on impeaching Donald Trump regardless of reason before he was elected and this is like God talking to you. What I say has been etched in stone by lightening.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

I'm not interested in playing poll games with you. Seeings as the comment sections on Fox and ABC are full of people discussing the results based on the News articles both sites have been posting related to them they shouldn't be that hard to find.

I personally wouldn't give much credence to polling until the moment if/when this impeachment inquiry turns into a trial. If you don't want to provide polls and discuss them, well its weird to bring them up in the first place.

Comment sections have been proven to be overrun by bot programs on both sides. That's not to invalidate opinions that people share, but its not evidence that would be an accurate reflection of the nation's temperature on a topic.

Sorry I reread your post, look I'm not going to pursue comment sections to find posts that link to polls that may or may not be the same ones you are referencing in your prior posts. Especially if you don't wish to discuss it to begin with. And with that I conclude, enjoy your thanksgiving holidays, in a few weeks we'll probably have more information to discuss but for now my hobby is going to be shelved to enjoy my family time.