Trump IMPEACHED by the US House; US Senate Trial Allows No New Witnesses & Acquits Trump

[Secure Da Bag]

Its a constitutional question of privilege and the courts have to decide that...

The argument Trump's lawyers are making is that they have the right to challenge a subpoena.

They do.

Executive Privilege is No Bar to Testimony Before Impeachment Investigators

There are three reasons why executive privilege is not an impediment to the appearance of any witness before the House Intelligence Committee in the context of an impeachment inquiry. First, history suggests that, where the authority of the House to investigate the President is concerned, impeachment is different. Presidents have claimed from the earliest days of the republic that they have a protectable interest in the confidentiality of communications with their advisors. In 1786, for example, George Washington famously declined to turn over certain papers related to the Jay Treaty—but, as professor Jean Galbraith has observed, Washington carved out a specific exception: when the House has the “purpose … of an impeachment.” His advisors agreed that executive privilege ought not apply to impeachment.

The second reason why executive privilege does not apply in the impeachment context flows from the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon. There, the court considered the question whether the privilege protected from disclosure information sought in connection with an ongoing federal criminal proceeding. As an initial matter, the court observed that the importance of full candor from the president’s advisors “is too plain to require further discussion.” It follows that the need to prevent disclosure of such communications drives the privilege, to ensure the president is not denied the honest counsel he needs to undertake the various duties and responsibilities of the office.

But this justification for the privilege falls short when the potential for disclosure does not spring from a judicial proceeding or as a result of congressional oversight of federal programs. Litigation involving a president’s official actions is not uncommon, and both houses of Congress regularly engage in legitimate oversight efforts. Both kinds of proceedings occur with sufficient frequency that the underlying purpose of executive privilege – candid advice and counsel – would be threatened by the potential opportunities for the disclosure of all manner of presidential communications.

Again, presidential impeachment is substantively different. It is so comparatively infrequent – the current effort represents just the fourth time in the nation’s history that the House has launched presidential impeachment proceedings – as to make it unlikely advisors would, in the words of the Nixon court, “temper candor with a concern for appearances” in communications with the president. Perhaps more important, an impeachment inquiry into presidential conduct is readily distinguishable from both litigation and ordinary legislative oversight: it is exclusively focused on the person of the president, as opposed to the resolution of a civil or criminal dispute or the efficacy of the president’s policy choices. Impeachment, in other words, concerns matters outside the public policy considerations that underlie the need for executive privilege. This view finds support in the recent scholarship of Jonathan Shaub, who has made a similar argument, and in the Watergate-era decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Senate Select Committee v Nixon, which suggests that an impeachment inquiry represents an extraordinary, and constitutionally authorized, kind of legislative oversight.

Third, even assuming the animating rationale for the privilege embraced by the Nixon court applies in the impeachment context, still the need for the information sought should outweigh the privilege. In Nixon, for example, the court concluded that the integrity of the criminal justice system required the production of the information sought for inspection. Given that a presidential impeachment inquiry is in the nature of a criminal investigation, as Mike Stern has argued, assertions of executive privilege should be outweighed in the impeachment context as well.

 

[Pressure]

The argument Trump's lawyers are making is that they have the right to challenge a subpoena.

They do.

Now whether or not they did it the right way I don't know. I figure they're just trying to drag this shyt out in the courts. But that's not to say that they don't have the right.

You are wrong here.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-impeachment-mcgahn-subpoena-immunity-democrats

WASHINGTON — Current and former senior advisers to President Donald Trump are immune from being forced to testify in Congress, the Justice Department told a judge on Thursday — after arguing that the courts shouldn’t be involved in this kind of fight between the White House and Congress in the first place.

The case involves a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee to former White House counsel Don McGahn. It predates House Democrats’ formal announcement of an impeachment inquiry into Trump, but represents the first test in court since Trump took office of an argument the administration is pushing to stymie the impeachment inquiry: that current and former senior White House officials have “absolute immunity” from congressional subpoenas

Trump's argument is that they are above the law. That congress nor the courts can compel them to comply with a subpoena. And this is why obstruction of congress is an article of impeachment.

 

[Timothy Marley]

Foot on neck season. It’s so beautiful to watch

 

[OfTheCross]

You are wrong here.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-impeachment-mcgahn-subpoena-immunity-democrats



Trump's argument is that they are above the law. That congress nor the courts can compel them to comply with a subpoena. And this is why obstruction of congress is an article of impeachment.

I see it your way. If this is the case...

Trump's lawyer didn't use this as the official reason for refusing the subpoenas, though. At least not in while I was listening today. Nor, from what I heard, was it the reason that they gave Congress for refusing.

They're just dragging it out, I know. But based on a technicality they're not wrong from what I heard today

 

[OfTheCross]

Executive Privilege is No Bar to Testimony Before Impeachment Investigators

I have this bookmarked to read..still haven't gotten around to it.

The House managers repeatedly said that Trump didn't exercise Executive Privalage, though.

And I didn't hear Trump's lawyers use it as their official defense

 

[Pressure]

I see it your way. If this is the case...

Trump's lawyer didn't use this as the official reason for refusing the subpoenas, though. At least not in while I was listening today. Nor, from what I heard, was it the reason that they gave Congress for refusing.

They're just dragging it out, I know. But based on a technicality they're not wrong from what I heard today

They've made a different argument during the impeachment proceedings than they had before.


Ultimately they're trying to escape accountability and run the clock out like you said before.

But the outcome of these cases could have affects beyond the impeachment trial and Trump's first term.

Let's see how SCOTUS fukks this up.

 

[Day_Walker]

I would understand this if voting cost money. Or if voting took place somewhere you had to travel. Or if there was some tremendous obstacle in participating in our democracy other than waiting until your 18 years old.

I would completely understand if the apathetic voters actually put in some type of work of their own or offered something other than endless whining, bytching, and practically playing for the other team on Twitter in an attempt to make their absolute laziness and aimless contrarianism look like some enlightened act of courage.

The fact this fake woke, don't vote bullshyt is targeted mostly towards black voters, mostly (sadly) by other black people looking for attention and clout, makes it even more disturbing and a bunch of nonsense.

Hardcore deep south conservatives and alt-right types are on some "fukk the system" shyt too. Between Obama, Black Lives Matter, MeToo and so many other widespread social causes people felt that liberalism and diversity was taking over their lives and threatening their place in society. So they voted VIGOROUSLY, CONSISTENTLY, and COMPETITIVELY to make the difference they want--to elect an (woefully unqualified) unapologetic racist who will punish and destroy liberalism, diversity, and Obama's legacy without a second thought--and here we are. They made it happen, and they didn't make it happen being wannabe woke, apathetic, and shouting "fukk the system" to anyone that would give them the attention. They voted. Collectively, competitively and even quietly--strategically.

Meanwhile liberals and black voters wanna curl up in fetal positions, watch Yvette Carnell/Tariq Nasheed contrarian agent bullshyt, and whine on social media for woke points while handing over their voting power to the very people screwing them. What difference does this make? Where is their solution other than allowing Republicans to take over the country and all our lives?

Ask yourself, why is this "don't vote" wokeness only directed towards black voters and Democrat voters? How come I NEVER see these enlightened non-voters preaching the productive virtues of sitting out elections to working class right wing Republicans and middle Americans? Are they not just as much victims of a corporate system as us? If they were really about making a huge change shouldn't these apathetic idiots be working to get BOTH sides and ALL Americans to see the flaws of our current system and elected officials? No. Of course not. It's only black people and Democrats that are expected to get woke and not vote, and we're dumb enough to actually believe and spread this nonsense without thinking critically about it. fukk that.

They are every bit lazy, self-centered, delusional fools.

Yes, I hold my reservations about how our elections work, but voting costs you nothing. It's free. It takes place only a few days out of an entire year. It happens locally. It requires nothing of you but a few minutes of your time. After that you can go back to whatever activism you feel will change the system, or you can do nothing at all except lay down your vote and go about your business. Because voting is the BARE MINIMUM any of us can do to help our communities, our neighbors, our society, and especially in the case of black folks, to protect our rights.

 

[Robbie3000]

I would understand this if voting cost money. Or if voting took place somewhere you had to travel. Or if there was some tremendous obstacle in participating in our democracy other than waiting until your 18 years old.

I would completely understand if the apathetic voters actually put in some type of work of their own or offered something other than endless whining, bytching, and practically playing for the other team on Twitter in an attempt to make their absolute laziness and aimless contrarianism look like some enlightened act of courage.

The fact this fake woke, don't vote bullshyt is targeted mostly towards black voters, mostly (sadly) by other black people looking for attention and clout, makes it even more disturbing and a bunch of nonsense.

Hardcore deep south conservatives and alt-right types are on some "fukk the system" shyt too. Between Obama, Black Lives Matter, MeToo and so many other widespread social causes people felt that liberalism and diversity was taking over their lives and threatening their place in society. So they voted VIGOROUSLY, CONSISTENTLY, and COMPETITIVELY to make the difference they want--to elect an (woefully unqualified) unapologetic racist who will punish and destroy liberalism, diversity, and Obama's legacy without a second thought--and here we are. They made it happen, and they didn't make it happen being wannabe woke, apathetic, and shouting "fukk the system" to anyone that would give them the attention. They voted. Collectively, competitively and even quietly--strategically.

Meanwhile liberals and black voters wanna curl up in fetal positions, watch Yvette Carnell/Tariq Nasheed contrarian agent bullshyt, and whine on social media for woke points while handing over their voting power to the very people screwing them. What difference does this make? Where is their solution other than allowing Republicans to take over the country and all our lives?

Ask yourself, why is this "don't vote" wokeness only directed towards black voters and Democrat voters? How come I NEVER see these enlightened non-voters preaching the productive virtues of sitting out elections to working class right wing Republicans and middle Americans? Are they not just as much victims of a corporate system as us? If they were really about making a huge change shouldn't these apathetic idiots be working to get BOTH sides and ALL Americans to see the flaws of our current system and elected officials? No. Of course not. It's only black people and Democrats that are expected to get woke and not vote, and we're dumb enough to actually believe and spread this nonsense without thinking critically about it. fukk that.

They are every bit lazy, self-centered, delusional fools.

Yes, I hold my reservations about how our elections work, but voting costs you nothing. It's free. It takes place only a few days out of an entire year. It happens locally. It requires nothing of you but a few minutes of your time. After that you can go back to whatever activism you feel will change the system, or you can do nothing at all except lay down your vote and go about your business. Because voting is the BARE MINIMUM any of us can do to help our communities, our neighbors, our society, and especially in the case of black folks, to protect our rights.

You can brow beat these people all you want but there are 125 million of them who did not vote in 2016.

In 2008, voter participation rate was 59%. In 2016, it fell to 55%.

Why voter participation is so low in this country and more important why it fell in 2016 is an interesting question.

 

[Robbie3000]

Are you familiar with the constitution?

Who do I have blocked that y’all are arguing with?

 

[jj23]

You can brow beat these people all you want but there are 125 million of them who did not vote in 2016.

In 2008, voter participation rate was 59%. In 2016, it fell to 55%.

Why voter participation is so low in this country and more important why it fell in 2016 is an interesting question.

That's a worthy question. In the UK it's the opposite. Young people can't wait to vote.

Ultimately it feels like a mix of young pettiness and ignorance. Yiung people need to understand that you can't be a passive participant in a democracy then complain when shyt doesn't go your way, n

That only usually happens when young people step outside the protection of their parents money and have to fend for themselves.

Hard to convince someone of civic duties when they dont have to want for anything.

 

[Day_Walker]

all 3 of those cacs need their jaws cracked

 

[DonKnock]

Philbin did about as well as he could with the shyt hand he was dealt here


That’s why those other bums on the pres defense team kept sending him up there

Dershowitz Harvard should excommunicate this mf and delete all record of him from existence

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

 

[SupaDupaFresh]

You can brow beat these people all you want but there are 125 million of them who did not vote in 2016.

In 2008, voter participation rate was 59%. In 2016, it fell to 55%.

Why voter participation is so low in this country and more important why it fell in 2016 is an interesting question.

I see your point and I don't doubt for a moment folks really are tired of how the people of this country have been subverted by corporate power.

By the end of the day everything, I feel, circles back to the fact that right wing voters are just more committed and aggressive than us. They've cheated and changed the "system" so drastically to their entire advantage in the last 20 years it's discouraged liberals and minorities from even voting. If Trump get's a second term after all this shyt I expect people to be even more apathetic about voting, because clearly the forces of the right wing have fixed everything.

Republicans allowed corporations to jump into our elections. Republicans have an entire television network that is dedicated to espousing their propaganda, pushing lies, smears, and conspiracies about Democrats, and is clearly invested in influencing elections. This network and the entire right wing constantly accuses the rest of the media of being "liberal" in order to bully them into taking on a right wing bias. Republicans run voter suppression schemes all over the south and elsewhere. Republicans violate established precedent to block and stonewall courts when it's not in their favor and Democrats go with it. Then when the shoe is on the other foot Republicans completely contradict their past actions and Democrats just cry foul and move on. Republicans have done so much over the years to try and engineer elections in their favor and to keep it that way for generations to come.

They lie, lie, lie, cheat, cheat, cheat, and "fix" their way to election victories and Democrats are sitting back, playing by the rules, and allowing all this to happen on some wishy-washy pretense of reaching across the aisle and respecting others and shyt.

The whole Mueller report situation and Bill Barr's four page letter should have been a rude awakening to the Democrat party--who spent years believing a bunch of old stalwart Republicans were gonna come down on their own party--that times have changed. Playing by the rules and letting the President's own DOJ investigate himself in good faith like Bill Clinton did is NOT how our democracy should continue to function. We learned the hard way this can be EASILY corrupted once the wrong guy gets elected.

Democrat voters are discouraged seeing the weakness of the Democrat party in the face of the Republican's constant cheating and fixing.

Still we have to realize that the only way to change anything is for us to participate, and participate with the same competitiveness and will to "change this system" that they have.

And if Democrats don't look at the Trump presidency and all the borderline illegal bullshyt they were put through by McConnell, Barr, etc. and see that they have serious work to get done repairing the clear flaws in our government that allows a corrupt leader to defend or hide his corruption, then they deserve to lose their voting base. In fact they don't even deserve to be a political party no more if they see all this shyt and plan to still "respect our Republican colleagues" once they're finally in power again. Politics in this country has become cheated and taking on the current Republican Party and Fox News as a complete and total threat to our democracy MUST be a priority of Democrats, as well as all of us, in order to restore faith in our system and get back to fair elections and fair competition. No more back to business as usual. This corrupt shyt the right wing gets away with while the rest of us are voting and participating in good faith has got to end.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Trump's defense team is fukking hilariously bad.. I find it interesting just how crazy Dershowitz has gotten even in comparison to how he was four years ago. You can say the same for Rudy. Man, all these old ass white guys get crazier and crazier as time goes on.

I guess they really will do or say anything to maintain status quo.

Anyway, this is a fukking shyt show.. this is what it's like when you have a shyt lawyer and then he's trying to defend a guy who killed someone in cold blood on video tape and the prosecution played the tape in front of the jury. It's like.. okay he's dead to rights. So how can I muddy the water even a little bit? They just start grasping at any straw they can..

that's all this is.. grasping for straws. It's sad and pathetic.