Please. Forget news articles from the left. Read the decision by SCOTUS.
Syllabus:
Following indictment alleging violation of federal statutes by certain staff members of the White House and political supporters of the President, the Special Prosecutor filed a motion under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 17© for a subpoena duces tecum for the production before trial of certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others. The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17© had been satisfied. The court thereafter issued an order for an in cameraexamination of the subpoenaed material, having rejected the President's contentions (a) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable as an "intra-executive" conflict and (b) that the judiciary lacked authority to review the President's assertion of executive privilege. The court stayed its order pending appellate review, which the President then sought in the Court of Appeals. The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment (No. 73-1766), and the President filed a cross-petition for such a writ challenging the grand jury action (No. 73-1834). The Court granted both petitions.
Here is the whole case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683
This was the SP (executive branch) that sued for the documents.
The Impeachment in the house was concurrent.
What we had there was a crime. And the judge reviewed the tapes in camera ... and the tapes proved Nixon was involved. In a crime.
Here - they have not named the crime. They could have appealed to SCOTUS, but didn’t because they would not have won.
Trump released the Ukraine phone call without subpoena. They have no crime - they are searching for one.
Clearly different than Nixon. There - SP was prosecuting a crime.
Quote: @"mblack" said:
@"A1Janitor" said:
You just don’t get it.
In Nixon’s case - the IC wanted documents. Both are in the executive branch.
In Mueller’s witch hunt - Trump gave all documents requested, allowed all witnesses including his attorneys (he waived attorney client privilege) to testify, and gave an interrogatory. Gave 100% cooperation. That is because SC is in executive branch.
In Schiff’s case - legislative branch is trying to subpoena executive branch. Nope.
At the bold...
Those are bold face lies.
- 1.Trump did not provide all the documents asked
- He did not waive executive privilege nor allow his cronies to testify
- He did not testify nor did he give 100% cooperation.
You really think these things are not verifiable le? Please stop spreading falsehoods
I believe Mueller stated in testimony and the report that he turned over everything asked.
The inly thingTrump did not do was sit down with Mueller. Why? Didn’t have to - they were looking to trap him with perjury. A process crime. They had nothing.
I am sorry, I did not realize that the Senate website ( https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Origins_WatergateIssuingSubpoena.htm) and the Congressional website are considered "news articles from the left." Actually, both the Senate and the Special Prosecutor issued subpoenas during Watergate.
Also, on Clinton's impeachment, that started as an investigation into a claim of someone under indictment that claimed that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan McDougal, Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land deal.
There is also a huge hole in your claim -- especially when it comes to consistency. Yes, the Executive Branch appointed special/independent prosecutors to look into prospective crimes. Clinton himself requested that his AG appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the legality of the Whitewater transactions in 1994. This investigation morphed into the Monica investigation. Can you imagine Trump doing that (not the BJ from an intern because I think we would all agree he would happily receive one)? No you can't, not can you imagine his own AG investigating Trump. No you can't because the whistleblower and a number of other people reported Trump's actions and it was buried by Justice Department.
There are plenty of prospective violations of the law involved. Lets start with this statement by the FEC: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/Chair_Weintraub_on_Illegal_Foreign_Contributions.pdf :
Quote:"Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public
office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign
national in connection with a U.S. election. This is not a novel concept. Electoral intervention
from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the beginnings of our nation."
Since you like the Cornell site (something I am very familiar with), here is the statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121. Now, you will probably say that investigation of the Bidens doesn't amount to anything of value, but I would quote Trump's own attorney. Rudy said to the NYT that Ukraine's investigation into Biden could be "very, very helpful to my client,"
Quote: @"VikingOracle" said:
Hi Savannah: I am glad we can have this debate.
There is one or two things I want to address (and excused me if I am conflating your views with other Trump-supporters).
There has been an argument that Trump is being denied "due process." I tried to point out that Trump is receiving as much or more due process than a criminal defendant. As I am sure you know, the 5th Amendment due process clause is related to criminal matters and the 14th relates to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The 14th Amendment does not dictate what procedures must be used before one's job is taken away. In fact, as stated by you repeatedly, impeachment is political. Thus, "due process" is not applicable. That being said, I think what you really mean is consistency in process -- that Congress does not deviate in process depending upon who is wielding power -- that the Congress (and the individual politicians) should not change their views and processes based upon who is being judged. I think that is a strong and worthy argument (better than "due process") and one that I myself try to apply.
Okay, let's call it 'consistency in process', then.
I would agree that the 5th and 14th amendments do not apply, since those are for criminal trials, mainly for ordinary citizens, not the Chief Executive.
BTW, as you know, there are Impeachment provisions in the constitution. You'd agree, those provisions would be "governing".
Also, there are rules governing each House of Congress, honored by tradition(s). In the House, it's called the "Jefferson Manual".
And as I've said, or trying to say/get across, is that especially the just-ended closed-hearing rules (as pertains to POTUS and minority) were unprecedented.
I've also said that (finally) the Dem's have their "high crimes & misdemeanor issues" with Trump, in the right venue. Impeachment.
Now, of course, there is supposed to be "high crimes & misdemeanors" present...and that is precisely what their (Dem's) burden is, and I think they're failing miserably. jmo.
So, two thoughts on that. 1. Current law is different from the law in effect at the time of Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment hearings. During Clinton's presidency, there was a law that allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel -- ironically, a law signed by Clinton and his department of justice appointed an independent counsel to look into Whitewater and that investigation morphed into the Monica perjury. So, for neither Nixon or Clinton did the fact finding aspect of the impeachment largely fall upon Congress. Moreover, the Independent Counsel did not do their fact finding in a public setting. The independent counsel process was neither open or transparent. Sorry, for me it is really hard to compare the process applied to Clinton and Trump because of the very different manner in which the fact collecting process was done. 2. The second thing I want to point out is the argument of consistency, non-hypocrisy does go both ways. I think you can understand how Democrats like myself can also complain about Republican hypocrisy in the current situation. I know that Republicans claim "executive privilege" should be protected but recall that many members of Nixon's inner circle had to testify and Nixon had to produce the tapes. Trump and the justice department refuse to produce any documents at all.
Under the Independent Counsel (IC) statute governing Clinton, the IC (Starr) prepared a report for Congress...by STATUTE.
Under the Special Counsel (SC) statute governing Trump, the SC (Mueller) prepared a report for the AG (Barr)...by STATUTE.
Trump is not to blame for the governing rules/statutes regarding the burden of fact-finding, and where that burden lies.
BTW, you're forgetting to compare Clinton's invoking of executive privilege (EP) 14 times during the Starr investigation.
Trump never invoked EP during the Mueller investigation, except once at the end; when Trump argued against "FULL/COMPLETE" disclosure of the Mueller report.
In the end, only grand jury 6e and ongoing/sensitive investigational material/innocent names were redacted. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/713974980...s-redacted
Are we getting anywhere? lol
Most importantly, we can go back to Lindsey Graham who once said: "The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Do you think Lindsey would say the same thing today?
Fair point, but I remember Nixon "lost it" when Howard Baker ® went to the White House and told Nixon he'd 'lost' most R Senators.
With the recent unfair rules guiding the recent closed door SCIF hearings, I think Trump is perfectly justified in invoking EP. Take it to the SCOTUS. jmo.
You and I, we are just little cogs in the great machine that is the USA. I think we both share the belief that our politicians should play less politics and be more consistent in how they act and what they say. The important thing is that we critically assess and question what our politicians do -- I think all of us take some blame in our political system failing us because we sometime listen but we don't actually hear.
Well said.
Have a great Bye weekend!
Thanks, you too. Skol 
Quote: @"A1Janitor" said:
Please. Forget news articles from the left. Read the decision by SCOTUS.
Syllabus:
Following indictment alleging violation of federal statutes by certain staff members of the White House and political supporters of the President, the Special Prosecutor filed a motion under Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 17© for a subpoena duces tecum for the production before trial of certain tapes and documents relating to precisely identified conversations and meetings between the President and others. The President, claiming executive privilege, filed a motion to quash the subpoena. The District Court, after treating the subpoenaed material as presumptively privileged, concluded that the Special Prosecutor had made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 17© had been satisfied. The court thereafter issued an order for an in cameraexamination of the subpoenaed material, having rejected the President's contentions (a) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable as an "intra-executive" conflict and (b) that the judiciary lacked authority to review the President's assertion of executive privilege. The court stayed its order pending appellate review, which the President then sought in the Court of Appeals. The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment (No. 73-1766), and the President filed a cross-petition for such a writ challenging the grand jury action (No. 73-1834). The Court granted both petitions.
Here is the whole case:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683
This was the SP (executive branch) that sued for the documents.
The Impeachment in the house was concurrent.
What we had there was a crime. And the judge reviewed the tapes in camera ... and the tapes proved Nixon was involved. In a crime.
Here - they have not named the crime. They could have appealed to SCOTUS, but didn’t because they would not have won.
Trump released the Ukraine phone call without subpoena. They have no crime - they are searching for one.
Clearly different than Nixon. There - SP was prosecuting a crime.
Boom!
And Dem's need to take their executive privilege claims to the SCOTUS, if they're so inclined.
Nixon's case (above) was rare (novel, in fact), complicated and not precedent-setting. Raised as many legal questions as it solved.
They won't (take to SCOTUS)...as that takes precious time....and they're in a hurry to get impeachment over before the Horowitz/Durham reports are issued.
Quote: @"MaroonBells" said:
I will never forgive this administration for making me agree with Peggy Noonan.
https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1...08641?s=20
What else did Noonan say (not highlighted in your tweet)?
Noonan does not discuss the actual evidence presented, or the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment, but dwells on her impressions of the character of the witnesses — all of whom were selected or approved by Democrats.
When she won the Pulitzer Prize in 2017 for her columns about the 2016 election, the Journal reported:
Quote:Ahead of most others, she foresaw Trump’s rise and his appeal to Americans who were frustrated by the leaders of both major political parties. Ms. Noonan didn’t shrink from addressing Trump’s many flaws as a candidate, but she always showed great respect for the intelligence of voters and explained the currents of American life and politics that catapulted Trump to the White House.
So feel justified to re-hate on this "never-trumper" Bushie, MB.
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"VikingOracle" said:
Hi Savannah: I am glad we can have this debate.
There is one or two things I want to address (and excused me if I am conflating your views with other Trump-supporters).
There has been an argument that Trump is being denied "due process." I tried to point out that Trump is receiving as much or more due process than a criminal defendant. As I am sure you know, the 5th Amendment due process clause is related to criminal matters and the 14th relates to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The 14th Amendment does not dictate what procedures must be used before one's job is taken away. In fact, as stated by you repeatedly, impeachment is political. Thus, "due process" is not applicable. That being said, I think what you really mean is consistency in process -- that Congress does not deviate in process depending upon who is wielding power -- that the Congress (and the individual politicians) should not change their views and processes based upon who is being judged. I think that is a strong and worthy argument (better than "due process") and one that I myself try to apply.
Okay, let's call it 'consistency in process', then.
I would agree that the 5th and 14th amendments do not apply, since those are for criminal trials, mainly for ordinary citizens, not the Chief Executive.
BTW, as you know, there are Impeachment provisions in the constitution. You'd agree, those provisions would be "governing".
Also, there are rules governing each House of Congress, honored by tradition(s). In the House, it's called the "Jefferson Manual".
And as I've said, or trying to say/get across, is that especially the just-ended closed-hearing rules (as pertains to POTUS and minority) were unprecedented.
I've also said that (finally) the Dem's have their "high crimes & misdemeanor issues" with Trump, in the right venue. Impeachment.
Now, of course, there is supposed to be "high crimes & misdemeanors" present...and that is precisely what their (Dem's) burden is, and I think they're failing miserably. jmo.
So, two thoughts on that. 1. Current law is different from the law in effect at the time of Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment hearings. During Clinton's presidency, there was a law that allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel -- ironically, a law signed by Clinton and his department of justice appointed an independent counsel to look into Whitewater and that investigation morphed into the Monica perjury. So, for neither Nixon or Clinton did the fact finding aspect of the impeachment largely fall upon Congress. Moreover, the Independent Counsel did not do their fact finding in a public setting. The independent counsel process was neither open or transparent. Sorry, for me it is really hard to compare the process applied to Clinton and Trump because of the very different manner in which the fact collecting process was done. 2. The second thing I want to point out is the argument of consistency, non-hypocrisy does go both ways. I think you can understand how Democrats like myself can also complain about Republican hypocrisy in the current situation. I know that Republicans claim "executive privilege" should be protected but recall that many members of Nixon's inner circle had to testify and Nixon had to produce the tapes. Trump and the justice department refuse to produce any documents at all.
Under the Independent Counsel (IC) statute governing Clinton, the IC (Starr) prepared a report for Congress...by STATUTE.
Under the Special Counsel (SC) statute governing Trump, the SC (Mueller) prepared a report for the AG (Barr)...by STATUTE.
Trump is not to blame for the governing rules/statutes regarding the burden of fact-finding, and where that burden lies.
BTW, you're forgetting to compare Clinton's invoking of executive privilege (EP) 14 times during the Starr investigation.
Trump never invoked EP during the Mueller investigation, except once at the end; when Trump argued against "FULL/COMPLETE" disclosure of the Mueller report.
In the end, only grand jury 6e and ongoing/sensitive investigational material/innocent names were redacted. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/18/713974980...s-redacted
Are we getting anywhere? lol
Most importantly, we can go back to Lindsey Graham who once said: "The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Do you think Lindsey would say the same thing today?
Fair point, but I remember Nixon "lost it" when Howard Baker ® went to the White House and told Nixon he'd 'lost' most R Senators.
With the recent unfair rules guiding the recent closed door SCIF hearings, I think Trump is perfectly justified in invoking EP. Take it to the SCOTUS. jmo.
You and I, we are just little cogs in the great machine that is the USA. I think we both share the belief that our politicians should play less politics and be more consistent in how they act and what they say. The important thing is that we critically assess and question what our politicians do -- I think all of us take some blame in our political system failing us because we sometime listen but we don't actually hear.
Well said.
Have a great Bye weekend!
Thanks, you too. Skol
Go-Nadler feels compelled to remind Trump that, despite the Dem's novel approach to impeachment thus far... that they'd (Dem Judic. Comm.) would REALLY, REALLY like Trump/counsel to show up, now.
As this shampeachment is going nowhere...they (Dems) need the ratings.
https://twitter.com/RepMarkMeadows/statu...1862426624
Quote: @"VikingOracle" said:
Hi Savannah: I am glad we can have this debate.
There is one or two things I want to address (and excused me if I am conflating your views with other Trump-supporters).
There has been an argument that Trump is being denied "due process." I tried to point out that Trump is receiving as much or more due process than a criminal defendant. As I am sure you know, the 5th Amendment due process clause is related to criminal matters and the 14th relates to the procedures that the government must follow before it deprives an individual of life, liberty, or property. The 14th Amendment does not dictate what procedures must be used before one's job is taken away. In fact, as stated by you repeatedly, impeachment is political. Thus, "due process" is not applicable. That being said, I think what you really mean is consistency in process -- that Congress does not deviate in process depending upon who is wielding power -- that the Congress (and the individual politicians) should not change their views and processes based upon who is being judged. I think that is a strong and worthy argument (better than "due process") and one that I myself try to apply. So, two thoughts on that. 1. Current law is different from the law in effect at the time of Nixon's and Clinton's impeachment hearings. During Clinton's presidency, there was a law that allowed for the appointment of an independent counsel -- ironically, a law signed by Clinton and his department of justice appointed an independent counsel to look into Whitewater and that investigation morphed into the Monica perjury. So, for neither Nixon or Clinton did the fact finding aspect of the impeachment largely fall upon Congress. Moreover, the Independent Counsel did not do their fact finding in a public setting. The independent counsel process was neither open or transparent. Sorry, for me it is really hard to compare the process applied to Clinton and Trump because of the very different manner in which the fact collecting process was done. 2. The second thing I want to point out is the argument of consistency, non-hypocrisy does go both ways. I think you can understand how Democrats like myself can also complain about Republican hypocrisy in the current situation. I know that Republicans claim "executive privilege" should be protected but recall that many members of Nixon's inner circle had to testify and Nixon had to produce the tapes. Trump and the justice department refuse to produce any documents at all. Most importantly, we can go back to Lindsey Graham who once said: "The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day he was subject to impeachment because he took the power from Congress over the impeachment process away from Congress, and he became the judge and jury," Do you think Lindsey would say the same thing today?
You and I, we are just little cogs in the great machine that is the USA. I think we both share the belief that our politicians should play less politics and be more consistent in how they act and what they say. The important thing is that we critically assess and question what our politicians do -- I think all of us take some blame in our political system failing us because we sometime listen but we don't actually hear.
Have a great Bye weekend!
Just wanted to point out a big "executive privilege" legal question is playing out, as we speak.
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/782705643...hite-house
^^Judge is an Obama appointee...this is going to the SCOTUS, where I'm certain Trump will prevail.
|
