Quote: @A1Janitor said:
I will just leave this right here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
You just self-destructed your own argument. Did you even bother to read it?
Read the article genius:
1) Nixon tried it, failed. Supreme Court ruled he had to release the tapes.
2) Clinton tried it, failed. Supreme Court ruled his aids had to testify.
So by all means A1, there's already multiple case precedents laid out by the Supreme Court that show history is not on your side. Maybe next time read your own articles and learn some history. LMAOOOOO
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
You mean the part that gives the Congress oversight OVER the executive branch?
Are you saying Congress has zero authority and can no longer subpoena anyone in the executive branch??
LMAO
Oh jeez.
Strawman much?
You've just mis-represented my views so much, it's utterly worthless to debate/correct.
Quote: @SFVikeFan said:
@ A1Janitor said:
I will just leave this right here.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
You just self-destructed your own argument. Did you even bother to read it?
Read the article genius:
1) Nixon tried it, failed. Supreme Court ruled he had to release the tapes.
2) Clinton tried it, failed. Supreme Court ruled his aids had to testify.
So by all means A1, there's already multiple case precedents laid out by the Supreme Court that show history is not on your side. Maybe next time read your own articles and learn some history. LMAOOOOO
Executive privilege has been asserted by every US POTUS.
There's no exact number I can find, but the total number looks to be between 50 and 100 times.
ONCE it's been denied by the SCOTUS. (Nixon) ONCE!
"As much as it is discussed and debated, especially lately, there is remarkably little case law concerning “executive privilege”—the idea that there are at least some internal executive branch communications that are shielded against compelled disclosure. The Supreme Court has decided exactly one case involving the privilege, and even that decision—in the Watergate tapes case, United States v. Nixon—raised as many questions as it answered." link (per the SCOTUS's OWN site)
There is not, as you say, "already multiple case precedents laid out by the SC that show history is not on your side". lol
ONE TIME...in the scores of times it's (exec priv) been asserted... and that was controversial. Hardly "precedent setting".
ALSO, that ONE TIME was in the conflict between an Judiciary branch member (SC Jaworski) and the Executive branch (Nixon).
NOT, the 'conflict' that we have now between between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch.
Have a nice day, & skol Vikes!
My understanding is Leon Jaworski was a member of the executive branch (not judiciary) ... and therefore Nixon had to turn over evidence to the executive branch in a criminal matter. The criminal matter was the break in at watergate.
Here ... it is not the executive branch. It is congressional. And no crimes have been identified. So Schiff would not even attempt to challenge this at SC.
This is a hoax to stop the truth from coming out. Schiff recently brought up deep fakes. He is tied to Ed Buck and pedophilia. And Ukraine. Truth will out soon.
Trump turned everything asked for to Mueller ... and did not interfere with his investigation. Even let his WH attorneys testify. Couldn’t claim executive privilege. He can and must with this hoax
in congress.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
My understanding is Leon Jaworski was a member of the executive branch (not judiciary) ... and therefore Nixon had to turn over evidence to the executive branch in a criminal matter. The criminal matter was the break in at watergate.
You're right, my bad. I should have phrased the "judicial wing (AG/Special Counsel) of the executive branch". 
Quote: @VikingOracle said:
@ savannahskol said:
(con't)
The "due process" you are talking about will occur at his actual trial (if Congress votes to impeach). Right now, the House is simply deciding whether there is enough evidence for the Senate to hold a trial. And as the House has decided to use both the grand jury model and the preliminary hearing model to make this determination, President Trump is actually being treated much better than a person being investigated for most felonies.
"Due process" also has an equal corollary in law...... precedent.
It is unprecedented that the President's counsel not be allowed in impeachment inquiry hearings.
Not only is the President's counsel not allowed...Schiff has gaveled down many House members comments/questions. Unprecedented.
Hmmm, again you are forgetting this is just the investigatory phase in the House. WUT?
This the (now open) investigation of Trump's action by the Intelligence committee. WUT x2? How are you sure? Up to now, this impeachment is in novel territory, compared to the previous 3.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I 'get it' that you're trying to justify the 'closed' hearings (earlier) to a criminal trial. grand jury > indictments > trial.
Yeah, that's how criminal trials work. Got it.
My broader point is, this is not a criminal trial. It's a political trial to remove a duly elected POTUS. As such, the process deserves fully open transparency to reflect the entire will of the people, or at least by their representatives, best exemplified by the ENTIRE House (other than their vote for POTUS/not just some select House committees).
POTUS impeachments have only happened 4 times in our history, and only twice in the last 60 years.
BUT, there has been precedence of House rules re: impeachment (those previous 3 times) ....and never before has the House NOT included the ability of the minority to call witnesses, and NOT have POTUS counsel present, and NOT have hearings open to the public/press. How the MSM was not apoplectic about not being able to cover the closed hearings in the SCIF basement of the House by Schiff...is an embarrassment.
We (citizens) had to rely on "transcripts" released by the majority (not the MSM/press).
Well....what could go wrong with that?
Nothing could go wrong with relying on the majority to provide 'pure transcripts', could they?
OOPS! https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/...-morrison/
So...what we have now is a process that has the taint of pure partisanship. (The vote on Halloween on the "rules" was purely partisan. Actually, I take that back...at least two Democrats voted with the unanimous Republicans that the rules were a sham.)
Further what we have now, as we move to open hearings, is a cherry-picked witness list.
IE friendly witnesses vetted by neither the MSM or POTUS counsel. << and that is unprecedented in impeachment history.
In summary, I do appreciate your tone and do acknowledge/understand your attempts at comparing the criminal procedure in contrast to impeachment.
But your comparisons are neither apt nor germane. They're partisan, novel and ultimately unfair....which was my point before and now.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ VikingOracle said:
@ savannahskol said:
(con't)
The "due process" you are talking about will occur at his actual trial (if Congress votes to impeach). Right now, the House is simply deciding whether there is enough evidence for the Senate to hold a trial. And as the House has decided to use both the grand jury model and the preliminary hearing model to make this determination, President Trump is actually being treated much better than a person being investigated for most felonies.
"Due process" also has an equal corollary in law...... precedent.
It is unprecedented that the President's counsel not be allowed in impeachment inquiry hearings.
Not only is the President's counsel not allowed...Schiff has gaveled down many House members comments/questions. Unprecedented.
Hmmm, again you are forgetting this is just the investigatory phase in the House. WUT?
This the (now open) investigation of Trump's action by the Intelligence committee. WUT x2? How are you sure? Up to now, this impeachment is in novel territory, compared to the previous 3.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I 'get it' that you're trying to justify the 'closed' hearings (earlier) to a criminal trial. grand jury > indictments > trial.
Yeah, that's how criminal trials work. Got it.
My broader point is, this is not a criminal trial. It's a political trial to remove a duly elected POTUS. As such, the process deserves fully open transparency to reflect the entire will of the people, or at least by their representatives, best exemplified by the ENTIRE House (other than their vote for POTUS/not just some select House committees).
So...what we have now is a process that has the taint of pure partisanship. (The vote on Halloween on the "rules" was purely partisan. Actually, I take that back...at least two Democrats voted with the unanimous Republicans that the rules were a sham.)
Further what we have now, as we move to open hearings, is a cherry-picked witness list.
IE friendly witnesses vetted by neither the MSM or POTUS counsel. << and that is unprecedented in impeachment history.
In summary, I do appreciate your tone and do acknowledge/understand your attempts at comparing the criminal procedure in contrast to impeachment.
But your comparisons are neither apt nor germane. They're partisan, novel and ultimately unfair....which was my point before and now.
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!
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.
Quote: @A1Janitor said:
I'll leave this here....
Quote:"@WashingtonPost" said:
And even as the Trump administration has missed at least nine subpoena deadlines for documents and depositions, his Republican allies are continuing a third defense floated at previous times during his presidency: Congressional subpoenas are optional if issued by Democrats. This is a stark contrast to how those same Republicans talked about or handled probes of the Obama and Clinton administrations.
The day before the House of Representatives impeached President Bill Clinton in December 1998, then-Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who became one of the 13 House impeachment managers in the Senate trial, said President Richard Nixon’s failure to comply with subpoenas subjected him to impeachment “because he took the power from Congress.”
Source: Washington Post
Quote: @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.
You must be right, I don't get it. Let me check on the facts.
"When a former aide to President Richard Nixon revealed the existence of a White House taping system to the Senate Watergate Committee on July 16, 1973, the committee requested access to the tapes. The president refused, prompting the committee to vote unanimously on July 23, 1973, to subpoena recordings and related documents. When the president refused to comply with the subpoena, he created a constitutional crisis that ended with a landmark Supreme Court decision, United States v. Nixon (1974), requiring the president to relinquish the tapes and documents." https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Origins_WatergateIssuingSubpoena.htm
So, if I understand the posting on the Senate's own website, it was the Senate committee that issued the subpoena for the tapes. Last I checked, that is not the executive branch.
Let's also revisit what Graham said about this Nixon issue during the Clinton impeachment hearings: "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,"
Again, Graham is talking about Congress issuing a subpoena and that failing to comply with a Congressional subpoena "is the day he was subject to impeachment."
So, if I understand Senator Graham correctly, failing to respond to a Congressional subpoena is grounds for impeachment. Congress, again, is not part of the Executive branch.
So, I looked at the facts and both the US Senate and Congressman/Senator Graham disagree with you.
BTW, Clinton's impeachment evolved out of an investigation of Clinton in relation to Whitewater. And again, Congress issued subpoenas and Congress had a special committee to investigate Whitewater and that committee issued subpoenas and the White House produced records pursuant to those subpoenas. "On September 20, 1995, approximately three months after the Committee's initial request, the Clintons' personal attorney produced to the Committee records of Mrs. Clinton's telephone calls from the Rodham residence." "On January 5, 1996, David Kendall, personal counsel for the President and Mrs. Clinton, produced copies of the Rose Law Firm's billing records for work performed for Madison Guaranty." https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/104th-congress/senate-report/204/1?s=1&r=3
Obviously, in the Whitewater matter there is no executive privilege but please remember that Trump argues in various cases that the President is immune during his term to all civil and criminal prosecutions.
Quote: @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
|
