trump impeachment watch thread

[DarrinS]

We need term limits, tbh

[ChumpDumper]

We need term limits, tbh

Now do Graham.

[MultiTroll]

Low information.

High productive time user.
Low time waster.

[Winehole23]

Have these hearings been given an end date?
Can whining Demons extend it or will the show be forced to end on X date?

Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.

[MultiTroll]

Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.

So the Demons could keep this show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?

[Spurs Homer]

So the Demons could keep this show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?

better yet -

your CULT leader can stop breaking the ing law...

[ChumpDumper]

High productive time user.
Low time waster.

You aren't smart enough to look it up yourself.
Low intelligence.

[ChumpDumper]

So the Demons could keep this show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?

You are ignorant of the Cons ution of the United States of America.

Low information.

[boutons_deux]

Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.

$100M-aire Pelosi folded, sniffed derisively at Mueller's 9? do ented, proven instance of Trash's obstructions.

[DarrinS]

Senate has no control over the House. There's nothing to prevent more articles of impeachment being voted on and sent over.

I fully expect them to keep trying.

[ChumpDumper]

I fully expect them to keep trying.

I fully expect Dennison to keep committing impeachable acts.

[Winehole23]

So the Demons could keep this show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?

Remenber Benghazi?

[Winehole23]

I fully expect them to keep trying.

Wonder who they learned that trick from?

[boutons_deux]

C-SPAN3 After Dark


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ce...em-uploademail

[Trill Clinton]

uh oh

[vy65]

You claim Trump obstructed congress by going to the courts and asking them to resolve. Make your case. Explain to me how he doesn’t have that right and it’s obstruction of Congress. Had congress sought subpoenas and Trump ignored even after a court issued an order than you’d have actual obstruction. You don’t have and you know it. Looking forward to the inbound babble.

This is a lot more complicated than you're making out. Executive privilege is not absolute.

4. Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all cir stances. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 211. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, the confidentiality of[p685] Presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection, and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Cons ution would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under the Cons ution. Pp. 703-707.

5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to Presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr, 25 F.Cas. 187, 190, 191-192 (No. 14,694), when a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the President's generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. Pp. 707-713.

A simple search would tell you that there'd have to be a balancing between the Executive's asserted need to protect the testimony of the subpoenaed witness versus the interest in having that information be disclosed. Since you're the one asserting Trump is justified in the privilege, maybe you can explain why that balancing weighs in Trump's favor?

This is why I really hate when non-lawyers talk about law. You're talking about this like Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege. 5 minutes on google would show you he doesn't.

[vy65]

hmmmmmmmm ....

The interest in preserving confidentiality is weighty indeed, and en led to great respect. However, we cannot conclude that advisers will be moved to temper the candor of their remarks by the infrequent occasions of disclosure because of the possibility that such conversations will be called for in the context of a criminal prosecution.

On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and gravely impair the basic function of the court. A President's acknowledged need for confidentiality[p713] in the communications of his office is general in nature, whereas the cons utional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular criminal case in the administration of justice. Without access to specific facts, a criminal prosecution may be totally frustrated. The President's broad interest in confidentiality of communications will not be vitiated by disclosure of a limited number of conversations preliminarily shown to have some bearing on the pending criminal cases.

We conclude that, when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

[ChumpDumper]

uh oh

Dennison explained how he's beating the first article of impeachment by confessing to the second.

[benefactor]

So the Demons could keep this show going on for years if their goal of Don not getting reelected happens?

Yep. But it doesn't have to be that way. Trump could actually develop some semblance of self-awareness and not do things that could lead to investigations. That said, I see no reason anything that is happening will change him. He'll continue to be King Trump, impulsively doing whatever he wants and he'll keep getting investigated.

[TSA]

Child raping ok with TSA now.

Duly noted.

Falling for a Jerry Springer producer stunt

[TSA]

Well, no, not really. Congress clearly never made the argument that the executive doesn't have that right. As a matter of fact, they appeared in court. That doesn't mean that the executive actually directing certain employees not to comply with subpoenas isn't obstruction of Congress.

Which employees received subpoenas and didn’t comply?

[TSA]

Imagine being such a pathetic submissive sack of that you take pride in your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world having an approval rating in the 40's.

Your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world had an approval rating in the 40’s at the same point in his term

[TSA]

Not necessarily. The executive would need standing (live controversy, capable of redress, etc...). The court abstains from matters all the times as non justiciable political questions. A dispute doesn’t necessarily mean the court has to get involved

True, but the court did. See McGhan.

[TSA]

This is a lot more complicated than you're making out. Executive privilege is not absolute.



A simple search would tell you that there'd have to be a balancing between the Executive's asserted need to protect the testimony of the subpoenaed witness versus the interest in having that information be disclosed. Since you're the one asserting Trump is justified in the privilege, maybe you can explain why that balancing weighs in Trump's favor?

This is why I really hate when non-lawyers talk about law. You're talking about this like Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege. 5 minutes on google would show you he doesn't.

I never once claimed Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege, I said Trump has the right to ask the courts to rule on his executive privilege. I really hate when lawyers make up.

[vy65]

I never once claimed Trump has some kind of unqualified privilege, I said Trump has the right to ask the courts to rule on his executive privilege. I really hate when lawyers make up.

If his request for court intervention is bull , then no, he doesn't have the right. He'd just be stonewalling at that point.

You've talked about Trump's request as if it were meritorious simply because it was made. Not once did you give a reason why he has the right to ask for "court intervention" where he's not even asserting NATSEC as the basis for some kind of privilege. As far as I can tell, you're the only one here making up.