Now do Graham.
Now do Graham.
High productive time user.
Low time waster.
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?
better yet -
your CULT leader can stop breaking the ing law...
You aren't smart enough to look it up yourself.
Low intelligence.
You are ignorant of the Cons ution of the United States of America.
Low information.
$100M-aire Pelosi folded, sniffed derisively at Mueller's 9? do ented, proven instance of Trash's obstructions.
I fully expect them to keep trying.
I fully expect Dennison to keep committing impeachable acts.
Remenber Benghazi?
Wonder who they learned that trick from?
C-SPAN3 After Dark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0ce...em-uploademail
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.
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.
Dennison explained how he's beating the first article of impeachment by confessing to the second.
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.
Falling for a Jerry Springer producer stunt
Which employees received subpoenas and didn’t comply?
Your favorite most-powerful-man-in-the-world had an approval rating in the 40’s at the same point in his term
True, but the court did. See McGhan.
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.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)