Senate Trial of Impeachment Articles to Start

Ditto the dem clown show.

 

Doesn't work that way, as each subpoena is judged on its own merits - you issue 5 subpoenas, you go to court 5 times.
Congress apparently had no interest in that and chose to not take the steps needed to enforce its subpoenas.

 

Only if the person being subpoenaed fights the subpoena... Most people will respect the power of a Congressional subpoena... Trump chose not to.

Congress went to court (and is still there) to prove the point that the process you suggest is ridiculous and useless... and the Trump DOJ is now in full agreement...

If the Senate votes to acquit Trump on Article 2, the Senate has just voted to neuter themselves, possibly forever... The Senate has subpoena power as well.

 

Or the President does not allow a member of the executive branch to testify.
Either way, each subpoena must be taken to court on its own.

Article 2 is an impeachment of the President for legal exercises of executive privilege - no honest individual could possibly vote guilty on it.

 

It's not... if you watch the trial, that might be made clear to you, but I certainly wouldn't bet on it...

 

Until the court compels a member of the executive branch to answer a subpoena, a claim of executive privilege is legal.
Until a member of the executive branch refuses to testify after said compulsion, obstruction of congress cannot exist.
Thus, Article 2 is an impeachment of the President for legal exercises of executive privilege.

 

One final question.... When did Don McGahn cease to be a member of the executive branch? Before or after his subpoena??

 

Doesn't matter - as he -was- a member of the EB and has been subpoenaed for testimony as to his words and deeds while a member of the EB, for this purpose, he is still under the authority of the EB, and can be ordered to not testify in a claim of executive privilege.

 

I'm perfectly happy with keeping legal in my name. But you should feel free to explain why you believe that portion is a 100% exoneration. But do be sure to expect me to ask what date Trump issued his denial to Sondland and whether that date was before or after Trump learned about the whistleblower complaint.

 

Trump is not asserting executive privilege. He is asserting absolute immunity.

He also told the federal courts that Congress can NEVER ask the federal courts to intervene.

 

Once again, Trump has not used executive privilege as his justification for telling all current and former employees to keep their mouth shut.

He is used Absolute Immunity.

 

cnn will get all pumped up about it, I wonder if she'll carry that ginormous gavel with her this time.

side note:my mother visited my workplace today to pick up some stuff (she's hardcore liberal, semi regular cnn watcher) and even she said today that she switched from cnn to fox to get some "non trump" news and said said "I just found out there was an earthquake" which made me laugh.

 

Jim Jordan needs to be at the senate door, holding a large "It's about damn time, Nancy" sign.

 

Pretty sure that TOG 6 has me on ignore, so just make sure you remind him that Trump is not asserting executive privilege. He is asserting Absolute Immunity.

 

Didn't gain them anything executive privilege exist there too. It was THEIR impeachment to put together not the Senates. It was THEIR month long delay so spare me "time consuming". They know they don't have a case for impeachment and removal that their witnesses fail so now they want the Senate to help them. That is not the role of the Senate. Here's the deal. Any witnesses who testified in the impeachment can testify in the trial. Now get on with it.

 

Of executive privilege. They could have takesn it to court. They choose not to and even Nadler was saying today they don't need their impeachment case is overwhelming and indisputable. So stop wasting time over witnesses they did not call and are not part of the impeachment.

 

As long as the pro-impeachment side makes the analogy I will reply in kind and evidence is challenged in court everyday and tossed everyday.

The investigation and impeachment was in the House. They present the evidence from that impeachment and the evidence on which the House members voted to impeach. If they feel there evidence is so weak they now need further investigation and more witnesses then withdraw the impeachment start over and call those witnesses and put them on record in the impeachment that was passed.

 

If they jumped off a cliff, would you jump off the cliff to "make a point, and stuff", too?

There's no correlation and "they did it first" is not an argument to make it so.

 

Then stop posting statements he withdrew as facts. Presumptions are not evidence.

 

It continues to be done and will address them accordingly.

 

I should be so lucky...

He knows that.. they just blindly parrot EP, without knowing the first thing about the actual situation here..

 

Distinctions without merit the absolute is based on the recognized executive. Take it to court. OH they didn't.

 

Plus anybody else 51 Senators agree on..

 

For those blabbering about "executive privilege" being an absolute bar to someone testifying, you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about.

Some questions might implicate it, while others do not implicate it. This is why you honor the legal process, show up and testify. If a question is objectionable, and objection can be lodged to that question and ruled upon right then and there. That's how it ****ing works, and has always ****ing worked.

 

You only say this because you know your responses are inadequate.
Nothing will change the fact the Democrats --chose-- to not have these people testify before they impeached the President; nothing will change the fact that the Democrats impeached him for a legal exercise of EP.
;