This is why the facts, no matter how you twist them, will not exonerate Trump

Sole power means they're the only ones who can.
It says nothing about the ability to deny rights or excluding the judiciary the ability to moderate the process.

 

You mean like the right of Congress to subpoena witnesses but only sent strongly worded letter instead?

 

No, the Holder didn't have to do anything. Congress and the Executive Branch settled it in the courts and the Judge ruled in the Executive Branch favor.

After a while, the executive branch decided it was appropriate for Holder to testify. You. Are. Wrong.

"Though the Court has the discretion to grant a stay in the interests of judicial economy and efficiency, pending appeal or otherwise, there is no pending appeal here and the Court has already ruled that defendant has no legal basis to withhold non-deliberative documents. The 'possibility' of an appeal and piecemeal litigation does not satisfy defendant’s burden to demonstrative a 'clear case of hardship or inequity' without a stay," she wrote in her decision posted here.

A Justice Department spokesman welcomed the decision, at least the part rebuffing the motion to hold Holder in contempt. "We are pleased that the court rejected the committee's latest stunt," spokesman Brian Fallon said.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/unde...ge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650

Lame Ad hominems are typical among those who make the same fact-less, lame arguments.

You're not saying anything meaningful, or true. The President and the president's advisors are allowed to ignore a subpoena because to testify about matters that occur during the course of discharging their official duties would threaten executive branch confidentiality, which is necessary (among other things) to ensure that the President can obtain the type of sound and candid advice that is essential to the effective discharge of his constitutional duties.

This has already been long established in the written report Power of Congressional Committee to Compel Appearance or Testimony of “White House Staff” (Page 7, Feb. 5, 1971)

https://www.justice.gov/file/451566/download

We're going in circles. This 2014 LOC memo, an 11 page document, pretty much establishes the the criteria and the basis of how the President can invoke Executive Privilege. The President can invoke it simply by engaging in the constitutionally directed duties of the Executive Branch.

For the President’s absolute immunity to be fully meaningful, and for these separation of powers principles to be adequately protected, the President’s immediate advisers must likewise have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify about matters that occur during the course of discharging their official duties.

https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

 

You defined the Senate voting to convict the President as:

but rather a

Is this merely your opinion, or do you have a source for this?​

 

Point taken. I'll look for a different way of saying it.

 

One got caught: Trump!

 

LOL, got caught? You mean the dem clown show narrative with zero proof?

 

Yeah yeah yeah.. lock her up! Once you've admitted that the facts won't exonerate Trump... My job is done... And I'll agree with anything.

 

My case is made.

Wrong! They are allowed to not answer privileged questions. Not to ignore the subpoena.

 

A judge made that decision but hey, the dem clown show is in such a hurry they can't wait for any legal decision.

 

Man! Don't you read the Constitution?

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7

 

Could your responses be any more disingenuous? I never said Holder didn't testify; I said Holder didn't HAVE TO (as in, he was not required to) testify. You basically quoted me saying as such. Then you ignored relevant parts of the quote, which showed that 1) the courts ruled he was not required to testify 2) later Holder decided to testify on his own.

You've made no case. All you're doing is ignoring facts, which is a common tactic engaged by those without the facts on their side.

Okay fine. A broken clock is right twice a day and I guess this is your time to be correct for once. They're not allowed to ignore the subpoena. But the executive branch is already invoking Executive Privilege through its immunity powers through congressional compulsory matters.

Since you don't have anything to say on the 2014 LOC memo on the President's use of Executive Privilege, I'm going to assume we agree on that point

 

If they wanted it they should have been willing to go to the courts to get it. The Dems couldn't afford the time delay because the closer you get to the election the fewer swing district Dems you'll find willing to risk their political future on a sham that is going to be in any case punted into the Potomac by the Senate, not because Republicans lack for patriotism but because the Dems have never made their case. For that matter you haven't made it with swing state independents whose support for Impeachmenti is dropping like a stone.

 

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

Nothing in there about it being a 'political' Court... in fact, that last part sounds more to me like it is a Court of Law, just more limited in its judgements.

 

Your charge is no better than a PR stunt.
You're being laughed at

 

Trying to build a castle but the pillars are made out of salt.

 

What???? Talk about disingenuous. There has never been any doubt in the mind of anybody that he HAD TO testify. Nobody, before Trump, has ever questioned Congress' inherent powers in pursuance of Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Damn rule-book that Republicans now hate so much (except the 2nd A, of course)

They have not invoked Executive Privilege. On anything whatsoever. They have only invoked Obstruction of Congress. And it's why Trump is being impeached. There is no way they can spin that. And that's my point. If, despite this fact, Republican Senators vote to save Trump, they will have no excuse whatsoever. However dumb, they can make up fake excuses to justify their vote against Article 1. But against Article 2... there is no excuse. Not even a dumb one.

That's what this thread is about.

 

Oh God!

Sorry. But wasted enough time trying to bring you up to date. I like using what little I have to debate with those who understand what they read.

 

Reading this transcript, the beginning is practically an announcement of criminal intent. Zelensky, of anyone, would have know that the ousted prosecutor was ousted for being corrupt, and that the ambassador was ousted because she didn't want to play along with the corruption. Trump was right up front, telling Zelensky that he wanted a continuation of the corruption, plain and simple. Want the aid? Play ball.

 

That is not why Trump is being impeached. Trump is being impeached to keep him from being reelected. The obstruction is just one in a long line of reasons which the democrats have concocted over the past three years.

 

Trump is mostly being impeached for being in over his head. He knows very little about how the government works and spends more time being a celebrity than governing. Even world leaders, our closest allies are horrified by his behavior and mock him.

He thinks there are no rules that apply to him and he just does whatever he wants, regardless of the law.

Thomas Jefferson advocated for a three person presidency, just in case one turned out to snub the rule of law, as Trump has repeatedly done, then the other two could shut him out.

 

If you think you can get him removed because he didn't play along with your little political theater game, you're delusional. The Demmies will come off looking like little twits to all but their butt hurt, shrieking freak, pajama boy base.

 

You're really not as knowledgable as you think you are.

Presidential claims of a right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative demands have figured prominently, though intermittently, in executive congressional relations since at least 1792. Few such inter branch disputes over access to information have reached the courts for substantive resolution

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf

That might be your point (or your opinion), but it is incorrect. The 2014 LOC memo already establishes that the President invokes this privilege by proxy because they have absolute immunity. The courts have already determined this.

Their excuse is the 2014 LOC memo. The President and his assistants have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify in congress. This is establish precedent. If you believe this immunity doesn't (or shouldn't) apply to certain members of Trumps Cabinet, you need to make this argument in court. The Democrats have not done this, so the Republicans have every excuse to vote against Article 2.

I don't know why you're so content in ignoring years of legal precedent, but the law is not on your side.

 

¯\_(º¸º)_/¯ DUNNO! Speculation, fabrication and conjecture That's the leftist field of expertise! I think we would be at a disadvantage playing in the sandbox the leftist rule!

 

In other words, what the democrats are doing has little to nothing to do with why he is being impeached.