Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

"Since at least the 1940s, administrations of both political parties have taken the position that “‘the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee.’” Assertion of Executive Privilege With Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 4 (1999) (opinion of Attorney General Janet Reno) (quoting Memorandum for All Heads of Offices, Divisions, Bureaus and Boards of the Department of Justice, from John M. Harmon, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Executive Privilege at 5 (May 23, 1977)). This immunity “is absolute and may not be overborne by competing congressional interests.” Id.

Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist succinctly explained this position in a 1971 memorandum:The President and his immediate advisers—that is, those who customarily meet with the President on a regular or frequent basis—should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee. They not only may not be examined with respect to their official duties, but they may not even be com-pelled to appear before a congressional committee.Memorandum for John D. Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs, from William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal 191

Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 31 Counsel, Re: Power of Congressional Committee to Compel Appearance or Testimony of “White House Staff”at 7 (Feb. 5, 1971). In a 1999 opinion for President Clinton, Attorney General Reno concluded that the Counsel to the President “serves as an immediate adviser to the President and is therefore immune from compelled congressional testimony.” Assertion of Executive Privi-lege, 23 Op. O.L.C. at 4."
https://www.justice.gov/file/451566/download

And another case



https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...hite-House-letter-to-Kupperman-10-25-19-1.pdf

 

I wasn't aware any of the facts were disputed. Isn't the entire trial about whether or not withholding aid warrants removal from office?

Remember, Clinton was impeached for purjory, which he factually committed. The Senate did not convict because they didn't think what he purjored himself on warranted his removal (which was a good call, imo). It was for all intents and purposes jury nullification.

At the end of the day, this trial is the same- does delaying aid to Ukraine warrant removal from office -is the question that the senators will essentially be voting on.

The lawyers jobs are to convince senators (us, really) that it isn't.

This is a PR trial.

 

Even if all alleged is true, it’s not worthy of an impeachment conviction.

It’s best for libs to listen to Schiff vent. Enjoy it. Revel in it. But that’s as far as this cluster will go. The end is near.

And then the Dems will bring up new articles just before the election.

 

Trump was invited to testify. He refused. He was invited to cross examine. He refused. Republicans wanted to call Bidens and whistleblower. no way relevant. All republicans were invited to the investigation. Some refused. Some threw a pizza party when they should have been in the room doing their job.

House managers are tearing Republicans apart with fact after face, witness after witness and they are learning stuff they never heard on Fox News. Adam Schiff has been especially effective where the last 30-45 minutes of his presentation held Republicans attention riveted to him. Republicans can play CYA for the base. Let's see how that works in November during the replays of the Senate "trial."

 

"Why aren't Trump's lawyers contesting the facts?"

Afaik only Schiff and Nadler have been to the lectern in the senate chamber today, presenting their arguments on behalf of the democrats in the house.

When they're done, or their allotted time runs out, Trump's lawyers will then have their turn at presenting their arguments, until they're done, or their allotted time runs out, I presume. I also presume there will be a whole lot of contestation going on during their allotted time.

Afaik the times allotted each side are equal.

They all should punch in on a time clock like a good working man.

 

the entire GOP are NOTHING but sheep..

they all follow the leader..

seems to me at least one republican senator would grow a pair and at least ask for witnesses

maybe the senators from Maine or Alaska will man up.. lol

the other republicans are surely wearing panties

makes it easier for trump to grabbem

 

A couple nits, documents and witnesses were tabled not voted down.
The CJ introduced a piece of evidence the WH was withholding today. It’s classified so we won’t see it but the Senators will.

The tabling of the amendments will make the process ass backwards, but there is still a chance we’ll see docs and witnesses.

The defense will not address the facts or contest them because it’s a no win. That action creates an equal opposite or a ‘no way in hell should we go there’ choice. Please note their client because their best defense he’s clearly tabled: stipulate to the facts and argue they don’t rise to the level of impeachment.
‘Bull in a China shop’ is all they’ve got left. This should become really entertaining next week.

Schiff (especially) and the House crew are doing a good job so far given the environment.

 

Executive privilege until the courts say otherwise.

 

Trump has not declared executive privilege, but if he does, i am fine with going to the courts

 

yes we know, the right wants a sham trial that denies witnesses and docs, then they will claim without them they must vote not to fire Trump over his abuse of power

 

The sham prosecutors already had a rock solid case so they told us. They don't need more witnesses. Schumer and Nadler both rejected defense witnesses. No defense witnesses allowed in the House witch hunt. No defense witnesses allowed in the Senate trial. In my country, a fair trial is fair to the defense, not the witch hunters.

 

Your side is the one responsible for investigating if you didn't have everything you needed to prove guilt you shouldn't have brought the case to trial. Law school 101.

 

The walls are closing in. Schiff should be called as a fact witness since he helped the WB write his complaint. He should have to explain why his propaganda about the call to Zelensky didn't come close to the actual transcript. He again brought up as evidence Trump mocking the FBI's handling of Clinton destroying evidence under subpoena with his "Hey, Russia" joke.

 

trump just yesterday said "We have all the documents" but refuses to supply them

He is being Impeached (on one count) for Obstruction. He is now BRAGGING about Obstruction

 

NO obstruction can't be obstruction until you go to court to resolve issues of executive privilege. Until then your obstruction is just a weak poorly conceived bit of whining.

 

Not then he wasn't. That came in the Judiciary.

 

I just wanted to acknowledge your efforts to show absolute immunity is a thing. It's rare to see a Trumpette try to prove their point, or disprove mine, in a factual way. Unfortunately, what you've cited are past references to the term "absolute immunity" but not in the way the Conman-in-Chief is claiming it exists. Not to mention that each time the matter has reached the courts, even in more limited ways than President Flim Flam is trying to utilize it, the notion has been roundly rejected. The point being that while the term may have been used in the past it is not "a thing" that is in any way supported by precedent, law, or the Constitution. But, again, I really appreciate your sincere efforts. I wish your side displayed more of it and less of the mindless repetition of talking points.

 

Yup, it's an under appreciated point. I believe it to be part of the Obstructionist-in-Chief's strategy. That being, as in McGahn's case, once the courts rule against the absurd claim of non-existent "absolute immunity" and compel witness testimony, the case will have to be re-litigated once executive privilege is invoked upon appeal. Thereby causing months and months of delays in any final outcome on the matter of witness testimony.

 

Why aren't Crooked Donald's lawyers contesting the facts?

Even Trumps cadre of mafia lawyers know that would force more evidence of wrong doing to be revealed in prosecution, thus the flip flop from his only qualified member.

 

TRIALS are where WITNESSES testify and are CROSS EXAMINED in order to determine the validity of their testimony!

Since Moscow Mitch REFUSES to allow them to be called then their House testimony AGAINST your criminal IMPOTUS PROVING that he is GUILTY of the AOI charges remains UNCHALLENGED.

 

Republicans were allowed to call whatever witnesses they wanted that had bearing on the impeachment and your criminal IMPOTUS was ALLOWED to send his own LEGAL REPRESENTATION but DECLINED to do so!

The House INVESTIGATION was NOT a TRIAL!

The SENATE TRIAL is where your criminal IMPOTUS can CROSS EXAMINE the witnesses against him.

 

It's going nowhere. Nothing alleged is worthy of removing a president from office. And the mischaracterizations by the Dems hurt their credibility. No votes have been changed.

Meanwhile, Trump keeps piling on more accomplishments. The meeting in Davos went well. Europeans have come around to understanding that what Trump and the Americans are doing is more successful than what they've been doing. French unemployment: 8.6%. U.S. unemployment: 3.5%.

 

The impeachment was either based on facts or not. Due to the unprecedented collection of testimony in the SCIF, not only were Republicans not allowed to call witnesses, but only Schiff could meet the cameras and lie about the testimony. Examples: Schiff claimed to have testimony that Trump told Zelensky 8 times that if he didn't investigate Biden, he wouldn't get any aid. There is no testimony to that effect, but Schiff repeats it everywhere he goes looking for a camera. He continues to claim that Trump's motivation was to throw the 2020 election his way. There was never any testimony to that effect.

Schiff continues to claim he has rock solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. 3 years later, he hasn't produced it. Schiff made himself a fact witness which should disqualify him from being the spinning prosecutor. But not in this wacko world.

 

Nothing that is ever alleged.........or proven as these charges have been.............will ever be enough for a Trumpette to approve the removal of their Dear Leader.

 

The charges have not been proven.