Why is Mitch McConnell refusing to subpoena any documents and witnesses?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Jan 9, 2020.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a great line. Except it's impossible to argue the facts with somebody who doesn't understand even the basic vocabulary needed to discuss them.
     
  2. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You're simply hiding behind this. You have lost the debate; you have proven unable to continue the debate on facts or logic, having been soundly defeated on both at every turn. This is just your way of running from the debate.
     
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Secret Service might be interested in knowing that the house of a former President and his spouse is not a secure location.

    Too much nonsense for just 3 lines... Every time I say I'm not going to respond anymore, you triple the nonsense to get me to reply. But I'm not going to do that anymore no matter how much nonsense you include on your next post.
     
  4. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Woe is me!

    Now... Get back to us when you understand what executive privilege means. And please, do try to understand the basic concepts relevant to an issue before you try to discuss it, will you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  5. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The secret service are there to guard he Clinton.s, not the house. They were not required to be there when the Clinton's were not home. The server was not a secure server and the lines they used were not secure. Further, the original draft of the FBI report said she was "grossly negligent" and it was changed to extremely careless. If no laws were broken, there would be no need for such statements at all.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2020
  6. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I absolutely understand it and you know it. I offered my understanding but you're not willing to offer yours. You're asking that I guess definitions until I guess one you're willing to debate. And, of course, the only one you're willing to discuss would be the one that says Trump has no executive privilege even though it was a common claim from Obama. You are simply demonstrating your inability to discuss intelligently. I suppose that, for the past 3 years that you've been a member, most have simply backed down to your onslaught or not been willing to debate you. You write long posts intended to make those who disagree with you back down. You hit them with untruths and diversion, switching the topics, offering red herrings, and other diversions to keep from having to defend the untruths you've already made.

    Well, I'm stronger than you. I debate with facts, links, truth, and logic - none of which you offer. You haven't had to deal with someone who can, and will, out-debate you every time so you cower in your claims that I don't understand when you know I do.

    If you really thought I didn't you'd make your own claim. In fact, that's the nature of political forums; people state their views and then the debate begins. You don't want to state what it is that you wish executive privilege was because you know I will crush you in the debate.

    So, come back when you think you're ready to play in the big leagues.
     
  7. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In fact, if I recall correctly, when Clinton first made the claim that the server was secure because the Secret Service was guarding it, the Secret Service publicly stated that they were not and did not have that role. Besides the fact that her lie clearly ignored the fact that it wasn't in her bathroom but was, instead, completely unsecured physically in the bathroom at a mom-and-pop computer store. Even if the server had been in the Clinton's house, and even if the Secret Service stood guard on it every day, we all know that the security it required, and didn't have, was network security, not physical security.
     
  8. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,997
    Likes Received:
    11,048
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Part of the time the server was in the Clinton's house. It was moved to a location in Denver, I believe, where the people tending to the server did not have the proper security clearances to have access to what was in the server.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the hell are you talking about? I have held no such thing!

    Ascribing to me something I have never claimed to hide the fact that you didn't know the basic meaning of the term being used is argumentative dishonesty.

    Obama never asserted executive privilege over something that his administration had already made public. Not that I can recall, but if he did, it would be just as invalid as it would be for Trump to assert it. If he had. Though Trump has never (contrary to what the Fox echo-chamber has been telling their gullible audience) asserted executive privilege on any of this.

    But it's impossible to understand or discuss with you anything related to the previous paragraph if you don't know what executive privilege is.

    It's nothing personal. Just that it's not possible.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  10. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Show me in law or legal precedence where executive privilege has ever been denied because some bit of a topic was discussed by anyone? There's never been any such argument adjudicated.

    If the information has already been made public then there's no need to call witnesses to get the information. But, of course, the information has not all been made public. The Democrats want to go on a fishing expedition for information that has NOT been made public.

    As Trump's lawyers have pointed out, there has been no need to claim executive privilege; all the subpoenas were responded to, pointing out that there was no impeachment investigation because the House had not voted to begin an impeachment investigation - a step that occurred in every House impeachment in history. The Constitution did not give Adam Schiff, or Nancy Pelosi, or House committees, the power to impeach; it gave the House the power to impeach. Since the House has complete autonomy on how they do that, the House could have voted on a rule to let Adam Schiff start this investigation or to allow him to start any investigation but they did neither.

    Once the House did vote to investigate for impeachment, no new subpoenas were issued. Had they been, that would have been the time that Trump might have chosen to claim executive privilege.

    Then again, is there a constitutional requirement to name a constitutional protection in order to exercise it? Must one state that they're standing by the First Amendment when speaking or peacefully assembling against the government? Must one explicitly call on the 6th Amendment in order to get a jury trial rather than a court inquisition? Can the government hold the accused in prison before trial if the accused doesn't explicitly call out the name of the 8th Amendment? We have the idea that one must claim the 5th amendment but that's not supported by the Constitution.

    In all of the examples I gave, and in the case of executive privilege as well, the accused or other exercising their rights may, in defense of any charges against them for exercising their rights, argue the constitutional protection in court. Until it goes to court, there's no requirement to call on the name of the Constitution in order to receive the protections of the Constitution.

    Even in court, there's no requirement to call on the name of the Constitution. A wise judge would enforce the protections of the Constitution without an explicit plea from the accused; in fact, the Government has no power or authority to do anything contrary to the Constitution. When they act outside the Constitution, it is tyranny - intentionally or not. The Courts have a role in hearing the arguments and ordering the Government back into compliance. On the other hand, a wise accused, when it gets to court, would argue the constitutional protection for their behavior.

    There's also nothing in the Constitution that subjugates the President to the Congress unless he explicitly asserts the separation of powers defined in the Constitution. It's absolute and need not be spelled out. The abuse of power was in the Congress assuming, and publicly attempting to execute on, power they don't have in order to affect the 2020 election.

    It is not me who does not understand executive privilege; it is you. You argue that it is what you wish it were but you don't even try, and cannot if you did try, provide any constitutional argument or judicial precedence to support your claim.
     
  11. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No, hiding from the discussion with statements that you can't discuss it because I don't know what it means is the intellectual dishonesty. You held nothing at all because you are not willing to debate; only to attack. I was explicit that you had cowered from the debate. Either debate or don't. But if you don't, be honest that the reason for not debating is that you cannot defend your argument with the Constitution, law, or judicial precedence.
     
  12. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your question is like asking me to a quote a court case where somebody has been given a speeding ticket for going over 70 miles per hour when driving a tricycle.

    It has never been denied, affirmed or... even invoked because... it does not apply. Not even Trump has been dumb enough to try to invoke it.

    I say one last time: learn the basic terms. And then get back to us. If you did that you wouldn't ask such a dumb question.
     
  13. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    And I say, one last time for the benefit of the rest of the forum, define the term and defend it. You won't because you can't. It's not a question of getting back to "us"; it's just you. You're the only one on the forum that I know of that's unwilling, because they're unable, to defend their views.
     
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You want me to defend with the Constitution that there is no privilege to keep secret something that is already public. I cannot because it would be too absurd to include in the Constitution, law or jurisprudence. Anybody who would bring up such nonsense would.... they wouldn't even be laughed out of court... they would probably be incarcerated for contempt. I bet you can't defend with the Constitution, law or judicial precedence that you cannot insert a square peg in a round hole.
     
  15. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Now, did I say that there's a privilege to keep something secret that's already public? Of course not. It's not what's already public that you and the left want - you already have that. They want to question Trump's closest advisors about what's not public and you know it. You admit that you can't defend your argument. You lose. Now go away.
     
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I say again: no. Because that is my opportunity to pressure you into watching real news (instead of the Fox News fake new echo chamber) for a change. That would save us all a lot of time.

    In any case, I might have inadvertently told you what it is on the post you quoted, though. Oops!
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  17. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course Yes!

    You: Please quote law or the Constitution to support that there is no executive privilege for things that are already public. It's actually an unsupported opinion on your part and makes no sense from any legal standpoint.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-and-witnesses.566645/page-20#post-1071368340
    You are new to this forum, so let me explain to you how it works (I'm not describing official forum rules. Just the de facto practice on this and all serious discussion forums) In this, as in all forums, there are completely serious posters and there are clowns who come here basically to troll. The large majority of us (of all political positions) are somewhere in the middle. Probably all. Because trolls are spotted and thrown out by the mods fairly quickly, and 100% serious posters quickly get bored. But we try to stay as close as possible to the "serious" classification (again: unofficial and de facto) and keep our credibility. We all start on that side of the spectrum, but could potentially say things that could move us to the "trollish" (for lack of a better term) side. There is a point where posters are just never taken seriously anymore. Not for anything personal. Just because it's not worth it.

    So people who troll, or lie, or make claims they can't support, or constantly go off-topic, or deny saying something they did say.... lose credibility

    Many have made the same mistake you just did: denying they said something they did say. This is easy to solve without losing credibility: your retract your original statement. Clearly and unequivocally. Not "you misunderstood me", because clearly we didn't. Not changing the subject or ignoring the evidence in any way.

    So this is your opportunity.
     
    clennan likes this.
  18. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I may be new to this forum but I'm not new to forums.

    I'll give you that. I could have been more precise in my statement that I hadn't said it.

    But there is no need to protect that which is public. Then again, if Trump challenges the authenticity of what is in public then there's no executive privilege in that either. Executive privilege can't be violated by telling a lie any more than it can be used to cover for a crime. We don't know yet who's lying. But still, my greater argument is that your goal, the goal of the left, is to get Bolton on the stand to get what isn't already in public.

    And there is protection for what's in public and is executive privilege. If I, without authorization, tell something here that's classified, then it is public. If I go to another thread, even on this very site, and tell it again, I guarantee you that's two criminal charges for divulging classified information. Just because I had told it once, doesn't mean I can tell it again. Just because Bolton told it once does not mean that he can tell it again.

    But it's public. It was widely reported on. The Senate has that reporting available and can choose to use it or not use it. It's public so they know it, just as you're arguing, but that does not mean Bolton can repeat it.
     
  19. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    But, between the two of us, the person who is trolling or making unsupportable claims or going off-topic is you. You did catch me in an error, where I forgot the exact words of what I said. Shall I watch for a SWAT team?
     
  20. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,409
    Likes Received:
    26,535
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  21. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Big deal. He made a mistake. I am sure you never do but most do. What does it have to do with guilt or innocence? Conviction or not conviction? My feet are under the desk. If I said I was wearing black socks and they turned out to be blue, that's a mistake on par with Trump saying what the article is complaining about him saying.
     
  22. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok. That's all we needed to agree on.

    You can bet that Democrats will do everything they can to get out of Bolton what is not already in public. That's the cliffhanger. But even if they can't, getting somebody this close to the President to confirm what the other witnesses said, in the Senate and in front of the Chief Justice, is a huge positive for their cause.

    Executive privilege and classified are completely different things. There are precise rules as to what can and cannot be classified. Not that much about executive privilege. Classified information can be discussed with anybody who has the proper classification status. Not so with executive privilege. And other differences.

    Information that is public can be classified. As a matter of fact, one of the points Hillary was criticized by the right during the 2016 campaign was because of an email in which she asked a staffer for the transcript of a public speech that was delivered by David Cameron on British TV. The staffer told her that she could email it to her because it was classified. Hillary responded in amazement "But it was on television". The transcript was never emailed, but the right used that, without the details, as an example of how Hillary was pressuring her staffers to get them to email classified information.

    Let's be clear, the Senate decided to exonerate Trump way before all this started. And they will do that. With 53 votes. Make no mistake about it. The senate will not use anything that will help demonstrate that Trump is a criminal. They already know he's guilty, but they will do everything in their power to stop this from being divulged. This is not about the Senate. This is about We The People knowing. And we need to, not only know that Mulvaney said this, but it has to be said under oath. Otherwise, when brought up, Trumpers will just scream "Deep State! No collusion!" like they always do.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not supposed to respond to flame-bating. Gets me in trouble with the mods. Let's hope they don't see this one.

    But I just had to make you aware that what you should watch for is more fact-checking, and honesty-checking. So you would be well-advised to heed my sig.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2020
  24. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that we need to know; there should be visibility into how government works. What shouldn't be happening is trying to remove an elected president from office. At the very worst, what Trump may have done is not criminal or the House would have charged him with a crime. The Democrats, in their new-found love for the Constitution, are right, though, that abuse of power is one type of thing the Founders had in mind when they discussed impeachment. There is no requirement that there be a violation of legal statute. The question is, do Trump's actions constitute abuse of power and, if so, does that abuse rise to the level of high crimes or misdemeanors requiring the removal of the President from office?

    During the campaign, many claimed Trump was playing 3-, 4-, 5-D chess while the rest of us were playing checkers... That's how they explained stuff that Trump did that left us all shaking our heads and, yet, things kept going his way. I never attributed Trump with that amount of intellect. He came into office a virtual political village idiot. He thought everyone would accept him as the President. He thought he would hire a bunch of people and they'd be loyal to him. That was his experience in business. But Washington isn't business; it's politics. He can't fire everyone from top to bottom. He trusted the people who worked for him, even the Obama holdovers. That was his naivete showing.

    So, the ignorant Trump comes to town and stumbles over himself making errors. The problem is, those who should have been loyal to him were not. He wasn't a lawyer and didn't know the rules of government and the laws that applied to him. No doubt, he's asked his lawyers and staff to do dumb stuff, sometimes illegal stuff - not like murder, steal, etc, but illegal by public campaign or oversight laws. Having a discussion with any of his staff, ordering them to do something in violation of federal law, is not impeachable. If I go to my lawyer and tell him I want him to help me borrow money from Bank B so I can pay my loan to Bank A for the money I borrowed to pay my investors for my business. That's bordering on a ponzi scheme. Then my lawyer should tell me what I'm doing is illegal. Done. No conspiracy, no crime. But, in Trump's case, there'd be a recording and a snitch to run to MSNBC and say Trump ordered his lawyer to get an illegal loan. People who don't know the law often tell their lawyer to do something illegal. The lawyer's role is to explain that they can't and why. Same thing for the senior level bureaucrats; when the President asks them to violate the law, they're the experts in those laws and should be advising the President rather than running to Adam Schiff.

    Point is, even if Trump told someone to violate the law, unless Trump knew specifically that it was a violation of the law and then took action to follow up or force the action, there's no impeachable offense.
     
  25. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,519
    Likes Received:
    18,644
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the job of the Attorney General. The mechanism the House has is "Impeachment". And, of course, the Attorney General is not going to charge him because, now we know, it's very likely that he himself is up to his neck in this "drug deal"

    If a President decides to use his enormous powers to cheat in the elections and get himself re-elected, what is the remedy if not impeachment?

    Because if the President can cheat himself into winning the elections, he can certainly cheat himself into passing a constitutional amendment to overturn the 22nd A

    I appreciate your sincere opinion. And I am convinced that, if witnesses are called, that will be the only defense Republican Senators will use to justify their vote.

    Not only is there no doubt that it's abuse of power, but there is no doubt that Republican Senators and Trump's legal team know that they do. Why else would they bring Dhershowitz? Why else would they not want witnesses? Why would they now want documents?

    What he has been playing is "Chutes and Ladders"... but cheating. Only thing he knows is how to cheat. That's how he was taught by his dad. And he does it very well. But getting himself elected President was the worst mistake of his life. He could have gone on making billions by scamming debtors, like his dad taught him. And he probably never intended to win the elections. I'm sure he was just trying to make himself famous. And he got himself "accidentally" elected.

    I'm sure they did. That's why he fired them. And kept looking until he found a creep like Sekulow who promised to get him out of any jam he got himself into, regardless of how illegal it was. And he has delivered.


    They all know what has happened to their predecessors who dared contradict him. Why do you think they were fired?

    They are true patriots! They know that if they don't act, Trump will just get somebody else who will do his deeds and not question him.

    Make no mistake about it: Truimp knew. How can he not know that soliciting aid from a foreign government in the elections was not illegal. After Mueller?

    In any case, the "intention" requisite does not apply to impeachment courts. Only to criminal court. What you need to remember is that impeachment is not a punishment. He doesn't go to jail. He loses his job. There is no job in the world in which you don't get fired because "you didn't know that what you did was illegal"
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020

Share This Page