As a non-partisan, I saw the SOTU address as a declaration of war...

Interesting point. Some Dems voted for contempt because they felt the admin had overstepped the boundary of what constitutes legitimate claims of EP. Yet all Repubs are complicit in allowing Trump to refuse to cooperate with a legitimate congressional investigation. What could say more about which party respects the Constitution?

 

Congress doesn't get to decide. That's up to the courts.

 

The courts shouldn't have to enter into it.

 

And yet, you -still- support the Democrats.

 

Your opinion of what should be does not in any way effect what is.
If Congress subpoenas the President and he refuses to answer it, their sole recourse is to go to court.

 

Yup, most due to entitlements, I don't believe Tehran Nancy is for curbing them.

 

Or to impeach him.

 

The legal exercise of executive privilege is not an impeachable offense.
53 of 100 senators agree.

 

It's not removable in their opinion, he was impeached

Lying traitors violating their oaths of office cannot change that.

 

Very skillful dodge of the question.

 

If you really think that was the question those senators were considering you must have just fallen off the turnip truck.

 

You're right - the Democrats are powerless to do anything about it.

 

And you wonder why there is concern about the US slipping in to authoritarian state under Trump?

 

Yeah.

Pointing out that Congress doesn't get to decide, and that the courts do, is totally a dodge.

Mmmm hmmm.

 

We agree.

 

To be fair:

1- Congress subpoenas someone in the executive branch
2- The President invokes executive privilege,
3- Congress can only press its rights by taking the issue to court.
4- The courts then decide if a subpoena is legal and if the President must answer it.
4a- If Congress does not take the issue to court, the legal claim of executive privilege stands.
4b- If the courts do not compel the President to answer the subpoenas, the legal claim of executive privilege stands.
4c- If the court -does- compel the President to answer the subpoena, the legal claim of executive privilege fails.
5- If, President continues to refuse to answer the subpoena,he is then in contempt of Congress.

The Democrats stopped at step 2, jumped to step 5, and impeached the President for a legal exercise of executive privilege.

The vote on the 2nd article of impeachment -should- have been 100-0 to acquit, but the Democrats had to, in whatever way they still could, save face.

 

I was mostly just laughing at your take on it.

 

So, hypothetically, using your scenario, if the state of CO chooses not to prosecute someone who killed her husband while the murderer asserts there is no such law preventing murder, the murderer's assertion stands. Awesome.

 

Maybe you could cite the law that says the Executive branch can't use the courts when it receives a Congressional subpoena.

You know. Using your analogy.

 

My reaction to your specious assertion was different. I find it disturbing to see my fellow Americans display such a propensity for being obtuse.

 

Once again you misinterpret my words. <Mod Edit>

 

I didn't misinterpret anything.

<Mod Edit>

In your analogy, you claimed this "...while the murderer asserts there is no such law preventing murder,..."

In your analogy, you claimed that the murderer suggested there's no law preventing such murder, when we know there is a law against murder.

Please tell us what the law is that says Trump can't go to the courts when he receives a Congressional subpoena. Is there a law for that or not?

 

Let's use an example you'll get goosebumps over. In 2012 the Obama admin exerted EP over documents relating to the F&F affair. The House committee pursued the matter in court and after 3 1/2 years the court ruled against the Obama admin. That is, the court ruled the use of EP in this instance was not legal.
If we use your scenario it makes the Obama's use of EP legal because it was not pursued by the House committee when in fact it was not legal.

Again, you misunderstand. The matter of enforceable congressional subpoenas has been decided many times before. Not complying with one doesn't put enforceability in question again. It simply compels another court ruling since Congress does not have the power to march in the WH and remove the documents they legally seek.

IOW, the legality is not determined by whether an entity pursues the matter, it's determined by legal precedent.

 

Let's use an example you'll get goosebumps over. In 2012 the Obama admin exerted EP over documents relating to the F&F affair. The House committee pursued the matter in court and after 3 1/2 years the court ruled against the Obama admin. That is, the court ruled the use of EP in this instance was not legal.
If we use your scenario it makes the Obama's use of EP legal because it was not pursued by the House committee when in fact it was not legal.

 

What a brilliant take.

No, the courts did not rule that EP in the Fast and Furious debacle "was not legal". It ruled that EP IN THAT CASE was overridden by public interest.

You see, the Executive branch is a separate and equal branch of government.

And yes, every Congressional subpoena to the Executive branch, in every single case of Executive privilege, puts enforcability in question.

That's why, of course, Schiff dropped his subpoenas. He knew he'd lose.

His failed master plan was to have the request come from both chambers of Congress, which would have given his request the semblance of validity.

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about here.