Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

If, as you assert, Executive Privilege requires a "public good" standard then absent an agreement between Congress and the Executive a determination of fact must be made. The only finder of fact in our system is a judge or jury. In this instance it will be the Supreme Court. Legal fact can be determined by no other.

 

I thought the issue was the subpoenas for people other than the POTUS?

I'd say Trump is above subpoenas, but nobody else.

 

The President and those who assist the President are immune from subpoenas through executive privilege.

 

You're misusing the word "public good." It makes me question whether or not you understand what it means.

 

He is the head of the Executive, thus has authority to invoke privilege.

 

Same answer:

Sure. The POTUS is immune. But IMO, only he is President, and therefore only he is protected from Subpoenas.

 

You make the argument for a judicial finding of fact rather well.

 

Well, the Supreme Court's ruling implies otherwise, or they would have let the lower court's ruling stand.

 

Easy. Trump just got impeached on two counts by a legally conducted impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.

Republicans have been crowing about, "elections have consequences," since 2016. Well, guess what? The impeachment of Donald Trump is the consequence of the 2018 election.

But don't worry. The nation has a short attention span, and the impeachment will be forgotten by Nov. 2020. By then, given Trump's propensity for weird ass crap, there will be a new pile to deal with.

 

An impeachment that will be dismissed by the Senate as baseless and political in nature. One that will go down in history as a stunt.

 

Nope.

History will note this with two ** by Trump's name...
* One of only two modern Presidents who failed to win both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
** One of only three Presidents impeached by the House of Representatives.

 

All you've done is repeated almost exactly what the post I responded to. said. Also you've not really pointed out where my post is wrong and you seem completely devoid of knowledge as to how to lawfully repeal and replace amendments in the constitution. This is an unfair fight----------------for you.

 

From what I understand, the president never said executive privilege for these witnesses and documents. He said he doesn't think this is a real process and he doesn't want to participate. He never said executive privilege. So the administration and Trump have obstructed Congress. Had he said executive privilege, then maybe they would have went to the courts.

And those Republicans who blindly serve this crook will be remembered for what they did. Trump violated his office and he has used the office for his own political gain. He did it on the phone and he has done it on tv twice. He never said corruption in the Ukraine call, he didn't say to look anywhere else in the Ukraine for examples of corruption. It just focused on Burisma, Joe Biden and his son. Meanwhile, if he thinks Hunter Biden shouldn't have been hired, look no further than Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. They have no experience, they have made 82 million while supposedly working for the president. Ivanka got patents from China finally. Kushner is another shady character who changed his security clearance form over 50 times. Trump has violated so many laws but as you see, he never thinks he is guilty and he will never admit it either. How people believe in this man is mind blowing, it defies logic. Cheated on 3 wives, 4 bankruptcies, just was told he had pay 2 million because he stiffed a charity for vets (that he is supposed to love, vets) and his kids have to take classes for their roles. Yes, he is the model president. As far as the Clintons go, Bill was impeached. Hillary was questioned for 11 hours for Benghazi and no one was charged with any crimes. Biden hasn't done anything wrong. Finally, Hunter said I probably got that job because of my dad, he admitted it. He left a job in China. Democrats in the wrong either apologize or leave their position. Trump people said someone else did it.

 

[QUOTE="Promise wribg post

 

You are apparently trying to derail the thread by obfuscation. The thread topic is pretty clear. The SCOTUS ruled to hear cases that lower cases ruled against Trump on refusing to honor House subpoenas. That says a lot about the House articles of impeachment. At least one of them.

 

If the SCOTUS is not the proper authority to enforce subpoenas, then why would the House 'urge" the SCOTUS to do so?

House urges Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas for Trump’s financial records
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/trump-taxes-house-supreme-court

 

Lol it only says that Trump has failed to produce documents as well as discouraging witnesses form testifying. Trump defies the constitutional right of the House to conduct an impeachment. In short no docs no witnesses no impeachment . Your comments are hilarious and otherworldly. Sounds like Trumps gang of never-truthers.

 

You had any doubt they wouldn't?

I'll bet it goes for Trump along party lines. As is likely to be most contentious legislation that comes before this particular SC.

 

Deep!

 

You impune the SCOTUS as partisan, when it was the House Democrats who just impeached the POTUS along party lines, with defections, for this total nothing-burger.

 

Failing to provide documents is invoking executive privilege, 'Hero'. Why do you call yourself a 'hero' anyway? What have you done to earn that name?

 

Nothing of the sort. The dem clown show was in too much of a hurry to follow the legal process to get testimony or documents. After claiming that they were in such a hurry for national security Pelosi is now meh on sending the impeachment articles to the Senate.

 

yeah, she wants to deny Trump's vindication and protect the Biden's.

 

Pure opinion and no facts, no evidence. You're all in a rage because your favorite corrupt sociopathic President was caught red-handed bribing a foreign leader for dirt on a U.S political rival. So for you following the constitutions prescription for impeachment is illegal..

 

You just described the impeachment.