WATCH LIVE | Impeachment trial of President Trump continues in Senate (Day 2)

More:

“To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court for the reasons explained above that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. Indeed, absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of sheer repetition in OLC opinions, and through accommodations that have permitted its proponents to avoid having the proposition tested in the crucible of litigation.”

“And because the contention that a President’s top advisors cannot be subjected to compulsory congressional process simply has no basis in the law, it does not matter whether such immunity would theoretically be available to only a handful of presidential aides due to the sensitivity of their positions, or to the entire Executive branch. Nor does it make any difference whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters, or work solely on domestic issues.”

 

I did, nothing there takes away his WB status.

 

And more on the remarkably weak arguments from the trumpers---as I've told you, this is within then"sole power" of the House. WTF do you think that means?:

“Thus, blatant defiance of Congress’ centuries-old power to compel the performance of witnesses is not an abstract injury, nor is it a mere banal insult to our democracy. It is an affront to the mechanism for curbing abuses of power that the Framers carefully crafted for our protection, and, thereby, recalcitrant witnesses actually undermine the broader interests of the People of the United States.”

“Thus, DOJ’s hand-waving over the Judiciary Committee’s purported failure to establish a ‘cognizable’ injury for standing purposes masks the substantial harm that results from an Executive branch official’s defiance of a congressional subpoena. But it is hard to imagine a more significant wound than such alleged interference with Congress’ ability to detect and deter abuses of power within the Executive branch for the protection of the People of the United States.”

 

And more, which explicitly addresses the brain-dead assertion that the "separation of powers" (a concept that the trumpers don't seem to comprehend) doesn't give a President the right to ignore demands from the House:

“Unfortunately for DOJ, and as explained fully below, these contentions about the relative power of the federal courts, congressional committees, and the President distort established separation-of-powers principles beyond all recognition. Thus, ultimately, the arguments that DOJ advances to support its claim of absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level presidential aides transgress core constitutional truths (notwithstanding OLC’s persistent heralding of these and similar propositions).”

Do you guys want more?

 

I didn't say there was in any of my posts. I said there might be reason to question him as a witness. Depending on the testimony and further investigation there might be a reason that come to light.

 

I think I'll forget it. Have a nice day.

 

So, we should just engage in a fishing expedition because there just might be some, err, things, and stuff?

 

You folks are experts at it. If you want to catch up with the conversation go to post 459. That's where I more or less started. I am not going to rehash what I have already posted.

 

Nothing In that post is relevant to his WB status

 

I don’t blame you for not rehashing that. I wouldn’t repeat that nonsense,either.

 

White flag noted. Thanks

 

Then what is your problem with his status?

 

I accept your surrender. I will be benevolent

 

You can't argue the substance of my post so of course you issue your veiled white flag. I am totally open to debating my post, which it seems that you aren't. You can do the white flag if you want. I don't care.

 

My problem with the attacks on the whistleblower status is that they are thinly veiled efforts to punish the whistleblower.

The WB issued the complaint months ago and that complaint was immediately investigated by trump's ICIG, who determined the complaint "credible" and "urgent." Since that point, numerous witnesses have testified under oath and corroborated both the contents of the complaint and the complaint has yielded undeniable punishment against the person whose wrongdoing prompted the complaint (i.e. "We impeached the *********ker!").

Efforts to rehash the "status" of the whistleblower, especially based on things like, "we found a picture of the person we think is the whistleblower shaking hands with Obama," is very much about exerting retribution against the Whistleblower months later.

 

I wasn't asking you. Are you Mello? I already pointed Mello to the post where I addressed all the stuff you just posted so I am asking HIM to clarify what HIS problem is. He said none of it pertained. You and I have already had this conversation about the very subjects that you just posted and I am fully aware of your double standard when it comes to information and accuracy. No need to revisit your proclivity to present blatantly false or slanted sources and standards. Your claim that his status is set in stone and that nobody can revisit the information presented by him it a fantasy that only the left shares or believes. There is no statute that says that the whistleblower is guaranteed total anonymity no matter what. The transcript of the ICOIG has been loocked up and hidden by Schiff. He is hiding direct pertinent information about the whistleblower. Just another situation where the left wants to cherry pick the information that gets presented.

 

There is no "substance" in your post.

Just a load of made up crapola that has no factual or legal support.

 

I wonder why trumpers who kept making things up about "separation of powers", "plenary powers", "hearsay", etc. haven't addressed direct quotes from the federal court debunking that utter nonsense.

 

Hmm. The silence is deafening. The next time those ridiculous arguments are raised, the series of quotes from the court will silence them again.

 

And again, garbage from you, It's even dishonest this time. Good show.