The Impeachment Thread

#31,376
#31,376
Velo Vol said:
A good argument can be made that the House should have subpoenaed more and fought for them in court. Of course that would have dragged on for months and who knows if it would have yielded more fruit?
Click to expand...

Couldn't because of the immediate threat to our Democracy. Now, there's no hurry. Apparently the 99% of the way impeachment ended the threat. Hooray!
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, AM64, NurseGoodVol and 3 others
#31,379
#31,379
RockyTop85 said:
DOJ is making basically the same argument I was making yesterday.
Click to expand...
the Justice Department is appealing the case. It argues the court has no place in a political argument over McGahn's testimony and hinted it could take the case to the Supreme Court.

Translation: it has no place being decided by the court but the DOJ will take it to the highest court in the land and let them decide if the courts can decide.
 
#31,381
#31,381
Velo Vol said:
Yeah, there was a line of White House officials pleading to testify at the committee door, and the Democrats barred them from entering.

The unending spin is amazing.

Click to expand...

I love the "no witnesses" part of that tweet. Trump had allies of his who were subpoenaed to appear before the House, including Rudy Giuliani, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. On orders from the White House, they defied their subpoenas and chose not to testify. The current argument that Pelosi and Schumer are trying to make to the Senate, is that there should be witnesses called, rather than just opening and closing statements given, which is all that Mitch McConnell wants. So much of what Trump does, involves appealing to the ignorance of his base, who only watches Fox News, and reads right-wing blogs and don't really know what is going on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#31,382
#31,382
Velo Vol said:
A good argument can be made that the House should have subpoenaed more and fought for them in court. Of course that would have dragged on for months and who knows if it would have yielded more fruit?
Click to expand...
They’re doing that with the Mueller probe and it’s practically dead. That’s why it was a disingenuous argument for Trumpkins. They just wanted this to get swallowed by the news cycle.

I tend to think DOJ is right that the courts shouldn’t be involved. US v. Nixon is a valid constitutional interpretation. Nixon was about the president ignoring a subpoena issued by the prosecutor... through the courts. It wasn’t a congressional subpoena at all.

But the holding is still good guidance for Congress: when a co-equal branch has been delegated a constitutional responsibility (due process in a criminal trial for the judiciary or impeachment in the legislature) that responsibility is superior to a blanket assertion of executive privilege. The interest in secrecy bends to the constitution.

But, it’s not the court’s duty to enforce the legislature’s subpoena. And why/how would they? The court doesn’t have a police force or an army. Their authority is the same as congressional authority: It relies on the mutual respect and comity between the three branches. So if Trump can disregard a congressional subpoena, why would he honor a court order demanding that he follow that subpoena?

The branch of government that has the ability to impose its will on the president isn’t the judicial branch. What can they do to the president? They could order him jailed, I suppose, but who would jail him? And if the Senate won’t remove him for failing to honor a congressional subpoena, why would the framers have expected them to remove him for ignoring a court order?

Impeachment is the mechanism by which those subpoenas are enforced. Particularly in this case, where there is ample evidence that the subpoenaed parties are being instructed not to comply.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#31,384
#31,384
Mick said:
the Justice Department is appealing the case. It argues the court has no place in a political argument over McGahn's testimony and hinted it could take the case to the Supreme Court.

Translation: it has no place being decided by the court but the DOJ will take it to the highest court in the land and let them decide if the courts can decide.
Click to expand...
...if forced to do so, because that is the only court that will have credibility in a separation of powers battle between Dem House and the presidency.
Do you disagree with Barr?
 
#31,386
#31,386
RockyTop85 said:
They’re doing that with the Mueller probe and it’s practically dead. That’s why it was a disingenuous argument for Trumpkins. They just wanted this to get swallowed by the news cycle.

I tend to think DOJ is right that the courts shouldn’t be involved. US v. Nixon is a valid constitutional interpretation. Nixon was about the president ignoring a subpoena issued by the prosecutor... through the courts. It wasn’t a congressional subpoena at all.

But the holding is still good guidance for Congress: when a co-equal branch has been delegated a constitutional responsibility (due process in a criminal trial for the judiciary or impeachment in the legislature) that responsibility is superior to a blanket assertion of executive privilege. The interest in secrecy bends to the constitution.

But, it’s not the court’s duty to enforce the legislature’s subpoena. And why/how would they? The court doesn’t have a police force or an army. Their authority is the same as congressional authority: It relies on the mutual respect and comity between the three branches. So if Trump can disregard a congressional subpoena, why would he honor a court order demanding that he follow that subpoena?

The branch of government that has the ability to impose its will on the president isn’t the judicial branch. What can they do to the president? They could order him jailed, I suppose, but who would jail him? And if the Senate won’t remove him for failing to honor a congressional subpoena, why would the framers have expected them to remove him for ignoring a court order?
Click to expand...
I think the courts can, and need to, delineate the boundaries for Executive Privilege. They can't enforce it, perhaps, but can't you say that about any ruling?

I suppose the only way to truly force the Executive is to cut off money. Hard to see that except in extreme circumstances.
 
#31,387
#31,387
RockyTop85 said:
Meanwhile, Trump’s DOJ is arguing in the Don McGahn subpoena case that courts have no business enforcing congressional subpoenas.

Lawmakers clash over next steps on Trump impeachment — live updates

You can’t make this **** up.
Click to expand...


Is congress a court of law? Regardless what’s the point since the result was gonna be the same no matter what? However, maybe the courts can make sure the accused is protected under the rights of the 6th amendment. Send it on over Nancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,388
#31,388
Not sure but he could invoke due process I think.

Plus, the Dems sitting on this is going to kill thrm in the next elections cause it’s obvious why they are stalling.
 
#31,393
#31,393
C-south said:
Is congress a court of law? Regardless what’s the point since the result was gonna be the same no matter what? However, maybe the courts can make sure the accused is protected under the rights of the 6th amendment. Send it on over Nancy.
Click to expand...
6th amendment doesn’t apply to congressional hearings. That was the most comprehensible part of this post. I’m not sure what your argument is.
 
#31,396
#31,396
luthervol said:
wut?
Click to expand...
wut?

Lil-Jon-Okay-lol-38594234-400-400.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic, volfanhill and luthervol
#31,400
#31,400
Velo Vol said:
I think the courts can, and need to, delineate the boundaries for Executive Privilege. They can't enforce it, perhaps, but can't you say that about any ruling?

I suppose the only way to truly force the Executive is to cut off money. Hard to see that except in extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...
You could say that about any ruling but most people subject to court rulings don’t have the plausible authority to muster the resources of the government against the courts. Usually it’s the other way around. I realize it’s an extreme theory but it’s an extreme situation where you a branch of government disobeying the branch vested with oversight.

And to be clear, because it was an edit in the long post: this theory is exclusively applicable in a dispute between the branches of government. If the Congress were to subpoena a private individual, that person would have the ability to ask a court to quash the subpoena because in that instance the government is still subject to limitations created by the constitution vis-a-vis the public. Here the people subpoenaed didn’t move to quash, the president ordered them not to attend.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top