It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s Stonewalling of Impeachment Inquiry Is an Impeachable Offense

page: 10
13
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The SCOTUS decision you quoted had to do with a criminal trial not the Nixon impeachment. In fact, OzBoomer is correct to the best of my knowledge ... SC is not involved with the impeachment process.

When the House wants executive privileged material, and the President says they lack a valid reason, who do you think decides who is right?


I've had that question several times over the Trump Presidency. The answer is uncertain. I would think that the matter would go to the appropriate Federal court and start up the track from there. The SC has already ruled on the validity of the Congressional investigation power on several occasions so it's established precedent.

There is no Constitutional FUNCTION for the SC in the impeachment process ASIDE from the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate as already mentioned. If matters go to court, as it did in the CRIMINAL case you referred to earlier (not impeachment), then I imagine normal judicial practices would apply (decision, appeal ... appeal, SCOTUS.)

edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Accuracy




posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The SCOTUS decision you quoted had to do with a criminal trial not the Nixon impeachment. In fact, OzBoomer is correct to the best of my knowledge ... SC is not involved with the impeachment process.

When the House wants executive privileged material, and the President says they lack a valid reason, who do you think decides who is right?


I've had that question several times over the Trump Presidency. The answer is uncertain. I would think that the matter would go to the appropriate Federal court and start up the track from there. The SC has already ruled on the validity of the Congressional investigation power on several occasions so it's established precedent.

There is no Constitutional FUNCTION for the SC in the impeachment process ASIDE from the Chief Justice presiding in the Senate as already mentioned. If matters go to court, as it did in the CRIMINAL case you referred to earlier (not impeachment), then I imagine normal judicial practices would apply (decision, appeal ... appeal, SCOTUS.)


So you are "unsure" if any of this is valid but you have now posted 75 times in this thread.....

Lolz🤪



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you agree, the SC has a role as I claimed. Their function is to make sure Congress and the Executive branch are both doing things the right way. That's a function. The source I used was the SC ruling what it takes to override Executive privilege. Whether it is Starr or Congress you still have to meet the criteria.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

So you agree, the SC has a role as I claimed. Their function is to make sure Congress and the Executive branch are both doing things the right way. That's a function. The source I used was the SC ruling what it takes to override Executive privilege. Whether it is Starr or Congress you still have to meet the criteria.


No, I do not agree with you in what you claimed. The Supreme Court's only constitutional role in the impeachment proceedings (including trial in the Senate) is that the Chief Justice presides when the President is impeached.

I'll go look to see if you have a difference source that you're referring to ...

Are you referring to your link to the Washington Post in your post below as your source?


originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: OzBoomer77

Yes, they can start an inquiry, they just have almost no power to do anything with it until it is formalized.


Ordering compliance with a trial subpoena "forthwith," the court rejected Mr. Nixon's broad claims of unreviewable executive privilege and said they "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."

www.washingtonpost.com...

So now you see the standard required to override Executive privilege. What pieces of that standard are met in this circumstance? We have an inquiry about a phone call ... that phone call is now public. What exactly are they investigating again? They were given 100% of the information they want and need.


If so, I've already answered you on that. If not, please link your source again.
edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, that's false and you already admitted it is false.

Congress says they want privileged items. White House says no. Who decides who is right? I don't know why you are being so ridiculous when you already admitted I was right. The SC role in impeachment is ensuring the other 2 sides both follow the Constitution. That's a fact. Nothing you say will ever change that.

My link is dealing with the threshold of when Trump can not claim Executive privilege, as decided by the SC. ATS does not decide the threshold.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sorry, that's false and you already admitted it is false.

Congress says they want privileged items. White House says no. Who decides who is right? I don't know why you are being so ridiculous when you already admitted I was right. The SC role in impeachment is ensuring the other 2 sides both follow the Constitution. That's a fact. Nothing you say will ever change that.

My link is dealing with the threshold of when Trump can not claim Executive privilege, as decided by the SC. ATS does not decide the threshold.


No, nothing I have said is false and I have admitted nothing of the kind. You seem to be hung up on the idea that your article from the Washington Post proves your point that somehow the SC is going to decide on a case-by-case basis what Trump has to provide to the House. That's not what your article says.

The Supreme Court did not act regarding executive privilege in the matter of IMPEACHMENT but in the matter of a CRIMINAL CASE.

From your own source that you keep insisting has something to do with the impeachment of Nixon in the House:



Ordering compliance with a trial subpoena "forthwith," the court rejected Mr. Nixon's broad claims of unreviewable executive privilege and said they "must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial."


Notice the highlighted words trial and pending criminal trial ... it's not a part of the impeachment hearings indeed:



Brushing aside warnings by presidential lawyer James D. St. Clair that it was in an impeachment thicket, the court handed down its 8-to-0 ruling hours before the House Judiciary Committee was scheduled to open debate on proposed articles of impeachment.


The SC decision had nothing to do with House Impeachment hearings on Nixon, obviously, because they hadn't begun!

The Court denied the President's claim of executive priviledge because the matter at hand was a CRIMINAL TRIAL (part of the Judicial Branch) not an impeachment (Legistlative Branch) based on reasoning that:



But while communication between the President and his advisers is "presumptively privileged," the court said that this presumption can be outweighed by the demonstrated needs of the judicial process. The court recognized a privilege for matters dealing with diplomatic or national security secrets, but stressed that federal judges may inspect such material in chambers in the course of selecting evidence the prosecutor should have.


An impeachment is not a criminal trial. The ruling has nothing to do with impeachment.

The matter that the 1974 Post article regards is United States v. Nixon if you want to follow up.

edit on 12-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I do want to qualify what I just posted. You are correct that US v. Nixon addresses the matter of executive privilege. In fact that case was a landmark in establishing the boundaries and limitations of executive priviledge. Good show on that.

Yes, US v. Nixon was embedded in the larger issue of "Watergate." No, this decision didn't regard any investigation by the House, but by the Federal Court system, and the ruling was that if a criminal case (or I suppose a civil one) requires information that the President asserts Privilege over, a determination is made regarding whether there is any compelling reason within the sphere of Executive authority (like say national security) to deny a subpoena.

I would like to acknowledge though what I think you really mean and you can check to see if I am right. Let's say Trump continues to completely refuse to cooperate with the House. Courts have said post-US v. Nixon that they will not rule on a conflict between the Executive and the Legislative UNLESS a serious attempt to reach a compromise between the two branches fails.

Trump and the House may well push this to that limit. If that happens, the SC may have to rule specifically in the matter of Impeachment investigations/hearings.

I want to give credit where credit is due.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


My belief for President Trump's stonewalling is to force a very unsavory
position to the impeach BAMN cadre of a formal vote in the House...
putting the aforementioned cadre on the Congressional Record of their
actions. Also blowing off whatever appendages left over with the decade's
biggest ever TROLL CANNON, Inspector. No I won't use the Callahan .gif
but I oughta.



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: derfreebie

The House would have to vote on Articles of Impeachment and get a majority approval to send them to the Senate.

Mr. Trump's obstruction is not forcing that fact, the Constitution is, right?



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

you seem to like to take things out of context to suit your argument but then what you are saying completely under minds your stance on Trump.

I'll explain, you know that's not what I meant when I said the SC doesn't play a part in impeachment other than preceding over the trial in the senate. BUT like any judge would do, regardless of if they are in the SC. will rule on things like executive privilege that have a determining factor on the outcome of the trial. But they do not, decide the impeachment nor do they interfere with the actual process I.e. vote on the floor of House or what the articles of impeachment entail.

now what I don't get is that you are saying that if trump does stonewall then the SC will rule on that, where it has had precedence set by the example you posted. So really he won't have a leg to stand on.



posted on Oct, 14 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: OzBoomer77

Actually, I would have to agree with Occams on that single point ... I believe the Trump Administration will push this to the SCOTUS. The courts have previously depended on the other two Branches to come to reasonable compromises. If that fails as dramatically as this could fail, and if Trump's Adminstration wins the question in the SC, because of the "conservative" balance of the Court at the moment, then I believe that 99% of the oversight function of Congress as set by the Constitution will be ignored in the future.

I'm not sure how either "side" could really want that.




top topics



 
13
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join