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.
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."
originally posted by: OzBoomer77
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
yes they do
In advance of the formal resolution by the full House, the relevant committee may investigate, subpoena witnesses, and prepare a preliminary report of findings.
You can keep saying you sourced the SC all you like but the SC doesn't have a say in impeachments
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday unanimously, and definitively, that President Nixon must turn over tape recordings of White House conversations needed by the Watergate special prosecutor for the trial of the President's highest aides.
No I said, what executive privilege do they need, trump already released the transcript.
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.
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: madmac5150
Obviously, the evidence implicating Trump violated the public trust.