Trump’s Stonewalling of Impeachment Inquiry Is an Impeachable Offense

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.

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.

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 say subpoena witnesses, but you dont mention that the subpoenas have no legal backing. You do know that the "subpoenaed witnesses" dont have to show up until Congress votes, dont you?

Probably not

Lolz🤪

a reply to: OzBoomer77

And when they subpoena Trump for info he will tell them to get lost. I just sourced the Supreme Court saying what the House needs to override Executive Privilege. I gave you a chance to respond and answer how they are able to meet the burden in this case, you have chosen not to answer that. You now have another chance. If you can't answer then just say so.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What executive privilege do they need to over ride?? Trump has already released the so called manuscript where he clearly solicits a foreign country to investigate Biden. Now where there is a massive grey area as what constitutes a thing of value when it comes to campaign law is another story, but Impeachment can be done for conduct unbecoming of the office. He literally doesn't have to break the law...see Lindsay Grahams speech for reference on that one.

They won't subpoena Trump, why would they? they didn't get Clinton to go to a deposition until the actual impeachment was under way if I remember correctly. I would see that they gather as much evidence they feel they need and take it too a vote on the floor. then it will go from there, and again if Trump refuses, the sergeant at arms has the power of detainment, I don't see that happening, but really how do you think that is going to look when the President of the USA refuses to be deposed. It's not good and looks guilty as hell. I mean Rep lost their minds when Clinton basically fila busted his Deposition.

but again you just try and muddy with waters with what ifs. the facts are, an impeachment inquiry doesn't need a vote. all the rest is really irrelevant to the point. whether you or think what the dems can or can't do, fact remains they don't need a vote to start an inquiry.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

So then what do they need to investigate? They already have a smoking gun, vote now.

Executive privilege is the entire Executive branch, not just deposing Trump himself.

I sourced the SC. What info do they need for the investigation, where is it coming from? And since you just said Trump released everything needed to impeach him, why aren't they moving forward with it?

I can't even catch my breath with all smoke pouring out these barrels.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No I said, what executive privilege do they need, trump already released the transcript. I then went on to say, that there is a grey area there on what constitutes campaign contribution violations. I then went in to say that impeachment according to Lindsey Graham, doesn't even need to be a crime.

personally, I think that there has been a few laws broken. and here's why, IF Biden wasn't running then Trump asking what he did would not be a violation dodgy as # but not illegal, but Biden is running and he has had plenty of time to do investigate these of the so called claims of Bidens corruption, he even had the house and the senate that would not have stopped such an investigation. They would have cheered it on, So yes he is getting dirt on Biden to use against him for the up coming election. Now whether I Believe it's a violation is completely irrelevant, that's why they are having an impeachment inquiry.

It seems that there may also be a logan act violation as the president does not have the power for anyone to just investigate in a foreign country. It must go through the right channels and Trump telling the state department to let Rudy do that is not the legal way, The person has to be cleared by congress.

You can keep saying you sourced the SC all you like but the SC doesn't have a say in impeachments. Only when it get s to the senate does the Head of the supreme court preside over the trial in the senate, it's up to the senate and the house to vote, The SC doesn't have a say in it.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

So we are on the same page. Trump can stonewall all he wants because they don't need anything from the Executive branch. There is literally no reason for them to ask for anything, so they are entitled to nothing.

You can keep saying you sourced the SC all you like but the SC doesn't have a say in impeachments

I just sourced the SC ruling during the Nixon impeachment. So your assertion they have nothing to do with it is simply wrong.

a reply to: xuenchen

Please provide us with evidence or state that you're sharing an opinion.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From your source ... (The Post not SCOTUS)

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.

There was a criminal trial going on for some of Nixon's aides. That's why SCOTUS ruled.

The only way the Supreme Court is involved in impeachment is that the Chief Justice presides over the Senate trial when it's the President that is being impeached.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

and again i'll say a stonewall would look extremely bad for him. And this notion of him stonewalling everyone just doesn't hold up. look at next weeks testimonies. once it's all official, the stonewalling doesn't hold up to subpoenas. The only person he can try and protect is himself and again the sergeant at arms has detainment power. So you can say all you like he will stonewall but when it comes down to it al being official just like everything else he does he will fold like a cheap lawn chair.

And I gotta be honest with you I am not sure what you are trying to get at when it comes to the SC? are you saying that trump can't stone wall if there is a criminal trail attached with the impeachment like the break in??

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thank you Gryph lol

a reply to: OzBoomer77

Here's my take on it. Ukraine is basically a non-starter. Too many fine lines of legal distinction between the broad powers of POTUS in regard to diplomacy. Of course he doesn't have to have committed a crime to be impeached ... But the Senate doesn't need a reason to acquit either.

The Democrats were handed the best basis for impeachment in the Mueller Report, in fact I would argue that Volume II would have served as a roadmap. Then all the juicy details could be made available.

That didn't happen because the House leadership is mostly chicken# politicians.

Ukraine? Meh.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree on the obstruction and the lack of balls when it came to the mueller report

but with the arrests of the 2 rudy associates, it think there is much more to come. I do believe that the call did break campaign finance violations and I do think that Rudy broke the logan act. I think both of those things are impeachable and if it gets to an actual impeachment trial and a Trump tries this stonewall BS, there's obstruction. now does any of what I think matter, not really. I just hate seeing misinformation. like oh they need to vote to have an inquiry and they just don't, the investigation doesn't even need to be done by the house. it could be done by anyone. Ken Starr proved that, oh wait that would be mean that there was a whistle blower in the Clinton impeachment...hmmm I'll wait for that outrage...….

a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for backing me up that the SC can become involved and they do have a role in the process. Limited, yes, but the other poster claimed they have no role.

a reply to: OzBoomer77

Why would it be bad? You just said the House has zero reason to get any information from the Executive branch. According to you it looks bad for the Democrats if they try to.

No I said, what executive privilege do they need, trump already released the transcript.

Those are your words, not mine. So any attempt by them to access privileged material is purely political theater and a very bad look on the House Democrats.

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: 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?

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: madmac5150

Obviously, the evidence implicating Trump violated the public trust.

Any evidence in that? because last time i checked leftists chickened out and forget all about Trump is Putin, Russian collision nonsense.