Impeachment Witnesses

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From your citation:

The Office of Legal Counsel deemed the subpoena "invalid," and Butler said Ellis had "been instructed not to appear."

That's not the way executive privilege is legally asserted.

Also from your link:

Last month, head White House counsel Pat Cipollone said that White House officials would not cooperate with the inquiry, arguing that it "violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process" and privilege and immunity for the executive branch of government.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

A stay was issued, which means as of right now there is no legal right for him to testify. Fact.
If Democrats want the witnesses they need to go to the courts. They are a co-equal branch, they do not simply get to override the Executive.

Exactly. Somewhere along the line schiff and his corrupt buddies made the call themselves that THEIR half of Congress was the Supreme power in the land instead being just one half of an EQUAL branch of Govt with no superiority over the Executve, the other half of Congress or the Judiciary... and they then have the cheek to call Trump a dictator!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I already quoted, it violates Executive privilege and attorney client privilege, and thus are invalid. Scream no some more, Executive privilege was invoked, do you need it quoted again?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From your citation:

The Office of Legal Counsel deemed the subpoena "invalid," and Butler said Ellis had "been instructed not to appear."

That's not the way executive privilege is legally asserted.

Also from your link:

Last month, head White House counsel Pat Cipollone said that White House officials would not cooperate with the inquiry, arguing that it "violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process" and privilege and immunity for the executive branch of government.

thehill.com...

The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, when it votes to approve the articles, as the chamber is expected to do so Wednesday.

BEFORE the impeachment vote in the House, the Democrats knew that to get additional witnesses they would have to argue their case to the SC because the SC had already agreed to stay their other subpeonas relating to Trump's finances.

Just accept it. The Whitehouse invoked Executive Priviledge - something the House Democrats can NOT over rule. Thus the Democrats needed to go to court.

a reply to: UKTruth
The argument I have seen Democrats make is if we follow the Constitution and allow Trump his Constitutional protections and powers he will steal the election so he can not be allowed his rights.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: UKTruth
The argument I have seen Democrats make is if we follow the Constitution and allow Trump his Constitutional protections and powers he will steal the election so he can not be allowed his rights.

Yup, that seems ot be it.
So, ignore the Constitution if Democrats feel they might lose an election and use unsubstantiated accusations to cover their fear of losing.

a reply to: UKTruth
Burn the Constitution and follow lord Schiff unquestioningly or face the consequences. Otherwise .. tyranny.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The White House and McGhan have argued his testimony was protected by executive privilege, and therefore he was not able to testify as part of any congressional probes.

But U.S. District Court Judge Ketanki Brown Jackson ruled on Monday that if he wanted to assert executive privilege to avoid testifying, he would need to appear before Congress and do it himself, on a question-by-question basis.

www.foxnews.com... he-presidenc

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The White House and McGhan have argued his testimony was protected by executive privilege, and therefore he was not able to testify as part of any congressional probes.

But U.S. District Court Judge Ketanki Brown Jackson ruled on Monday that if he wanted to assert executive privilege to avoid testifying, he would need to appear before Congress and do it himself, on a question-by-question basis.

www.foxnews.com... he-presidenc

Over ruled. Old news. Since that LOWER court ruling, the SC has put a stay on the House's existing subpeonas and will rule next year.
Rather than digging yourself into a hole, just accept you were wrong and that the House does NOT have power over Executive Branch and does NOT determine when Executive priviledge is valid and decided themselves NOT to fight it out in court.

Your choice - dig your own hole further or climb out of it.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I already sourced that ruling has been put on hold. Need me to source you are wrong, again? The courts have determined that for now he does NOT have to testify until they reach a final decision. Not until the House makes a decisionm until the COURTS make the decision.

Thanks for playing and sourcing something that proves your position is wrong.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

If so...them its on the Dems to take it to court to resolve

Why were they in too big a hurry to do so? Their rush job is what allows McConnell to do what he plans to do. Which he has full authority to do Constitutionally.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If so...them its on the Dems to take it to court to resolve

Why were they in too big a hurry to do so? Their rush job is what allows McConnell to do what he plans to do. Which he has full authority to do Constitutionally.

I think one point is that if they took everything to the courts, their view is that Trump would try to ride out the clock through lawsuits, stalling, and appeals in hopes that it eventually goes before the SCOTUS—if they (the Trump admin) didn't a favorable ruling in the lower courts.

Also the fact that their view is that it is imperative to move as quickly as possible and not wait for the above because this is about interfering with and influencing the next election, which is very serious.

I believe those are the two main rationales for the haste.

a reply to: Liquesence

So they want to throw away the Constitution because following it will take too long. What I expect from Democrats.

a reply to: Liquesence

Ahhh yes. Due process is too much trouble to go through for such a somber act.

Makes total sense.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Liquesence

So they want to throw away the Constitution because following it will take too long.

How'd they do that?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

Ahhh yes. Due process is too much trouble to go through for such a somber act.

Due process is required for impeachment?

Where is that in the Constitution?

a reply to: Liquesence

Its required to gain enough bilateral support to keep McConnel from doing what he is doing without repercussion.

As it stands now there is nothing that compels him to be anything but dismissive of a slapdash freakshow. Had due process been sought at the very least there would be political pressure....and actual charges

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Liquesence

So they want to throw away the Constitution because following it will take too long.

How'd they do that?

Trump as President is co-equal to Congress. He invoked Executive privilege. Only the courts can override that. Democrats have decided if Trump does not bow to them and do as they command they will impeach him. That is 100% unconstitutional. Only the courts can decide that, not the House.

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Liquesence

Ahhh yes. Due process is too much trouble to go through for such a somber act.

Due process is required for impeachment?

Where is that in the Constitution?

I am glad you admit there was no due process and instead Democrats are using impeachment as a political weapon against the spirit of what it is supposed to be. You are correct, there is no due process the House can do whatever it wants it seems in regards to voting.

What they can't do is override Trump's Constitution granted rights. If they are worried about time that is an argument to make to the courts to hasten their hearing the case.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The question was where is it Constitutionally required.

McConnell does what he wants regardless: See Garland, the bills passed by the House that he won't bring to a vote, and now this, blatant impartiality.

That said, perhaps if the administration hadn't obstructed Congress at every turn, they wouldn't have rushed it as much as they did, which brings me back to my most recent comment on their view for the haste. There are charges, and they passed, hence impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But since the president can't actually be criminally charged or indicted...