Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[homersapien 11,388]

14 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Why couldnt we hear witnesses for and against during the House hearings? Asking for a friend....

Trump obstructed them from testifying.

[bigbird 60,567]

31 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

My best suggestion is to read their actual report.

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

There is is...

The legislature can't deem a subpoena lawful. Period. That is the judiciary's explicit role.

He also directed the refusal of documents and testimony under his idea of executive privilege. If the House believed he was wrong, the only way to know is to have the Court rule one way or another. The legislature can't determine what is and what is not protected by and what constitutes executive privilege. That role resides solely with the judiciary. 

Until the Court rules what is or isn't covered by executive privilege, this article is a sham and defies the separation of powers.

[bigbird 60,567]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Trump obstructed them from testifying.

Under his contention it was covered by executive privilege. To determine if it was or not lies solely with the Court, not the House. To do otherwise is an abuse of the separation of powers

[ToraGirl 5,498]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Thanks....some folks just don't understand the constitutional "balance of powers" that our founders established. 

Problem with our educational system I guess is that many/ most students do not study civics ….otherwise the House leaders would not able to so easily hoodwink the majority of Americans into believing some of the stuff being spouted by NP and others in the Dem leadership. 

JMO but I'm happy that DT is pushing back....and future presidents will be thankful that he did not allow the House to set precedence on some of these issues of the relative power of the three branches of government.   I mean..."abuse of power" could be claimed when any President ignores the law and issues Executive Orders to circumvent them.  ...exercising executive privilege …..a long standing practice which NP and media sycophants are trying to discredit. 

Promise you, the coursework is there at multiple levels...7th and high school for sure and 2nd by choice,  speaking for myself. Teachers are trying. However, also a microcosm of society, the educators, myself included, each have their own spin and bent with the presentation, and some learners are absorbing the socieTwitterable talking points rather than the documents, worldviews, motives, and original FF intent. That takes due diligence and ample focus, discernment, and care.

Plus, some students can't hear you. 😉😁

[homersapien 11,388]

4 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Under his contention it was covered by executive privilege. To determine if it was or not lies solely with the Court, not the House. To do otherwise is an abuse of the separation of powers

I think that is open to debate.

In other words, I don't accept that it's a constitutional requirement that the House must obtain a supporting court ruling before making their own determination that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Perhaps the Senate can rule as such, but that doesn't preclude the house's right to reach their own conclusion without a court ruling.

Perhaps this is the reasoning that underlies their decision not to immediately enforce the subpoenas through the court. The timing of the next election may also have been a factor.

Again, the premise that a court ruling is required in order to charge obstruction is a perfect example of arguing the law (process) when the facts are against you.

It is my understanding that the Senate could subpoena whatever additional witnesses they want.  If the facts really were at issue, they would do so.  This won't happen because Republicans - who control the process - know the facts are against them.

 

[AU64 10,122]

10 minutes ago, ToraGirl said:

Promise you, the coursework is there at multiple levels...7th and high school for sure and 2nd by choice,  speaking for myself. Teachers are trying. However, also a microcosm of society, the educators, myself included, each have their own spin and bent with the presentation, and some learners are absorbing the socieTwitterable talking points rather than the documents, worldviews, motives, and original FF intent. That takes due diligence and ample focus, discernment, and care.

Plus, some students can't hear you. 😉😁

Good to hear that ….so maybe its is people Like NP and CS who missed their civics course and don't understand their constitutional roles.....and Homer too of course. 

[bigbird 60,567]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I think that is open to debate.

In other words, I don't accept that it's a constitutional requirement that the House must obtain a supporting court ruling before making their own determination that Trump was obstructing the investigation. Perhaps the Senate can rule as such, but that doesn't preclude the house's right to reach their own conclusion without a court ruling.

Perhaps this is the reasoning that underlies their decision not to immediately enforce the subpoenas through the court. The timing of the next election may also have been a factor.

Again, the premise that a court ruling is required in order to charge obstruction is a perfect example of arguing the law (process) when the facts are against you.

It is my understanding that the Senate could subpoena whatever additional witnesses they want.  If the facts really were at issue, they would do so.  This won't happen because Republicans - who control the process - know the facts are against them.

 

What's to debate?

The judiciary's role is to evaluate and interpret the laws. The legislature can't determine what is and isn't covered by privilege. That's explicitly the judiciary's role set forth by the Constitution.

The premise is Trump didn't obstruct until the Court says the things he is withholding is not covered by privilege.

What happens if the court determined that what Trump was claiming and blocking was, in fact, covered under privilege. Is there obstruction?

[bigbird 60,567]

32 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Again, the premise that a court ruling is required in order to charge obstruction is a perfect example of arguing the law (process) when the facts are against you.

The law is what determines the fact. If privilege covers those testimonies, then what Trump did can not be considered obstruction. There is only one way to determine if privilege exist over the documents and testimony that was being blocked by Trump and it's not through the house opinion if it is or isn't.

[bigbird 60,567]

38 minutes ago, homersapien said:

It is my understanding that the Senate could subpoena whatever additional witnesses they want. 

They absolutely could. However, if Trump claims privilege and inhibits or blocks the testimony, what's the recourse? Take it to the Court and have them determine if what he is claiming is or isn't covered by privilege. Then Senate can't just claim that he is obstructing because they aren't getting what they want just like the house shouldn't have been able to do.

[homersapien 11,388]

Just now, bigbird said:

What's to debate?

The judiciary's role is to evaluate and interpret the laws. The legislature can't determine what is and isn't covered by privilege. That's explicitly the judiciary's role set forth by the Constitution.

The premise is Trump didn't obstruct until the Court says the things he is withholding is not covered by privilege.

What happens if the court determined that what Trump was claiming and blocking was, in fact, covered under privilege. Is there obstruction?

The simple fact is,  based on testimony that was provided - including from some of the principles involved - and from the factual circumstances,  the house determined that Trump obstructed the investigation by preventing additional witness testimony and the release of documents that would further confirm his role in withholding the aid from Ukraine and why.

There is nothing in the constitution that legally requires a court ruling in order to allow the House to reach that conclusion.

A court ruling would be required to force Trump to release testimony and documents, but the House can still reach the conclusion he obstructed the investigation without one.

If the court supported Trump's claim of executive privilege it wouldn't have any bearing at all on the fact he obstructed the investigation.  I would simply give him license to do so.  Such a court ruling doesn't change the actual facts, it just gives Trump an excuse for them. Nothing can change the facts, by definition.

But don't worry, it's inevitable that the Senate will not convict Trump on obstruction - or anything else for that matter.  That will presumably give you license to actually believe he didn't.

[homersapien 11,388]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

The law is what determines the fact. If privilege covers those testimonies, then what Trump did can not be considered obstruction. There is only one way to determine if privilege exist over the documents and testimony that was being blocked by Trump and it's not through the house opinion if it is or isn't.

Well, we'll just disagree on that.

There are lots of laws that ignore actual fact. 

Legal privilege to conceal facts doesn't change the truth.

[bigbird 60,567]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If the court supported Trump's claim of executive privilege it wouldn't have any bearing at all on the fact he obstructed the investigation. 

Except the fact that article 2 was all based on him withholding documents and blocking testimony. He has routinely said that was based in executive privilege. If the court supported his claim, then what exactly would he have done wrong?

[bigbird 60,567]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, we'll just disagree on that.

There are lots of laws that ignore actual fact. 

Legal privilege to conceal facts doesn't change the truth.

Who's truth and how is that truth determined if not all the facts can be seen?

[homersapien 11,388]

10 minutes ago, bigbird said:

They absolutely could. However, if Trump claims privilege and inhibits or blocks the testimony, what's the recourse? Take it to the Court and have them determine if what he is claiming is or isn't covered by privilege.

Then Senate can't just claim that he is obstructing because they aren't getting what they want just like the house shouldn't have been able to do.

My understanding is that Chief Justice Roberts could make an immediate ruling, but I could be wrong.

Sure they could.  They could also convict Trump if they wanted to.  The court doesn't get a vote.

[bigbird 60,567]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

 The court doesn't get a vote.

Who ever claimed otherwise?

[homersapien 11,388]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

Except the fact that per article 2 was all based on him withholding documents and blocking testimony. He has routinely said that was based in executive privilege. If the court supported his claim, then what exactly would he have done wrong?

Again, allowing Trump to block testimony or withhold documents doesn't change the reality that he is obstructing the investigation.

It may provide him a legal out for doing so as well as justification for the Senate not to convict him of obstruction, but it doesn't change the fact he did so.

[bigbird 60,567]

Just now, homersapien said:

Again, allowing Trump to block testimony or withhold documents doesn't change the reality that he is obstructing the investigation.

It may provide him a legal out for doing so as well as justification for the Senate not to convict him of obstruction, but it doesn't change the fact he did so.

I'm not sure I've seen more of a reach. He may be right and protected by the law but we're gonna charge him because we can't get him to comply when he legally doesn't have to? That's crazy.

[homersapien 11,388]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Who ever claimed otherwise?

Your arguments imply as much.

 

[bigbird 60,567]

Just now, homersapien said:

Your arguments imply as much.

 

What?!?!

Where exactly have I ever implied anything close to the Court having a vote in the impeachment process?

You inferring something like that is strange.

[homersapien 11,388]

Just now, bigbird said:

I'm not sure I've seen more of a reach. He may be right and protected by the law but we're gonna charge him because we can't get him to comply when he legally doesn't have to? That's crazy.

No it's not. 

What's crazy is predicating reality on a legal premise.  The latter may allow Trump to skate on a charge of obstruction but it doesn't change facts based on allowed testimony and circumstances.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

What?!?!

Where exactly have I ever implied anything close to the Court having a vote in the impeachment process?

You inferring something like that is strange.

You are clearly stating the House cannot even charge Trump (if not make the ruling) on obstruction of justice without a specific court ruling regarding executive privilege.

That is essentially providing the Court a vote - one which overrules the house ruling.

[bigbird 60,567]

Because if he is correct about privilege then there isn't an issue.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

2 hours ago, bigbird said:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael “Mick” Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

There is is...

The legislature can't deem a subpoena lawful. Period. That is the judiciary's explicit role.

He also directed the refusal of documents and testimony under his idea of executive privilege. If the House believed he was wrong, the only way to know is to have the Court rule one way or another. The legislature can't determine what is and what is not protected by and what constitutes executive privilege. That role resides solely with the judiciary. 

Until the Court rules what is or isn't covered by executive privilege, this article is a sham and defies the separation of powers.

The Supreme Court has previously made a unanimous ruling on the issue. You keep ignoring that.

[bigbird 60,567]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The Supreme Court has previously made a unanimous ruling on the issue. You keep ignoring that.

"As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.”

Some really good info here

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/executive-privilege-congress-subpoena-power-and-the-courts-a-brief-overview-of-a-complex-topic/

[TexasTiger 12,950]

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

"As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.”

Some really good info here

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/executive-privilege-congress-subpoena-power-and-the-courts-a-brief-overview-of-a-complex-topic/

Yes. I’ve read it. The privilege is limited and Trump has asserted It’s a blanket privilege. It’s clearly not.