Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[homersapien 11,388]

23 hours ago, bigbird said:

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?

A finding by the court that Trump's claim of executive privilege was valid in no way absolves him from the reality of his obstructing testimony or the release of documents.  It simply enables Trump to legally get away with it.

More to the point, the lack of a court ruling regarding the ignoring of certain relevant subpoenas doesn't mean a charge of obstruction cannot be made by the house. There is nothing in the constitution or in precedent that requires that.

In McConnell's words:  "This (impeachment) is purely a political process, there is nothing judicial about it."

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

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

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/donald-trump-executive-privilege/index.html

Why Trump's claim of executive privilege is different

Maybe what's going on with Trump and Congress and executive privilege is relatively tame, since it has to do only with a report on allegations of Russian election interference and obstruction of justice.

When President Thomas Jefferson argued in 1807 that he didn't have to fully comply with a subpoena for documents, he was having his former vice president tried for treason for attempting to incite a revolution out West. The former-vice-president-turned-frontier-revolutionary on trial was Aaron Burr, of "Hamilton" dueling fame. The Supreme Court, in the voice of Jefferson's foil Chief Justice John Marshall, disagreed with the President's argument, Jefferson ultimately coughed up the documents Burr wanted for his defense and Burr ultimately walked free.

 

Fast-forward 170 years, and Chief Justice Warren Burger used the Burr trial in deciding that President Richard Nixon had to comply with a subpoena by the special counsel for his taped Oval Office conversations.

 

None of these cases are exactly the same. Jefferson was responding to a subpoena in a criminal trial. Nixon was responding to a subpoena by a special prosecutor. Trump, in invoking a blanket claim of executive privilege Wednesday, was responding to a subpoena from Congress for the Mueller report.

But they all share the idea that presidents should be able to keep secrets from Congress in order to do their jobs. The term itself -- executive privilege -- dates back only to the Eisenhower administration. And while it isn't in the Constitution, the idea has been a matter of considerable debate since George Washington first employed it with regard to congressional inquiries about the postwar Jay Treaty of 1795 between the US and Great Britain.

 

This is not a secret or under-analyzed subject. Books upon books have been written about it and just about every recent generation has had a knock-down crisis moment fight about it, particularly when presidents have used the idea of executive privilege to cover up missteps.

 

"The weakest claims of executive privilege involve administrations attempting to cover up embarrassing or politically inconvenient information, or even outright wrongdoing," write Mark Rozell of George Mason University and Mitchel Sollenberger of the University of Michigan-Dearborn in one study.

 

They point out, however, that there is a sound need for the president to get candid advice and also to keep information from the public.

 

"Presidents rely heavily on being able to consult with advisers, without fear of public disclosure of their deliberations," write Rozell and Sollenberger. "Executive privilege recognizes this notion. Indeed, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court not only recognized the constitutionality of executive privilege, but the occasional need for secrecy to the operation of the presidency."

A brief history

In his memoirs, Nixon expressed regret that he had weakened the principle.

 

"I was the first president to test the principle of executive privilege in the Supreme Court, and by testing it on such a weak ground, I probably ensured the defeat of my cause," he wrote.

 

There has been an ebb and flow ever since.

 

President Ronald Reagan sought to expand the idea. Bill Clinton tried to use it more than any other president since Watergate as he fought the Whitewater investigation and dealt with fallout from the Monica Lewinsky affair, according to the academics. He ultimately dropped the claim of executive privilege in regard to testimony to Congress about Lewinsky.

 

Congress considered but ultimately did not move on an impeachment charge against Clinton having to do with abuse of executive privilege, according to Rozell and Sollenberger. Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times, according to a tally by the Congressional Research Service in 2012, more than twice the tally of any other modern president.

 

President George W. Bush tried to expand it even further and strengthen the power of the presidency. He signed an executive order that gave the current president the ability to assert executive privilege over the documents of previous presidents. He also got into snits with Congress over using the idea to shield top aides like Karl Rove from congressional testimony. Back then, CNN's Jim Acosta reported on where Congress might put someone like Rove in jail if it tried to arrest him. (Yes, Congress can technically arrest people, but it hasn't tried in more than 70 years.)

 

President Barack Obama made a big deal of rolling back Bush's view of executive privilege, but then he asserted it himself on behalf of his attorney general, Eric Holder, who was held in contempt of court over the Fast and Furious gun sale scandal. A federal judge ultimately made Holder turn over documents.

Trump's claim is different

Trump's assertion, however, is a blanket assertion of privilege for anything relating to the special counsel report on the Russia investigation. It's nontraditional in some ways, since privilege is usually asserted for close aides and in Trump's case it is for an investigation into his administration and 2016 political campaign. It's also very broad, and seemingly pertains in a protective way to all congressional inquiries related to Mueller.

"This protective assertion of executive privilege ensures the President's ability to make a final decision whether to assert privilege following a full review of these materials," wrote Stephen Boyd, a Justice Department official, in a letter Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee.

 

"Executive privilege claims customarily come with an underlying rationale such as national security, protecting internal deliberations or protecting ongoing DOJ investigations," Rozell told CNN in an email. "In this case the President has claimed some 'protective' executive privilege which is entirely too broad and without any precedent (excepting equally broad claims such as President Nixon's that failed the constitutional standard). It seems the President believes he can wall off any and all information or testimony by merely uttering the words 'executive privilege.' "

 

One problem for Democrats right now is that they have asked for essentially every document related to the Mueller report, something they may not ever get.

 

Timothy Naftali, a New York University historian who's the former head of the Nixon presidential library, said Wednesday on CNN that they should be more specific and detailed in their requests.

 

"I think at this moment a lot of Americans are just seeing the Republicans and Democrats screaming at each other, and the details -- which are so important -- are being lost," he said, arguing that Trump is making his broad claim of privilege because he thinks most people will see only the political back and forth rather than understand what, specifically, Democrats are trying to get.

 

"Usually disputes over executive privilege get resolved through an accommodation process between Congress and the White House," Rozell observed. "We seem to be stuck now in a zero-sum game with each side digging in."

Regardless, this is now a fight destined for the courts. And these things take time. It took a year from the time Nixon refused to release the tapes till the Supreme Court ruled against him. It was four years from the time Obama made his executive privilege claim regarding Fast and Furious before a judge rejected it. And even then the legal fight over the documents continued into the Trump administration.

 

Indeed, just on Wednesday the Democrat-led House and the Justice Department announced to a federal appeals court in Washington that they had reached a settlement in the Fast and Furious court case.

 

 

 

[DKW 86 7,428]

20 hours ago, homersapien said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/politics/donald-trump-executive-privilege/index.html

Why Trump's claim of executive privilege is different

Maybe what's going on with Trump and Congress and executive privilege is relatively tame, since it has to do only with a report on allegations of Russian election interference and obstruction of justice.

When President Thomas Jefferson argued in 1807 that he didn't have to fully comply with a subpoena for documents, he was having his former vice president tried for treason for attempting to incite a revolution out West. The former-vice-president-turned-frontier-revolutionary on trial was Aaron Burr, of "Hamilton" dueling fame. The Supreme Court, in the voice of Jefferson's foil Chief Justice John Marshall, disagreed with the President's argument, Jefferson ultimately coughed up the documents Burr wanted for his defense and Burr ultimately walked free.

 

Fast-forward 170 years, and Chief Justice Warren Burger used the Burr trial in deciding that President Richard Nixon had to comply with a subpoena by the special counsel for his taped Oval Office conversations.

 

None of these cases are exactly the same. Jefferson was responding to a subpoena in a criminal trial. Nixon was responding to a subpoena by a special prosecutor. Trump, in invoking a blanket claim of executive privilege Wednesday, was responding to a subpoena from Congress for the Mueller report.

But they all share the idea that presidents should be able to keep secrets from Congress in order to do their jobs. The term itself -- executive privilege -- dates back only to the Eisenhower administration. And while it isn't in the Constitution, the idea has been a matter of considerable debate since George Washington first employed it with regard to congressional inquiries about the postwar Jay Treaty of 1795 between the US and Great Britain.

 

This is not a secret or under-analyzed subject. Books upon books have been written about it and just about every recent generation has had a knock-down crisis moment fight about it, particularly when presidents have used the idea of executive privilege to cover up missteps.

 

"The weakest claims of executive privilege involve administrations attempting to cover up embarrassing or politically inconvenient information, or even outright wrongdoing," write Mark Rozell of George Mason University and Mitchel Sollenberger of the University of Michigan-Dearborn in one study.

 

They point out, however, that there is a sound need for the president to get candid advice and also to keep information from the public.

 

"Presidents rely heavily on being able to consult with advisers, without fear of public disclosure of their deliberations," write Rozell and Sollenberger. "Executive privilege recognizes this notion. Indeed, in U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court not only recognized the constitutionality of executive privilege, but the occasional need for secrecy to the operation of the presidency."

A brief history

In his memoirs, Nixon expressed regret that he had weakened the principle.

 

"I was the first president to test the principle of executive privilege in the Supreme Court, and by testing it on such a weak ground, I probably ensured the defeat of my cause," he wrote.

 

There has been an ebb and flow ever since.

 

President Ronald Reagan sought to expand the idea. Bill Clinton tried to use it more than any other president since Watergate as he fought the Whitewater investigation and dealt with fallout from the Monica Lewinsky affair, according to the academics. He ultimately dropped the claim of executive privilege in regard to testimony to Congress about Lewinsky.

 

Congress considered but ultimately did not move on an impeachment charge against Clinton having to do with abuse of executive privilege, according to Rozell and Sollenberger. Clinton invoked executive privilege 14 times, according to a tally by the Congressional Research Service in 2012, more than twice the tally of any other modern president.

 

President George W. Bush tried to expand it even further and strengthen the power of the presidency. He signed an executive order that gave the current president the ability to assert executive privilege over the documents of previous presidents. He also got into snits with Congress over using the idea to shield top aides like Karl Rove from congressional testimony. Back then, CNN's Jim Acosta reported on where Congress might put someone like Rove in jail if it tried to arrest him. (Yes, Congress can technically arrest people, but it hasn't tried in more than 70 years.)

 

President Barack Obama made a big deal of rolling back Bush's view of executive privilege, but then he asserted it himself on behalf of his attorney general, Eric Holder, who was held in contempt of court over the Fast and Furious gun sale scandal. A federal judge ultimately made Holder turn over documents.

Trump's claim is different

Trump's assertion, however, is a blanket assertion of privilege for anything relating to the special counsel report on the Russia investigation. It's nontraditional in some ways, since privilege is usually asserted for close aides and in Trump's case it is for an investigation into his administration and 2016 political campaign. It's also very broad, and seemingly pertains in a protective way to all congressional inquiries related to Mueller.

"This protective assertion of executive privilege ensures the President's ability to make a final decision whether to assert privilege following a full review of these materials," wrote Stephen Boyd, a Justice Department official, in a letter Wednesday to the House Judiciary Committee.

 

"Executive privilege claims customarily come with an underlying rationale such as national security, protecting internal deliberations or protecting ongoing DOJ investigations," Rozell told CNN in an email. "In this case the President has claimed some 'protective' executive privilege which is entirely too broad and without any precedent (excepting equally broad claims such as President Nixon's that failed the constitutional standard). It seems the President believes he can wall off any and all information or testimony by merely uttering the words 'executive privilege.' "

 

One problem for Democrats right now is that they have asked for essentially every document related to the Mueller report, something they may not ever get.

 

Timothy Naftali, a New York University historian who's the former head of the Nixon presidential library, said Wednesday on CNN that they should be more specific and detailed in their requests.

 

"I think at this moment a lot of Americans are just seeing the Republicans and Democrats screaming at each other, and the details -- which are so important -- are being lost," he said, arguing that Trump is making his broad claim of privilege because he thinks most people will see only the political back and forth rather than understand what, specifically, Democrats are trying to get.

 

"Usually disputes over executive privilege get resolved through an accommodation process between Congress and the White House," Rozell observed. "We seem to be stuck now in a zero-sum game with each side digging in."

Regardless, this is now a fight destined for the courts. And these things take time. It took a year from the time Nixon refused to release the tapes till the Supreme Court ruled against him. It was four years from the time Obama made his executive privilege claim regarding Fast and Furious before a judge rejected it. And even then the legal fight over the documents continued into the Trump administration.

 

Indeed, just on Wednesday the Democrat-led House and the Justice Department announced to a federal appeals court in Washington that they had reached a settlement in the Fast and Furious court case.

WTH? Are we talking about the Russia Investigation again? The US wasted 23 months of our lives on that pile of totally disproven crap. It was a  fiasco and has been over almost a year now. If this guys wants to be taken seriously at all he needs to get with the program. 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

On 12/22/2019 at 8:43 AM, DKW 86 said:

WTH? Are we talking about the Russia Investigation again? The US wasted 23 months of our lives on that pile of totally disproven crap. It was a  fiasco and has been over almost a year now. If this guys wants to be taken seriously at all he needs to get with the program. 

 

Try actually reading the piece you just quoted.

[DKW 86 7,428]

On 12/22/2019 at 7:43 AM, DKW 86 said:

Trump's claim is different

Trump's assertion, however, is a blanket assertion of privilege for anything relating to the special counsel report on the Russia investigation.

I did...

[autigeremt 6,644]

This whole thing is laughable due to the obvious (senate acquits). Reminds me of the Clinton impeachment....waste of time and divides an already divided nation even more. Perfect scenario for the pubs and the dems. 

[homersapien 11,388]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

I did...

Key words:  "blanket assertion of privilege".

That's still his position regarding the Ukraine scandal. (I think you are just triggered by the word 'Russia'.)

[homersapien 11,388]

24 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

This whole thing is laughable due to the obvious (senate acquits). Reminds me of the Clinton impeachment....waste of time and divides an already divided nation even more. Perfect scenario for the pubs and the dems. 

It's not a "waste of time" regardless of the outcome. 

[bigbird 60,567]

Executive Immunity and Impeachment: Any Precedent for President Trump’s Strategy?

Is there any type of immunity from testimony that may apply if executive privilege isn’t applicable? 

There are other forms of privilege that might come up.  I suppose somebody could take the Fifth, you can take the Fifth right in front of the House committee. So that's always available. There's attorney-client privilege. To be precise; this idea that if you work at the White House–and are therefore in the same shoes as the president–you don't even have to show up, that's technically not executive privilege. That is a presidential immunity argument based upon the separation of powers.  For example, you could put that to a judge and the judge could throw it out, say there is no such thing, and the court rejects that doctrine. Then the individual could go over to Congress and get asked a question, and he could claim executive privilege and he would be completely within his rights. 

The Obama administration took the identical position with David Simas, an employee in the Obama White House, that President Trump did in the case of Kupperman and former White House Counsel Don McGahn.  Simas was head of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach and was subpoenaed in relation to Congressional oversight of Hatch Act compliance. White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston asserted executive immunity, defying a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa.  His letter referenced the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, saying: "The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process.” There are examples in every administration, and each party wants to find examples where the other party did the same or a more extreme version of what they are trying to do because people forget and people are partisan.

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Executive Immunity and Impeachment: Any Precedent for President Trump’s Strategy?

Is there any type of immunity from testimony that may apply if executive privilege isn’t applicable? 

There are other forms of privilege that might come up.  I suppose somebody could take the Fifth, you can take the Fifth right in front of the House committee. So that's always available. There's attorney-client privilege. To be precise; this idea that if you work at the White House–and are therefore in the same shoes as the president–you don't even have to show up, that's technically not executive privilege. That is a presidential immunity argument based upon the separation of powers.  For example, you could put that to a judge and the judge could throw it out, say there is no such thing, and the court rejects that doctrine. Then the individual could go over to Congress and get asked a question, and he could claim executive privilege and he would be completely within his rights. 

The Obama administration took the identical position with David Simas, an employee in the Obama White House, that President Trump did in the case of Kupperman and former White House Counsel Don McGahn.  Simas was head of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach and was subpoenaed in relation to Congressional oversight of Hatch Act compliance. White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston asserted executive immunity, defying a subpoena from House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa.  His letter referenced the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, saying: "The Executive Branch's longstanding position, reaffirmed by numerous Administrations of both political parties, is that the President's immediate advisers are absolutely immune from the congressional testimonial process.” There are examples in every administration, and each party wants to find examples where the other party did the same or a more extreme version of what they are trying to do because people forget and people are partisan.

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/pleading-the-fifth-five-times-obama-officials-avoided-testifying-during-a-scandal/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-eric-holder-held-in-contempt/2012/06/20/gJQAaEUArV_story.html

Some folks on this board have a poor memory.....might want to refresh by taking a look at these.

[DKW 86 7,428]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Key words:  "blanket assertion of privilege".

That's still his position regarding the Ukraine scandal. (I think you are just triggered by the word 'Russia'.)

 

Me...Triggered by the word Russians????? 

Homey, you have been triggered for 36 months by:

Trump
RUSSIANS!
Impeachment

[autigeremt 6,644]

On 12/23/2019 at 3:12 PM, homersapien said:

It's not a "waste of time" regardless of the outcome. 

Prove it. 

[homersapien 11,388]

15 hours ago, autigeremt said:

Prove it. 

It's never a waste of time to honor the values and standards expressed by our constitution.  Otherwise, it's just a meaningless piece of paper that is irrelevant to modern America.

If you don't get that, there's likely nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

[AuburnNTexas 7,152]

On 12/29/2019 at 9:24 AM, homersapien said:

It's never a waste of time to honor the values and standards expressed by our constitution.  Otherwise, it's just a meaningless piece of paper that is irrelevant to modern America.

If you don't get that, there's likely nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.

I agree with your basic statement the problem is we don't all see the same thing when we read the Constitution.  There are many who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution based on what it says and what the people who wrote it said in letters and other documents and those who believe it is a living document that is supposed to be re-interpreted based on the times.  This argument has been ongoing for may generations. 

As this article stated all Presidents have attempted to use Executive Privilege in the past. Sometimes Congress let it go other times they took it to court there have been cases where the courts sided with Congress and other times when they sided with the President.  Many other Presidents have tried to use Executive Privilege both for legitimate reasons and to hide  possible malfeasance and in no other case has Congress said by trying to use Executive Privilege that was Obstruction of Justice and the President should be impeached. They have always gone to the Courts to decide the matter.  If they followed normal procedure and went to the Courts and the Courts ruled in favor of Congress and the President still did not allow the testimony or the documents to be released I would agree that is is Obstruction of Justice and an Impeachable offense without going to courts first and then having Trump ignore the courts  it is a specious claim.

There are good people on both sides of the aisle there is no doubt in my mind that there are Democrats who voted for impeachment did serious soul searching and believe there is enough evidence while I also believe there are some Democrats who voted for it for Political reasons only.  I also believe the same thing about the Republican side of the aisle there are some who voted against impeachment after doing serious soul searching and weighing the information and voted against it and some who voted against it for Political reasons only. 

This article is obviously written by somebody who thinks the Presidents case is weak ( I don't agree with some of the Author's viewpoints) but let's assume the Author is correct then why not go to the Court's and get a ruling the only thing lost is time.  As it stands now without more physical proof and as this has been an investigation where politics on both sides of the aisle will affect the verdict (Senate Republicans will acquit same as House Democrat's decided to impeach even before any evidence was presented)  without a Court ruling that Trump ignores Obstruction of Justice for doing what other President's have all done is a very weak case at best.

[bigbird 60,567]

15 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

As this article stated all Presidents have attempted to use Executive Privilege in the past. Sometimes Congress let it go other times they took it to court there have been cases where the courts sided with Congress and other times when they sided with the President.  Many other Presidents have tried to use Executive Privilege both for legitimate reasons and to hide  possible malfeasance and in no other case has Congress said by trying to use Executive Privilege that was Obstruction of Justice and the President should be impeached. They have always gone to the Courts to decide the matter.  If they followed normal procedure and went to the Courts and the Courts ruled in favor of Congress and the President still did not allow the testimony or the documents to be released I would agree that is is Obstruction of Justice and an Impeachable offense without going to courts first and then having Trump ignore the courts  it is a specious claim.

 

[TexasTiger 12,950]

16 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I agree with your basic statement the problem is we don't all see the same thing when we read the Constitution.  There are many who believe in strict interpretation of the Constitution based on what it says and what the people who wrote it said in letters and other documents and those who believe it is a living document that is supposed to be re-interpreted based on the times.  This argument has been ongoing for may generations. 

As this article stated all Presidents have attempted to use Executive Privilege in the past. Sometimes Congress let it go other times they took it to court there have been cases where the courts sided with Congress and other times when they sided with the President.  Many other Presidents have tried to use Executive Privilege both for legitimate reasons and to hide  possible malfeasance and in no other case has Congress said by trying to use Executive Privilege that was Obstruction of Justice and the President should be impeached. They have always gone to the Courts to decide the matter.  If they followed normal procedure and went to the Courts and the Courts ruled in favor of Congress and the President still did not allow the testimony or the documents to be released I would agree that is is Obstruction of Justice and an Impeachable offense without going to courts first and then having Trump ignore the courts  it is a specious claim.

There are good people on both sides of the aisle there is no doubt in my mind that there are Democrats who voted for impeachment did serious soul searching and believe there is enough evidence while I also believe there are some Democrats who voted for it for Political reasons only.  I also believe the same thing about the Republican side of the aisle there are some who voted against impeachment after doing serious soul searching and weighing the information and voted against it and some who voted against it for Political reasons only. 

This article is obviously written by somebody who thinks the Presidents case is weak ( I don't agree with some of the Author's viewpoints) but let's assume the Author is correct then why not go to the Court's and get a ruling the only thing lost is time.  As it stands now without more physical proof and as this has been an investigation where politics on both sides of the aisle will affect the verdict (Senate Republicans will acquit same as House Democrat's decided to impeach even before any evidence was presented)  without a Court ruling that Trump ignores Obstruction of Justice for doing what other President's have all done is a very weak case at best.

Then Republicans can reject the obstruction charge if that’s what they think and focus the various abuse of power elements. They’re using this as a distraction to the bigger issue.

[AuburnNTexas 7,152]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Then Republicans can reject the obstruction charge if that’s what they think and focus the various abuse of power elements. They’re using this as a distraction to the bigger issue.

They are both big issues as soon as the Democrats said it was an impeachable offense and then passed it as an impeachable offense they made it a big issue. So basically one of the two articles is not relevant.  Why would these learned men bring up this as an impeachable offense when they know almost every President has done the same thing. It smells of Politics.  I do believe each article should be judged on its own merits and abuse of Power is very subjective.

[TexasTiger 12,950]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

They are both big issues as soon as the Democrats said it was an impeachable offense and then passed it as an impeachable offense they made it a big issue. So basically one of the two articles is not relevant.  Why would these learned men bring up this as an impeachable offense when they know almost every President has done the same thing. It smells of Politics.  I do believe each article should be judged on its own merits and abuse of Power is very subjective.

There are arguments for the obstruction article. I disagree with you on how strong the arguments are against obstruction, but if someone holds that view vote accordingly— I will say before Trump there would have been overwhelming bipartisan support that the behavior he engaged in regarding Ukraine was impeachable abuse of power. To embrace Trump requires a continuing degradation of standards.

[DKW 86 7,428]

my biggest fear...

[autigeremt 6,644]

12 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

There are arguments for the obstruction article. I disagree with you on how strong the arguments are against obstruction, but if someone holds that view vote accordingly— I will say before Trump there would have been overwhelming bipartisan support that the behavior he engaged in regarding Ukraine was impeachable abuse of power. To embrace Trump requires a continuing degradation of standards.

The standards have been degrading for decades. Look at the last two primaries on both sides. Hell LBJ did worse than drump 

[TexasTiger 12,950]

3 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

The standards have been degrading for decades. Look at the last two primaries on both sides. Hell LBJ did worse than drump 

You’re gonna have to explain that to me.

[AuburnNTexas 7,152]

As I said earlier Abuse of Power is subjective. If a President does an Executive Order that overrides a law that is Abuse of Power. Many Presidents have done just that. Our last President Barrack Obama did the Executive Order for the Dreamers. By the way I agreed with what he was trying to do. That said the law was very clear Dreamers whether through any fault of their own or not were and are here illegally. The correct way to fix the issue is for Congress to amend the immigration laws and take Dreamers into consideration.  What Obama did with his Executive fiat was Abuse of Power but in no way shape or form was it impeachable. He was pushing the boundaries and eventually it would have reached the Supreme Court.  If the Supreme Court had ruled in his favor it would set a precedent for allowing the Executive Branch to legislate by Executive Order.  If it ruled against him it would have left the Dreamers as illegal and open to deportation which is flat out wrong. Obama was in a quandary as Congress has not done its job.  What is really sad is the Dreamers have been used as a bargaining tool by both sides. The House has been in Democratic hands for a year now and they still have not passed a standalone bill just for the Dreamers forcing the Republican hands.

The constitution was very clear on Separation of Powers between the three branches of Government.  Probably about two days after the Constitution was signed  each branch started trying to expand the scope of what that branch can do. Over the years the Power of the legislature has diminished as both the Courts and the Executive Branch has found unique ways to legislate

[TexasTiger 12,950]

On 12/23/2019 at 5:47 PM, AU64 said:

https://thepoliticalinsider.com/pleading-the-fifth-five-times-obama-officials-avoided-testifying-during-a-scandal/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fast-and-furious-eric-holder-held-in-contempt/2012/06/20/gJQAaEUArV_story.html

Some folks on this board have a poor memory.....might want to refresh by taking a look at these.

 

[DKW 86 7,428]

41 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

 

Actually the day SCOTUS said the subpoenas were valid, AND RMN failed to answer, was the day. Just like every other action between the three branches. It is checks and balances. It is historically shown and proved in literally hundreds of cases between the three branches. 

I have no clue why this is so hard. They are talking about throwing out the obstruction charge. If they had waited, DJT would have nowhere to turn if SCOTUS agreed with the HOR. 

 

[TexasTiger 12,950]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/doj-on-mcgahn-courts-have-no-role-in-fights-between-congress-white-house