Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate

[Flash]

ridiculous. you don't answer a subpoena by 'turning over documents' while contesting the subpoena thru the courts

You cannot delay obeying a subpoena unless the courts block that action.

If I am convicted for a crime I cannot delay my sentence until my appeal is completed. If I appeal a judges pre-trial ruling I cannot delay the trial and sentence until the appeal is complete.

When the House issues a legal subpoena (which the courts have already established the congressional power to subpoena) that order must be obeyed.

 

[Into the Night]

"Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate"

Then he signals his own guilt.

Negative proof fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Impeachment is an unintendedly political form of justice, the method by which it is ensured that even the President is not above the law.

Neither is the House. Neither is Queen Nancy.

The President cannot be allowed to have the power to quash impeachment, or impeachment is powerless.

He hasn't.

Impeachment was not included in the Constitution to be meaningless.

Tell Queen Nancy. Until yesterday, she's the one that was making it meaningless.

For impeachment to function as intended, the elected officials of the Congress must honor their oaths of office, something the Republicans have, to date, failed to do.

Lie.

Republicans never even once considered that Trump might be guilty.

Of what? There is no crime listed.

Instead, they assumed he was innocent,

Of what? There is no crime listed.

and came to his defense, refused to consider the evidence.

What evidence? There is no crime listed.

Their Constitutional duty is not to defend the President.

In this case, it is. They are bound to uphold Article II, $4 of Constitution. They are also bound to uphold the 5th and 6th amendments.

That was pure partisanship.

Nope. They are performing their duty.

It is the Republicans who are treating this as a partisan political function, and the Democrats who are fulfilling their oaths of office, doing their sworn duty.

No.

Queen Nancy decided to overrule the votes of her own house and not impeach (until yesterday).
Queen Nancy and the other democrats tried to control the Presidency.
Queen Nancy is trying to control the Senate.
The Democrats created articles of impeachment that contain no crime, in violation of the Constitution.
The Democrats attempted to usurp the power of subpoena, in violation of the Constitution.
The Democrats attempted to cause the accused to testify against himself, in violation of the Constitution.

Get a clue.

 

[Into the Night]

Appealing is not an offense, refusing to turn documents over is the offense.

Not an offense. The House does not have that authority.

The courts do not even have to hear the case.

Yes they do. Only courts have the power of subpoena (or the Senate, when sitting in trial).

The Senate can continue with the trial with available evidence.

They might, but they don't have to hold a trial at all.

 

[Into the Night]

Agreed. And since the Constitution specifically grants the impeachment power to Congress there is no violation of the separation of powers.

Yes there has.

Queen Nancy attempted to control the Presidency.
Queen Nancy is now attempting to control the Senate.

 

[Into the Night]

They obviously had enough to impeach since it already occurred.

What crime?

I couldn't find anything in the Constitution that required a "filing" before the impeachment occurred.

Impeachment IS the filing, dumbass.

It only requires a majority vote as does the House rules and procedures.

The House voted to file an impeachment. Queen Nancy ignored the votes of her own house (until yesterday).

 

[Into the Night]

But not against the law since it is obviously constitutional. A veto does not "obstruct" Congress in any manner.

Yes it does. It prevents their bills from becoming law, as intended.

Both houses would have conducted their legislative business and passed the bill. Nothing says that bill has to become law.

The purpose of passing a bill is to make it a law, dumbass.

 

[Flash]

The House does not have that authority.

The House has been issuing subpoenas for 200+ years. It is considered an inherent power like the president's power to make foreign policy (which is not included in the Constitution).

 

[Into the Night]

The Supreme Court appeal is for the president's financial records, not government documents/witnesses. The subpoena for McGahn was appealed but it was from the House which is now moot.

The House does not have power of subpoena.

 

[Into the Night]

The House has been issuing subpoenas for 200+ years. It is considered an inherent power like the president's power to make foreign policy (which is not included in the Constitution).

No, they haven't. Argument from randU fallacy.
The President does have power to make treaties (with the consent of the Senate). That IS foreign policy, dumbass. See Article II, $2.

 

[Flash]

Yes it does. It prevents their bills from becoming law, as intended.

Exactly, constitutional checks are not illegal attempts to block or hinder a congressional proceeding like refusing subpoenas.

You fail to make the simple distinction between a constitutional check and an illegal obstruction.

 

[Nordberg]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

 

[Teflon Don]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

I am very comfortable with Trump following the precedent of Obama

 

[Southern Chicken]

You cannot delay obeying a subpoena unless the courts block that action.

If I am convicted for a crime I cannot delay my sentence until my appeal is completed. If I appeal a judges pre-trial ruling I cannot delay the trial and sentence until the appeal is complete.

When the House issues a legal subpoena (which the courts have already established the congressional power to subpoena) that order must be obeyed.

I applaud Your remarkable attempt at comparing criminal trial to legislative hearings as if they are the same thing. However, They are different..... Now on to your last sentence-" When the House issues a legal subpoena "(stop there) The legality of the power of the Congressional subpoena is what the executive branch is challenging. The courts will be the the branch that interprets that and not the House. The executive branch has every right to wait on the Judicial review before action. At its most basic, executive privilege is the proposition that certain confidential or sensitive communications within the executive branch are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure to the executive’s coequal branches.

 

[Southern Chicken]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

Nonsense

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly, constitutional checks are not illegal attempts to block or hinder a congressional proceeding like refusing subpoenas.

You fail to make the simple distinction between a constitutional check and an illegal obstruction.

No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

Negative proof fallacy.

 

[Flash]

The legality of the power of the Congressional subpoena is what the executive branch is challenging. The courts will be the the branch that interprets that and not the House. The executive branch has every right to wait on the Judicial review before action. At its most basic, executive privilege is the proposition that certain confidential or sensitive communications within the executive branch are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure to the executive’s coequal branches.

I was not trying to make impeachment and criminal trials similar--they are very different. I was talking about subpoenas.

The courts have long established the power of Congress to subpoena meaning they don't have to stop and wait for the courts before carrying on their investigation unless the courts order them to stop. The courts have also ruled executive privilege cannot be used to protect criminal activities.

Sometimes the courts block these attempts and sometimes they do not.

Appeals court refuses to block House subpoena for Trump's Financial Records
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...lock-house-subpoena-trumps-financial-records/

Supreme Court stops House subpoena for Trump financial Records
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congr...ps-house-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records

 

[Flash]

No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.

There is a big difference between an illegal obstruction and a constitutional power.

 

[Flash]

Republicans never even once considered that Trump might be guilty. Instead, they assumed he was innocent, and came to his defense, refused to consider the evidence.

Isn't that what they are supposed to do until enough evidence convinced them he should be impeached?