Senate Trial of Impeachment Articles to Start

Most definitely not 100% exoneration.

 

Knock yourself out... that's such a confused mishmash of arguments, it sounds like exactly what the Trump team will try to do..

As to the bold, you ARE aware of the current DOJ argument in the McGahn appeal, right?? That the judiciary branch has NO role in fights between Executive and Legislative....

So I imagine a Trump lawyer making your case above will draw out loud laughter from aware Senators...

 

They can object to a witness or evidence and tell the prosecutor to get the judge to make a ruling. It's as analogous as what you and your side are preaching. The Democrats could have gone to court the challenge it and let the court decide. Their problem was they feared the court would rule, once again, that executive privilege exist and does not go away in an impeachment. And again spare me the "if you are innocent then you should give up your rights" canard. This is about the PRESIDENCY and future PRESIDENCIES and established separation of powers and executive privilege.

 

What a scary thought!

Astrud Gilberto for me

 

99.99%, perhaps?

 

I'll ask you the same question I asked in #277

Are YOU aware of the current DOJ argument in the McGahn appeal, right?? That the judiciary branch has NO role in fights between Executive and Legislative....

 

Why don't you post the clip were he came back from the break and retracted that statement and said it was all presumption. You KNOW that exist and occurred. So why did you leave out that. What is that called a "lie of omission"?

Sondland’s ‘bombshell’ turns out to be merely his ‘presumption’

...Yet Sondland noted that “we did not think we were engaging in improper behavior” — that no one expressed any concerns. And he admitted that Trump never told him of any “preconditions” for aid or a meeting.

Asked outright, “No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”, he answered, “Yes.”

The followup: “So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland’s answer: “Other than my own presumption.”

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.”

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

 

There's nothing mishashed about it. The House has refused to use the Court system for the most part with regards to subpoenas. And because they sent the impeachment articles over, as the DOJ has argued, they no longer have jurdisiction. Technically speaking, Article 2 is now void of factual basis.

 

Once again, Trump is not exerting executive privilege. He is exerting Absolute Immunity.

 

Sure and the judiciary has routinely rule on executive privilege and conflicts between the Executive and Legislative. If it is so important they can request an expedited hearing, they fact is they have little legal or constitutional or precedent standing.

 

I am intimately familiar with his testimony, including that portion. It is definitely not 100% exoneration. Trump's denial came after he knew about the existence of the Whistleblower complaint. And Sondland's presumption is explicitly relevant and damning because Sondland was in a crucial position to make a conclusion based on his rational perception of the evidence.

 

It's not remotely analogous to a real criminal trial.

Defendants in a criminal trial done't get to withhold witnesses or evidence. They don't get to make facially ridiculous arguments to stall and delay, forcing the prosecution to commence separate legal proceedings to enforce their right to testimony and documentary evidence. Defendants in a criminal trial aren't permitted to bully the jurors politically and aren't permitted to fix the outcome by working directly with the jurors.

BTW, does a defendant in a real trial get to have the rigged jury pool overturn any of the presiding judge's rulings?

Pull your head out. The situations are not remotely alike.

 

And where I do agree with the court ruling, is that there's no such thing as Absolute Immunity. If there were, then we wouldn't even have an impeachment clause(no matter how much I think it's being abused right now.) Hence, I'm basing my pro-Trump defense on Executive privilege, as well as the relevant Grand Jury Material possessions. The fact is, no lower court should be able to touch those. As was ruled by a higher court in a 2019 case.

 

Until the first time somebody asks why the House didn't depose John Bolton, which I suspect will come relatively quickly...

 

Sure, sure, sure . . . believe whatever you are told. That's the ticket.

 

Even when you ask that question, it illustrates the point: The guilt lies, not with the defendant(Trump) but with a prosecution that refused to follow steps. Even with the recent arguments that the court historically has not had standing relevant to the issues relevant at trial, it still did not preclude the Democrats from bringing such a case to a court to be heard.

Article II is laughably deficient, both on the facts and on the merit. Hence I moved for a dismissal of Article II. We can and will argue Article I until we're blue in the face.

 

They decided it was so important that they could skip the legal time-consuming potential remedy and go right to the appropriate political decision...

 

Then you don't understand direct evidence. You should take "legal" out of your username.

100% Exonerated.

 

When Congress subpoenas someone in the executive branch and the EB claims executive privilege and refuses to allow that someone to testify, where does Congress go to enforce its subpoena?

 

According to the Trump DOJ??

The Executive Branch....

 

As usual, your response does not address the question put to you.

 

Yes, it completely does... I'll clarify.

You - where does Congress go to enforce its subpoena?

Trump DOJ - “the court should not be refereeing whether the President or Congress is acting inappropriately,” and contended that the court should rule against Congress by deciding that the House had no right to sue.

Leaving exactly WHO to "enforce its subpoena"??

 

I didn't ask the DOJ, I asked you.
Feel free to try again.

 

I feel Congress should go to the courts ONCE, as they did. However, McGahn should have gone directly to the SCOTUS where a ruling binding to all would say that ALL witness subpoenaed must appear. Lower courts have certainly said that and the SCOTUS eventually will as well.

However, the Trump DOJ clearly disagrees with the precedent of using the courts to settle subpoena power...

 

Not only did you fail to provide any evidence to support your claim that Obama earned $40 million in office, but you obviously didn't look for any - because no such evidence exists.

Clearly you are the one who just believes what you're told.

The actual figure of $10.8 million is calculated from Obama's tax returns, summarized in the article I linked to. You can view the actual tax returns here:
https://www.taxnotes.com/presidential-tax-returns

Scroll down and tick "president" to filter, or enter "obama" in the search box.