‘Garbage Dressed Up as Legal Argument’: Lawyers, Law Profs ‘Baffled’ by Trial Memo’s Defense of Trum

Good for Democrats. Otherwise, there would be never have been an impeachment. of Trump. "You are guilty of a nothing burger, Bad Orange Man! We impeach you! You are hereby forever impeached!"

Now, let's hand out pens.

 

So what?

Once again because you seemed to have missed it

"The Court held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality."

"materials" don't have to be written down. They can be inside peoples heads.

 

Aw, don't worry.

The criminal trial against Donald Trump will come soon enough.

 

In my defense, I have a rational mind that would be embarrassed by submitting something to impeach, losing 3 democrats in the process for:

1. Abuse of power into investigation of potential corruption in an area of enumerated powers that contain: ensuring laws are executed and foreign policy
2. An article that suggests the Executive obstructed Congress when a. Separation of powers and b. Zero effort to adjudicate through the courts like the previous 200 years because "it would take too long".

But sure, be my guest.

Oh and btw, thanks for throwing us in the briar patch.

 

Yeah "so what". I mean holding an airline in contempt is basically the same as holding a separate branch of government in contempt. I mean how is that not obvious.

Yeah. A criminal trial. Congrats, you found and are using the ONE exemption for a CRIMINAL proceeding to decide that it's the same as not even going to court to find out if it applies....is impeachable.

Great argument.

 

Would you like the town crier w/scroll option I asked about earlier?

 

I don't need to. The supreme court ruled on this, as I pointed out. Your position stands refuted, unless you can show a supreme court ruling, or amendment, which overrides the case I gave you. Good luck.

 

Full speed ahead then. Good luck!

 

Yes because every case of Executive privilege looks like this one.

Oh wait. No. This is the only one that looks like this.

 

Minus the helmet.

 

That talking point still reeks of desperation.

 

Contempt is contempt. You don't follow the rules of the body in which you are legally required to do so, you spend some time in detention. Very obvious to everyone else.

you asked, I answered. I can't help it if you suddenly now want to dismiss precedent.
And no, I would have preferred that Nancy push the subpoenas to the courts, but after watching the slow crawl McGahn has gone, I'm not surprised she preferred to not wait until everyone was either re-elected or gone from the system entirely to proceed.

That said, EP isn't a blanket security as the SCOTUS has already said. Whether you like that or not.

 

You can not assert Executive Privilege by ordering all current and former employees to refuse to comply with Congressional Subpoenas.

Proof: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/25/7827...n-must-testify-delivering-blow-to-white-house

 

That is because this is not an assertion of executive privilege.

 

"Individual One" does not appreciate you wishing us good luck.

 

So you can't provide a case that overturned the ruling in the one I cited. Thank you. I accept your concession.

 

And yet there are cases of the POTUS refusing to abide by Congressional requests dating back to George Washington.

Even in the Nixon case, the court only ruled against executive privilege for two reasons: 1. Nixon only indicated a "general privilege" and 2. It was a criminal proceeding:

The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the president as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns

Did the House make a "sufficient showing" that the material was "essential to the justice of the case", or did they just ignore the court's findings and impeach him for it anyway?

 

The very case you provided undermines your own assertions:

The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns

 

So do you not understand what you just quoted? Or do you somehow think this is in any way a rebuttal?

Still haven't found a ruling which overturned the one I gave you I see.

 

Sure. The POTUS telling executive branch officials not to testify regarding executive functions isn't an assertion of executive privilege.

I'll check into town crier availability.

 

I can explain it to you if you're having a hard time. Won't help though.

 

You should read harder.

The court didn't rule that McGahn had to testify.

It only ruled that he had to show up.

 

Heh. Sounds like the articles of impeachment...

 

Yeah.

We're the ones desperately impeaching a POTUS that has zero bi-partisan support, lost Democrats in the process, and has no hope of actually succeeding.

I couldn't be yawning harder than I am right now.

 

Factoid: The partisan bogus articles are not alleging that Trump committed a crime.