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

YES! BECAUSE NOT SHOWING UP IS FAILURE TO ASSERT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

 

Enjoy yawning for weeks then.

 

That's correct. It is an assertion of ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.

 

No.

Contempt of Congress by an airline is not the same as Contempt of Congress to an equal and separate branch of government.

Surely you recognize how poor that argument is.

The only precedent is a 200 year history of the Executive Branch NOT complying with Congress and not getting impeached for it.....because it's not impeachable.

Your one case of a) generalized privilege and b) criminal trial takes precedence while simultaneously indicating that c) There may be valid cases of executive privilege EVEN in criminal trials while d) pointing out that the party seeking documents MUST make a "sufficient showing"....

But sure.

 

That will be smiling and laughing mostly.

 

Go tell it to the courts.

 

You must be confused.

The POTUS invokes executive privilege. Not the employee.

 

One can prove a case, while knowing that the material within the individuals knowledge can make the case stronger.

That they decided not too is simply a bad decision on their parts, but an understandable one considering the time-constraints of the situation.

That said, to me, the 'obstruction' article is the lesser of the two anyway.

Nice way to deflect from having to accept the principle of the point debated.

 

I'm hoping that ciaramella's depo that "full of schiff" refuses to release will be read into the record. The rumor is that ciaramella admits he met with, and conspired with "full of schiff" to get Trump along with the ICIG who changed the reporting document to include hearsay.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE, read the leaker's testimony into the record.

 

Ciaramella has not given a deposition.

 

Merry Impeachmas!

 

Yeah and they really, really tried and just couldn't do it.

 

I am not confused. POTUS can invoke executive privilege, or the executive employees can invoke executive privilege on behalf of the POTUS, and it must be done so in response to specific questions.

 

We are and then Trump told the courts that the courts can never intervene.

 

Yeah that worked out great for those WaPo idiots huh?

See, here's the thing: no one cares that you're impeaching him.

We'll get hats and tshirts celebrating the only impeached POTUS to get re-elected and laugh at leftists while doing it.

 

Clearly you are confused since executive employees can't invoke anything.

 

Sure he did.

 

Trump most certainly cares, so that is just some hardcore bullshit.

 

No no no.

They actually drafted an article of impeachment that said Trump was obstructing them without even attempting to "make a sufficient showing".

There is an article of impeachment for the Executive telling the Legislative "no".

You may want to review "bicameral" rulings while you're at it, since he only "obstructed" the House in this article of impeachment.

Good luck with this train wreck of an argument.

You should review the Nixon ruling. It lays out why the 2nd article is actually the "stronger" of the two.....I mean in the context of if it was possible to multiply by zero.

Review "foreign policy" and "national security" in the Nixon findings for some hints.

 

I'm sure he does care in that he is very thankful Democrats did something so stupid.

He'll sign USMCA and Nancy can hand out gold pens or something.

 

He did.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckr...o-role-in-fights-between-congress-white-house

In the McGahn case, the DOJ has asserted that Congress lacks “standing,” that is the basis to be heard at all in court, in order to enforce its impeachment-related subpoenas for testimony. The DOJ’s extreme position is of a piece with a speech Attorney General Barr gave in November before the right-wing Federalist Society, in which he argued that courts should simply refuse to decide many disputes between Congress and the president. Soon thereafter, during a hearing in the grand jury case, Judge Neomi Rao—a former Trump administration official—expressed sympathy with Barr’s argument.

In a filing on Monday, the DOJ doubled down on that position, asserting, among other things, that, because Congress impeached Trump in part for his categorical refusal of virtually all of Congress’ demands for testimony, it would be improper for the courts to issue a decision on whether any part of his stonewalling is illegal.

 

Pro-tip: The House of Representatives does not constitute Congress.

The House and the Senate are bicameral parts of the whole.

This is why the House Democrats will lose.

You're welcome for the sneak peek.

 

At nearly every public hearing involving an executive employee, when asked about conversations between them and Trump, they responded by saying something to the effect of, "I am not going to discuss private conversations with the President because he may assert executive privilege."

 

Thanks, but you are definitely wrong.

 

Thanks for proving my point.