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

Says the people who brought you the Russian Collusion Hoax, the "Justice for Juicy" campaign, showed us Kavanaugh's yearbook, and the "Clinton is a lock" predictions.

 

That's irrelevant.

 

Look at that. How did I miss that one.

Tell me more about the "time constraints" argument.

It's certainly easier when you can find people guilty without bothering the courts, but I'd love to hear why you think there were "time constraints".

 

Not a deflection when your argument is "we don't need to go to the courts".

 

I'm all ears. Please explain how you think what you quoted affects the ruling itself.

Still can't find a ruling overturning the one I gave you I see.

 

Oh no! The disparagers have become the disparaged! It is refreshing to see the left take a sudden interest in opposing abuse of power.

 

Those witnesses refused to answer the specific questions on the grounds of executive privilege. Glad I helped you to understand.

 

so what court decides as a lawyer you should understand this ?

 

And if you think trump is truly interested in cleaning up and/or punishing corruption, I have a wonderful bridge to sell you. If you think his intentions were ANYTHING other than to smear the bidens, I'll sell you that bridge for 50% off.

 

That only applies to democrat presidents. Everyone knows that!

 

Read the Court's Opinion and quote it. I have. Cut out the middle man, quote from the source. It doesn't read the way your cutandpasta synopsis suggests.

 

WTF does this have to do with a criminal trial? Nobody is trying to put trump behind bars (for this). This is more akin to firing someone who is abusing their authority and misusing company assets. Happens all the time - no criminal trial needed.

 

Yet, still zero evidence and now Schiff for brains wants a do-over in the Senate for his 'solid' evidence he already has.

 

I don't care. Really. I'm not a lawyer and I don't find delving into legal minutia to be interesting. What I do believe is that trump acted in a manner to benefit himself personally using USA assets as leverage. I think it's not debatable really. Is that impeachable? I hope so, it certainly seems like it should be to a layman like me.

 

Yes, and as I said, the 'obstruction' article is the weaker of the two and not really the important one IMO. And I have reviewed those things. Thanks.

That's the political component. Nancy knows that running the impeachment inquiry closer to the election means 3 potential candidates might have lost time campaigning. Waiting for the courts to rule on the subpoenas would have / could have run into the summer which would really screw up the campaign. It was a political calculation. Not a legal one.

I never made that argument, and Neither was Legal in this regard. His argument was that to assert EP, you have to literally assert EP to individual questions asked. It's not like the filibuster where you can simply threaten it, and use it as a blanket over anyone and everyone over anything and everything.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/683

 

That’s the dem clown show narrative with zero proof.

 

Not if Biden is guilty.

 

Zero proof? Are you insane? You have enough proof to come to my conclusion by the presidents own words. g.t.f.o.h!

 

Bullshit. Corruption was rampant in Ukraine during the time in question, even by other Americans. Where are the cries to investigate other parties? Where are the cries for our DOJ to investigate? If one can honestly come to the conclusion that trump was really interested in punishing corruption and not playing a card to benefit himself politically then I can only come to the conclusion that such a person is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid.

 

Both of them are equally weak.

Congress is a bicameral chamber. Does the Senate concur that the POTUS is obstructing Congress?

Nothing says "obstructing Congress" like when the House is bipartisan AGAINST impeachment on that point.

Sure. That's why she didn't do it in the House where it would not have affected any of the Senators running for office.

Instead, she sat on the impeachment articles over a month after passing them so she WOULDN'T interfere in the only time it could actually affect the senators: during a trial.

No, there is nothing that says EP must be at the individual question level. That's ridiculous.

 

False.

They refused to answer them because:

a. The POTUS may invoke EP
b. The employees in question do not work for the Legislative branch
c. All requests for Executive material must be approved by the POTUS

In effect, the response was "talk to my boss".

Glad we could get that cleared up.

 

Maybe you could list all of the ongoing and past cases the DoJ had/has involving Ukranian corruption.

Maybe we could look into having the POTUS draft up a treaty with Ukraine to address corruption issues more easil.....

Oh wait. We've had that since the 1990's. Never mind.

 

...what?

 

Did you have a point? How does this incoherent drivel apply to what I posted?

 

Subpoenas from Congress do not require support from the Senate to be legally binding, nor is the vice versa the case.

That is explicitly part of the ruling from Judge Jackson in the Don McGahn case.