is it fair for the jan 6 committee to subpoena a senior advisor to the president?

Nowhere? It's the legal basis, batshyte crazy though it may be, Trump and the minions relied on for the coup attempt.

 

In politics, perceptions if everything. Facts, truths, lies, falsehoods, whatever does not matter. It's what the public perceives to be the case or the truth or fact. The public, in this case 58% view the 1-6 committee biased, prone to reaching a pre-determined decision or final report.

Democrats will believe the finding of the committee, Republicans won't, I'd wager to say a majority of independents don't care or think the committe is biased and the investigation is only to gain a political advantage. Independents aren't political junkies like those on this site. They pay little to no attention to politics between elections. Even election time, most are just casual observors or fans. They go their perceptions, they don't dig into the issue or for the facts, just how they feel or heard or seen someone on TV talking about it.

Perception is everything in politics. The perception out there is the committee is biased. You can like the numbers or not, up to you, but whether you like them, don't like them, make up a ton of excuses or present facts why it isn't so, that won't change the perception that the committee is biased to a good majority of Americans. Why, they don't care, they just think and perceive.

 

You might enjoy reading this. https://www.thebulwark.com/the-limitations-of-norm-talk/

 

They just don't think and perceive instead.

 

Always good well thought opinion shared there!

 

It's reality. Ignore perception in politics and you do so at your own peril. Ignoring the public perception or view of things, the situation will in most instances cause an election defeat.

 

The Bullwark seems to exist for only one purpose, bashing Trump. It, like CNN, deserves to die a slow death.

 

It provides an outlet for traditional conservatives to air their views. The subject matter goes well beyond the Orange Insurrectionist.
https://www.thebulwark.com/bulwark-originals/

 

If you have something to say then say it.

 

The United States Constitution disqualifies certain people from becoming President.

"Trump’s new lead lawyer, David Schoen, ... Schoen contends that barring Trump from running again is “about as undemocratic [as] you can get, a slap in the face to the 75 million people who voted for Donald Trump.” It is very much not that. It is enforcing one of several rules in the Constitution that preclude certain people from running for and becoming president, regardless of what voters may want.

Indeed, many of the Constitution’s limits on presidential power were designed to protect against popular demagogues. As Alexander Hamilton explained in “Federalist No. 1,” “Of those men who have overturned the liberties of Republics, the greatest number have begun their careers by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”

the Constitution adds a category of people who cannot be elected as a result of their misdeeds. ...

Beyond being, in constitutional terms, an expressly available remedy, disqualification is an essential deterrent against a president who contemplates serious misconduct near the end of a term. The Framers knew that great power—and the desire to retain such power—often corrupts. As Elbridge Gerry told the Constitutional Convention, “A bad [president] ought to be kept in fear of” the impeachment process. A crucial part of that fear is potential disqualification. This is because disqualification of a president constitutes, as Hamilton wrote in “Federalist No. 65,” “a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honours and emoluments of his country.” Any president would want to avoid that fate.

... One can only imagine what Trump would have done if the Senate did not have the option to convict him or disqualify him from running in 2024."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/trump-disqualification-president/617908/

IF Benedict Donald is convicted of any of the many crimes he's currently accused of then, legitimately, he would be disqualified from running for Public Office.

 

Yes he was a legal adviser and he wrote a legal brief, a memo to his client, about one way a legal challenge could possibly be made. It went no where as did the same types of challenges the Dems make in the previous 3 elections as have been well documented.

 

Yes, Presidents have executive privilege's over such Congressional incursion into the Executive branch, something that maintains the manner in which our government is organized and the separation of powers. The President neither works for or reports to the Congress nor does the President's staff. And spare about the filibuster and democracy, we are not a democracy and the filibuster has served us well for all these decades before the radical leftist have taken over the Congress. We are a federal republic with the STATES having say so in it.

 

No more than any other time in history

Jan 6 committee

That's not stacking

No it doesn't.

Nope breaking all norms for partisan political purposes.

 

He choose to challenge the results of elections has been done since we have had elections. He choose to have some members of Congress challenge electors has has happened throughout out history and in particular by Dems the three elections before illustrated by the 11 challenges to Trump electors as I have already cited.

 

Eastman lost his case. He lawyer conceding he met with Trump and Pence Jan 3, was at the Willard Jan 6 and his client for all of his activity was the former President. Chapman U turned over the emails on their server with the disclaimer
Eastman’s use of it was unauthorized. They’re meeting Friday to go over privilege claims on the emails. The committee will likely end up with all of the communication. The Jan 3 admission was the big one because OLC opinion preceded it. The old, “what did the President know and when did he know it”.

 

You could have just said that you favor kangaroo investigations to get rid of someone you don't like from becoming president, to hell with what the voters want. AKA you want to take democracy away from the voters so they can't vote for who they want.

 

.........based on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud even after recounts had been done. Not because the count was close enough to call for an automatic recount which is when legit challenges are made.

 

I suppose.

Maybe it's that I'm just getting a little tired of political discussions. I'll spend less time here and more time rereading P.D. James novels.

 

You have perfectly described what Trump and his minions did.

 

Good choice, she's great.

 

Ummmm, no. I have perfectly described what you are currently trying to do right now. Are you saying that if Trump can undermine our democracy that you can too? Is that what you're saying, because I thought you guys were against vote suppression? Now you are trying to suppress Trump's voters so they can't vote for him, overriding the will of the voters and democracy itself. Are you really that afraid that you think Trump could win again so you have to suppress the will of the voters, overriding democracy?

 

100% unadulterated horse twaddle.

Public perception has a bearing on elections, but not congressional duties.

Deal with it.

 

So what. most challenges that fail do so because they could not prove their claims DUH. Has Stacy Abrams ever proved hers?

 

YES it went no where. What did he know about what? And Chapman fired him because he was a Trump supporter and spoke out for Trump.

 

Stats prove otherwise

Obviously, you do not know what constitutes evidence, and what does not.
That is not evidence. That is circular logic. It would be like trying to prove
"God wrote the bible" by asserting that the Bible says so.

Who cares what it is, and whatever it is, it is wrong given the fact that a 6/3 court does not reflect America. Dems have a right to right this wrong. If you want to argue there is no such thing as a 'Republican' or 'Democrat' justice.
Fine, but there is such a thing as 'judicial philosophy' favored by each party, especially right picking selections by the Federalists society, a JP which is distinctly different than the judicial philosophies of justices any dem would select.

So the counter argument is crap.

Yes, it most certainly does, per the elections clause of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-i/clauses/750
Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (“preempt”) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed. The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.

Naturally you'd hold that view, you can only see the world through your right wing partisan lens.