The GOP Senators are the Cowards of the Country IMO!

Again the power of the House to conduct an impeachment investigation is absolute and exclusive. The judiciary has no role whatsoever. Regardless it was never challenged by the Executive. Obstruction of a constitutionally granted power is not a formal challenge, it’s simply obstruction. The Executive did not formally assert any constitutional or legal authority while obstructing the House.

I’m not going to go into a discussion with you on the powers of SCOTUS, it not only has nothing to do with this subject but it would be way over your head anyway. You don’t even understand this issue never mind an even more complex issue.

 

As an Independent, I find little to celebrate in either party today. Trump is the most corrupt, incompetent, and vulgar president in our history. We have had other corrupt presidents, but none have expressed a loathing for sixty percent of Americans and openly celebrated their hatred and corruption like Trump. If Trump has any redeeming value, it escapes me.

The Democrats look weak and indecisive. None of their current lineup of candidates is particularly attractive. If Buttigieg were fifteen years older and had achieved a rank of colonel (captain) or general he would easily........but that is not where we are. The top dog is a nearly eighty year-old Socialist. That does not impress Independents. To me, Bernie looks like he's representing a nation of dotting octogenarians, not an energetic, forward looking democracy.

It looks like Americans will be forced, once again, to choose between two worsts. If I had a solution to this morass we have created, I would shout it from the rooftops. I do not. Perhaps this is America's descent from the mountaintop never to return.

 

Only if you want to override executive privilege, which is the rule of the land, per SCOTUS, which blows the silly "obstruction of congress" charge out of the water, which was reaffirmed for the House Dems by the Senate

 

Very true. Both major parties put in a lot of effort, time, money and energy into getting their mantra of a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because he can't win. Actually 2016 provides a ray of hope. 6% of all Americans, 12% of independents did vote third party against both Trump and Clinton. Even though third party candidates had no money, no media attention, no way to get their message out, no name recognition, just a third name on the ballot. 9 million people voted third party against both.

Compare that 6% to 2012 when 1.5% voted third party, 2008 when 1.2% and 2004 when 1.0% did, That's a sizable increase. Perhaps it reflects the rise in independents from 30% in 2006 up to 40% plus today as the two major parties shrink.

 

But I suppose the latter part of the sentence is supported by facts?

 

Only a fool looks to politicians for truth or moral guidance. Washington DC is a cesspool of moral turpitude.

 

I agree. A choice of the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate, the candidate one wants to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. At least among the top tier of Democratic candidates. I know I won't be voting for Trump, but that doesn't mean I'm an automatic vote for the Democrats either. That depends on their candidate, who they nominate. Chances are, I'll vote third party against both once again.

I had hoped for a fresh young face to emerge, not some tired old hat establishment liberals, 70 plus years from the northeast. Perhaps Buttigieg is that candidate. Or at least the least worst candidate when compared to the tired old foggies from the northeast. I'm also not too fond of the ex-Republican Bloomberg with all his billions. But we'll see. The time for making a decision is still a long way away.

 

I’m not playing with words. The Bill of Rights is written in plain English. It does NOT contain our rights. It contains clauses that protect rights from government and others.

Rights were not invented 200 years ago.

 

At last we agree on something. Well said.

 

You are not making any sense. Executive Privilege was never used to challenge the power of the House to conduct an impeachment investigation so it’s a non sequitur.

 

A fresh young face HAS emerged, but the media keeps her on the margins and in the shadows. Not just a fresh young face, but a principled individual. Principled enough to resign from the DNC because of its dishonest interference in the last cycle.

Tulsi Gabbard.

 

If we did not have the Bill of Rights, those rights would not exist today.

 

It doesnt have to be challenged by the defendant.
The House had zero power to override executive privilege, and its demands meaningless until it sought an order to grant it the power to do so.
Therefore no obstruction.
One cannot obstruct something that doesn't exist.

 

Oh man you really have no clue. Rights have existed since man existed. They didn’t all of sudden come into existence because of a piece of paper. That’s why I suggested you read the Declaration of Independence so you can brush up on the concept of rights.

 

Tell that to the Jews who lived under Hitler. Or the blacks who were slaves. Our rights are guaranteed and that is what counts at this point.

Rights might have existed in concept, but not in reality.

 

They would exist but likely be denied by the state at the point of a gun

 

Your rights enumerated in the 4th Amendment were rendered null and void by your elected representatives when they passed the USA Patriot Act.

A really nice and fancy name meant to trick, but an illegitimate act.

 

Correct. It has never been used in that way. That is why such disputes are handled by the courts. We still don't have the answer because nobody settled it. At the moment using executive privilege in such a way is appropriate because Trump was acquitted on the article of impeachment. Future presidents can claim that as a precedent. At some point it will need judicial review.

 

The President has no power to challenge the House’s constitutionally granted power to impeach. But even if he did he still would have to formally assert some legitimate legal authority to challenge a constitutionally granted power. He did no such thing and what he did was commit obstruction, plain and simple.

 

Whatever. My point remains the same.

 

The president cannot challenge the power to impeach. However, the power to impeach does not provide the house with unlimited power. There is also nothing in the Constitution which requires the president to declare anything. It was already there.

 

Both my parents were Holocaust survivors so I’m fully aware of the concept of violation of human rights. Whether rights are “guaranteed” or not is irrelevant. They exist regardless. The Bill of Rights protects rights, it does not grant them. Rights can be and often are abrogated but that does not mean they don’t exist unless a piece of paper says they do.

 

He doesn't have to challenge their overriding of executive privilege, because it doesn't exist.
He simply can do nothing, as he did.

The House would have to seek a judicial order to instate their power to override executive privilege.

 

What do you call the people who keep getting their asses kicked by the cowards of the country?

 

To me, it is much more than just a "piece of paper". I swore to defend and uphold he Constitution and that makes it much more than just a piece of paper.