The McConnell Rule

No one is asking the judge to do that.

The GOP Senate is refusing to allow new evidence PRESENTED by the House managers (the prosecution)

 

The refusal is sufficient. Irregardless, all they have to do is go to court to get it resolved. Whether they have to declare it or not, the procedure is the same.

 

Nonsense

From wiki

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] 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".

It has to be officially INVOKED...not just threatened

 

That's your opinion and it comes from malice and can therefore be discounted.

 

And your OPINION comes from unquestioning support of the Orange Fool so...

 

That was the Biden Rule. Mandatory for Democrat Administrations, optional for Republican Administrations.

 

Don't have unquestioning support do have a need for things to be done where they are supposed to be done not trying to force some one else to do your dirty work for you.

 

You forget that we have seen your posts for years.

Unquestioning support for the Orange Fool time and time again

 

There never WAS a "Biden Rule". It was a construct made up by the hyper partisan Moscow Mitch

 

Nope lots of question for Dems on their often manifestly ridiculous charges, most of which have been supported by leftists not because there is anything factual about them but because they were desperate for something, anything to erase DJ Trump and his threat to their sense of inevitability from their memory banks.

 

Nothing beats a video for proof.
https://nyti.ms/2jRrM37

 

"Go get it?" What the hell does that mean? How is the evidence to be gotten while Trump is obstructing its release?

One piece of evidence is there for the taking, without the need for judicial intervention. Bolton's testimony. I'm sure you must be in favor of subpoenaing it, right?

 

There's another McTreason rule. Limit media coverage as much as possible.

Senator blasts ‘draconian’ restrictions on journalists covering impeachment trial
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/21/martin-heinrich-impeachment-trial/

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) on Tuesday voiced his “extreme concern and discomfort” about restrictions placed on members of the press covering the impeachment trial of President Trump, which reporters say has already inhibited their ability to question senators.

In the letter addressed to Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger, who imposed the new security requirements, Heinrich said, “to place limitations on the press is to place limitations on the American people’s ability to learn about the character and conduct of their elected leaders.”

 

However, it said "when invoked" not that it has to be invoked. The executive and legislative branch are co-equal. Th executive branch is not at the beck and call of the legislative branch, even during impeachment. Impeachment does not negate the rest of the constitution. But like I said, it make little difference, in either case, the decision goes to the court.

 

Executive privilege is not even In the Constitution

Have you ever read it?

 

Of course he hasn't. He's taking his cues from the nonsense arguments being put forth by Dershowitz and that moronic couple on Faux who pretend to be attorneys.

 

Separate, but equal is in the Constitution. Have you even read it?

 

Trump, the most corrupt president that we have ever had, was looking for corruption when he was caught in a corrupt act. What a coincidence.

And you do know that Lev Parnas and his friend Igor were arrested for funneling Russian money into Trump’s and other Republican’s campaigns.

 

I think that Dershowitz is a bit of a fraud, as to his expertise. He seems to be one of those defense lawyers who will say the most untruthful things to get his client off. His insincerity is quite obvious as he keeps insisting that he votes for Democrats and then turns around and argues for the Republican position. And his “opinion” shifts to meet the situation at hand.

It is kind of insane, to argue that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. It is as if he is arguing that abuse of power is within the right of the powerful. And with impunity.

 

“Separate but equal” was the claim of segregationists.

 

True, but completely irrelevant.

 

It is a brain function thing. If one hears something that seems to come from an authority figure, and reinforced can become like a memory, irregardless of the truthfulness. Any incoming information that is contrary to the thus learned narrative is rejected. Sometimes one has to let go of their cherished myths in order to discover the truthfulness of a situation.

 

Just as a side note to this thread: President Trump isn't going anywhere so those who have the fantasy of overthrowing the Administration best get over it pretty quickly.

 

Yesterday, in defending his right to executive privilege, Trump claimed one of the reasons he did not want Bolton to testify was because they had departed on not so good of terms.

Bolton has to know that his testimony could put him in the history books. His testimony could change history. His popularity, for a day or two would greatly overshadow Trump’s best day. His testimony could have ratings that Trump could only lie about.

 

The only cherished myth I see functioning here was created by the left to wit that Donald Trump did something wrong.