Why didn’t the Democrats try to lawfully get the judicial branch to resolve executive privilege

The punitive threat is removal from office.

 

Yep, separation of powers is in it.

 

Giggles.

 

I have no idea either. There is nothing unreasonable here. Congress, authorized by law, law that has been repeatedly upheld by supreme Courts, has issued subpoenas. Trump is fighting to keep his financials secret by reason that they are private and the supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments but on the rest he has no case and is illegally defying the orders and has been impeached for it.

 

And you need a court to compel compliance if you desire to apply punitive measures. Involve the judiciary and you must grant 4th amendment protections. Difficult?

 

Where?

IMO, the President broke the law in his failure to notify Congress of his withholding of aid to Ukraine. If Republicans refuse to join Democrats, in the Senate, to remove him from office, they are basically supporting the proposition that the President is above the law.

 

It was released within the legal timeline. The WH only has to inform Congress if it were to be held beyond that.

 

Already answered, no they don't.

 

No, it was not. Notification of Congress regarding the intent to withhold and the reason why is required BEFORE withholding funding. Then, Congress either agrees within 45 days or the funding goes ahead. The funding was withheld for 55 days...from order to release. And, the release came only AFTER the Whistle Blower exposed the July 25th tel-con. You are referencing the fiscal year deadline, which requires spending authorized for the fiscal year, unless otherwise designated, must be spent within that fiscal year, which ended September 30th.

 

You are also not aware the Congress has always given the WH great latitude in timing, that is until the dem clown show showed up.

 

"Great latitude" to break the law they passed? Don't think so. Particularly when the withheld funds are being used to pressure the recipient into performing investigations into political opponents and a back-channel investigation to disprove Russian interference in the 2016 election.

 

LOL. The money was released within the legal timeline given by Congress.

I see you still buy the dem clown show narrative with zero proof.

 

The tax records were subpoenaed first.

 

No, again. If the money is intended to be withheld, the Impoundment Control Act of 1973 requires Congress be notified of the intent and cause BEFORE being withheld. Congress may then take 45 days to reply. No notification was ever given Congress of the withholding of funds. Again...you are confusing this with the separate requirement to spend funding appropriated for the fiscal year to be spent in that fiscal year. If it isn't spent, then the administration must explain why to Congress and ask for a new appropriation for the next fiscal year. The Ukraine funding was held-up for 55 days, with NO NOTIFICATION to Congress.

 

The House Democrats are DONE moving now they refuse to file their impeachment.

 

And Trump, as is his right, went to court to block it. Just as he could a court ordered one, no wait, the NY subpoena was a court ordered one. See how this works? The accused goes to a higher authority not the original accuser. Trump had every right to take the subpoenas to court and no expectations that Congress would, they didn't need to.

 

Is this McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), or is this the Trump case?

(Actually not a case cuz you failed to involve the judiciary)

 

Just as SCOTUS has.recognized the need for Congress to issue subpoenas for legislative purposes it has also recognized the need for the President to engage and consult with his staff on a privileged basis and of course has always recognized attorney-client privilege. There is no specific law and the Constitution does not grant Congress an unlimited subpoena or investigative power.

The Constitution says nothing about congressional investigations and oversight, but the authority to conduct investigations is implied since Congress possesses “all legislative powers.” The Supreme Court determined that the framers intended for Congress to seek out information when crafting or reviewing legislation.
Investigations & Oversight | US House of Representatives ...
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/

 

Agreed. I would also think that "the sole power of impeachment" granted to the House, implies investigative authority. The House could not reasonably be expected to arrive at "articles of impeachment" without broad investigative powers. Blocking such powers was a primary factor in the second article of impeachment, "Obstruction of Congress."

 

Congress has no power to breach separation of powers on a whim. That is why the Judicial Committee sued the WH to compel McGahn testimony.

 

It's not a whim. How do you interpret the constitutional phrase "the House shall...have sole power of Impeachment?"

 

Still has zero to do with separation of powers. That is why the HJC took the WH to court to compel testimony. That is what the court is for.

 

Which conflicts with the powers of executive privilege also recognized by the court so go to court.