• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

I’m not sure if he based his administration’s seemingly absolute noncompliance on the basis of executive privilege or not. I think he simply refused based on his assertion that he’d done nothing wrong and there was no legitimate need for investigation.

But I think the house managers believe that if he’d eventually lost the court battles regarding subpoenas then he’d claim privilege and they’d have to go through another round of court battles to fight that claim.


Regardless, I think Republican “concerns” about the lack of enforced subpoenas and additional witnesses not being heard in the house are obvious BS. Since they have the opportunity to pursue these things right now. As part of the actual impeachment trial.
 
Last edited:
 
Pure, and typical, projection from Trump.


Too bad there’s no available remedy in the Republican-controlled senate to relieve the world of this madman in power.
 
ConnorEl said:
Pure, and typical, projection from Trump.


Too bad there’s no available remedy in the Republican-controlled senate to relieve the world of this madman in power.
Click to expand...

It’s too bad Adam Schiff offended Republican Senators by citing a news report about Trump threatening those very same Senators.
 
Newenglanddeac said:

Here’s the Atticus Finch of the GOP.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
It’s too bad Adam Schiff offended Republican Senators by citing a news report about Trump threatening those very same Senators.
Click to expand...
That was never a factor, just gave a few republicans an excuse to stay in line, if you are sifting through a mountain of evidence for one offending line then you are not really weighing the evidence at all.
 
Junebug said:
No, Trump invoked privilege:



https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...bpoena-cites-absolute-immunity-one-minute?amp
Click to expand...


Well, I heard something about the sequence of protracted legal wrangling in the house manager’s presentation.


Regardless, Republicans have readily available opportunity to call these witnesses the allegedly wish the house had forced via lengthy court battles to compel to testify.

If they really wanted to hear from them. Which they don’t.

It’s just BS.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
That was never a factor, just gave a few republicans an excuse to stay in line, if you are sifting through a mountain of evidence for one offending line then you are not really weighing the evidence at all.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree. I was being sarcastic.
 
bcobbdeacs said:
That was never a factor, just gave a few republicans an excuse to stay in line, if you are sifting through a mountain of evidence for one offending line then you are not really weighing the evidence at all.
Click to expand...

Yep. These are people who have spent their time during the trial playing with (or handing out) fidget spinners, tweeting about reading right-wing books during the trial rather than listening to the prosecution's case, or spending long amounts of time outside the Senate chamber playing on their cellphones or being interviewed by Fox & Friends about how boring and what a waste of time it is, while the evidence that it's not a waste of time is being presented inside. And it's unlikely that more than a handful of these people will pay any price for what they're doing. Indeed, their base probably loves their behavior. They're owning the libs big time!
 
DDA said:
I wish BKF were here to face the sheer whining bitchiness of Trump that he hated so much from millennials (according to him).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the complaints of many older folk about how younger people are snowflakes is rich. They're the original snowflakes and then some.
 
Junebug said:
Meh. The house withdrew the subpoenas. Yes, that was in response to an assertion of executive privilege, but they didn’t get a court order compelling compliance. They didn’t check the boxes they should have, despite the fact they were already litigating the McGahn subpoena.

In any event, are we really going to conclude that the assertion of executive privilege to congressional subpoenas is an impeachable offense? Clinton and Bush invoked executive privilege on multiple occasions (as have many presidents throughout the years), and Obama did it once (that I know of) in response to a congressional subpoena in connection with fast and furious. Why wasn’t that impeachable? Yes, Obama’s assertion of the privilege wasn’t in the context of an impeachment inquiry, but without a SCOTUS opinion holding that executive privilege doesn’t apply in that context (US v. Nixon didn’t decide that question because it involved a judicial subpoena), I don’t really see much difference. They both obstruct congress’s oversight function.

Plus, we don’t normally hold the assertion of a privilege against someone. In an obvious sense, the attorney-client privilege obstructs justice, but we don’t indict people for merely invoking that privilege. Doing so would vitiate the privilege.

In my view, the way the house should have done this was to force the subpoenas, get a ruling from the SCOTUS on the scope of the privilege, and, if Trump exceeded that scope, then include that act as an article. As it stands, they didn’t see this through, so it is premature to conclude that Trump’s invocation of the privilege was for the purpose of impermissible obstruction vs the permissible obstruction inherent in the assertion of a privilege. Including it as an article was a trivialization of impeachment and a terrible precedent for future presidencies.
Click to expand...

Total bullshit as usual. This would have the issue last past the election which was the purpose of the obstruction.
 
Newenglanddeac said:

Republican Senators are going to be aghast when they hear about this threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top