Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Teallaura]

Defend it where? The court hasn’t been asked to do anything here. Matters need to be taken to the court, the court doesn’t go seeking them out. If the house has the power to subpoena then they don’t have to defend each one in court to legitimise it. If they did then they don’t actually have subpoena power.

Actually, it was taken to court. The House then dropped the subpoena.

And the House could have sought relief from the courts when the supposed subpoenas were ignored but it didn't bother.

The argument then was that there wasn't enough time for a court battle. But now the House is withholding the articles which makes a total lie of the argument.

[Watermelon]

Actually, it was taken to court. The House then dropped the subpoena.

And the House could have sought relief from the courts when the supposed subpoenas were ignored but it didn't bother.

The argument then was that there wasn't enough time for a court battle. But now the House is withholding the articles which makes a total lie of the argument.

The point is the House is not required to take it to court. There’s no requirement that every avenue to enforce the subpoena must be exhausted before obstruction can be established.

Bear in mind (I know you disagree but consider the argument) Trump refused to cooperate, instructed others to do the same and publicly ridiculed anyone that did. The obstruction had arguably become a greater threat than the Ukraine incident.

As a general principle would you agree that a president who refuses to cooperate to this extent in any constitutional process is an impeachable offence?

[Teallaura]

The point is the House is not required to take it to court. There’s no requirement that every avenue to enforce the subpoena must be exhausted before obstruction can be established.

Bear in mind (I know you disagree but consider the argument) Trump refused to cooperate, instructed others to do the same and publicly ridiculed anyone that did. The obstruction had arguably become a greater threat than the Ukraine incident.

As a general principle would you agree that a president who refuses to cooperate to this extent in any constitutional process is an impeachable offence?

No, I would not.

You're forgetting two things. The first is that as a coequal branch the Executive has no obligation to observe extraconstitutional demands made by the Legislature except as established in precedent and law. Second, related to the first, is that the precedent exists as established in the Nixon inquiry.

Per the case law from the Nixon administration, the Executive does possess a limited privilege to withhold information from Congress regardless of subpoena or other legal devices. The remedy if Congress believes it has a right to the information is to appeal to the Court.

The House could have correctly authorized the subpoenas and requested certiorari as per rule, precedent and law. The House has not established the case for overriding executive privilege and never attempted to do so. Privilege therefore stands and there is no basis for obstruction.

Heck, I don't think obstruction would have been a legitimate article against Nixon based only on the subpoenas.

[Mountain Man]

There’s no requirement that every avenue to enforce the subpoena must be exhausted before obstruction can be established.

The committee issued demand letters. Trump said, "Stick it up your backside, I'm invoking executive privilege!" If the Democrats don't bother to try and enforce the letters (and in fact, the letters stipulated no penalty for noncompliance) then they are, by their non-action, implicitly conceding that Trump's invocation of executive privilege is legitimate and proper.

To put it another way:

Prosecutor: "Here's a subpoena."
Defendant: "I'm contesting it in court."
Prosecutor: "In that case, I rescind the subpoena, and I'm charging you with obstruction instead!"

It doesn't work this way.

[JimL]

The committee issued demand letters. Trump said, "Stick it up your backside, I'm invoking executive privilege!" If the Democrats don't bother to try and enforce the letters (and in fact, the letters stipulated no penalty for noncompliance) then they are, by their non-action, implicitly conceding that Trump's invocation of executive privilege is legitimate and proper.

To put it another way:

Prosecutor: "Here's a subpoena."
Defendant: "I'm contesting it in court."
Prosecutor: "In that case, I rescind the subpoena, and I'm charging you with obstruction instead!"

It doesn't work this way.

This isn't a court, it's congress, the subpoena power is not in question, but since no president has ever before contemptibly defied congresses Constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive, he got away with it, so far. But Senators are now going to have to publicly vote on whether to continue with the Trump cover-up, or allow for a fair trial allowing the blocked documents and witnesses in as evidence.

But tell me something, MM, why don't you also want to see this previously blocked evidence?

[Mountain Man]

This isn't a court, it's congress, the subpoena power is not in question, but since no president has ever before contemptibly defied congresses Constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive, he got away with it, so far. But Senators are now going to have to publicly vote on whether to continue with the Trump cover-up, or allow for a fair trial allowing the blocked documents and witnesses in as evidence.

But tell me something, MM, why don't you also want to see this previously blocked evidence?

If the committee's subpoena power wasn't in question then why didn't they defend the demand letters in court? Why did they rescind them the moment someone asked a court to decide if they were legitimate?

And personally, I'm all for the Senate conducting a full trial and handing out subpoenas to everybody, including Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, and Eric Ciaramella. And let them recall the previous witnesses and subject them to a grueling cross examination. What do you think the Democrats would say to that?

[Teallaura]

This isn't a court, it's congress, the subpoena power is not in question, but since no president has ever before contemptibly defied congresses Constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive, he got away with it, so far. But Senators are now going to have to publicly vote on whether to continue with the Trump cover-up, or allow for a fair trial allowing the blocked documents and witnesses in as evidence.

But tell me something, MM, why don't you also want to see this previously blocked evidence?

Ever hear of Nixon?

[Tassman]

Actually, it was taken to court. The House then dropped the subpoena.

And the House could have sought relief from the courts when the supposed subpoenas were ignored but it didn't bother.

The argument then was that there wasn't enough time for a court battle. But now the House is withholding the articles which makes a total lie of the argument.

The necessity to unnecessarily resort to the courts to rule on an already established principle– with the intent to extensively delay the hearings, what with appeals etc., is in itself a deliberate and calculated Obstruction of Congress.

[Mountain Man]

The necessity to unnecessarily resort to the courts to rule on an already established principle– with the intent to extensively delay the hearings, what with appeals etc., is in itself a deliberate and calculated Obstruction of Congress.

The Trump administration has every right to invoke executive privilege and challenge the demand letters in court. Whatever you think the "intent" might be, it's not illegal or improper to appeal to the judiciary to settle disputes.

[rogue06]

Except they aren't opinions, they are facts. I mean seriously, the President admitted it himself on the lawn of the White House. "I think if they were honest they would investigate the Bidens." "I think China should investigate them as well."

They are "facts" in the same way that three and four times removed hearsay gossip is "evidence."

[Tassman]

The Trump administration has every right to invoke executive privilege and challenge the demand letters in court. Whatever you think the "intent" might be, it's not illegal or improper to appeal to the judiciary to settle disputes.

It’s the delaying tactics that are in question. Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents. And no doubt the courts would rule thus - but not for a long time, plus undoubted endless appeals. This is clearly the “intent” and one can only wonder why the desire for delay. But I suggest we both know the answer to that, giving rise to the obvious question namely, as with Trump's tax returns, what's he hiding.

[Tassman]

They are "facts" in the same way that three and four times removed hearsay gossip is "evidence."

Easily resolved if this is seen to be a problem (it really isn't), namely Trump can unblock key witnesses.

[firstfloor]

Easily resolved if this is seen to be a problem (it really isn't), namely Trump can unblock key witnesses.

You should listen to Uncle Blazer on Mueller She Wrote #29, starting at 42mins. about Dem strategy. We might not see a trial for a few months yet.

[seer]

Easily resolved if this is seen to be a problem (it really isn't), namely Trump can unblock key witnesses.

Why would he do that given how the leftists twist everything? They color even the most mundane things as evil.

[Mountain Man]

It’s the delaying tactics that are in question. Congressional rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony and documents. And no doubt the courts would rule thus - but not for a long time, plus undoubted endless appeals. This is clearly the “intent” and one can only wonder why the desire for delay. But I suggest we both know the answer to that, giving rise to the obvious question namely, as with Trump's tax returns, what's he hiding.

Right... Democrats are so worried about Trump delaying impeachment that they have put the articles on indefinite hold instead of sending them immediately to the Senate.