Trump is smarter than Bill was. He won't perjure himself when he lies about his crimes.
Anybody paying close attention to the impeachment trial?
- Thread starter Sope Creek
- Start date
Also, some of them were for "abuse of power," which apparently shouldn't ever be grounds for impeachment.
A recent president would brag about a consensual sexual act (locker room talk) while others would lie.
Have you had a stroke? You're frightening me.
You wrote: "That would not happen if those participating in a meeting know that anything they might say would be made public." Nobody in their right mind would ever think the contents of a meeting with Trump will be kept secret, unless it serves King Donnie or Putin.
You missed the part where Trump told everybody everywhere in "his" White House not to honor any subpoenas whatsoever for documents or testimony. In other words, he didn't split hairs about which documents or which testimony was protected by executive privilege. He just barred 100% of anything that might be construed as complying with a subpoena. He wasn't trying to protect executive documents or testimony -- he was just trying to be a tough guy refusing to comply at all with a subpoena. He may as well have said, "You're not the boss of me," like the spoiled little rich boy that he is.
Second, you forgot to account for all the times when Trump himself volunteered (i.e. started blabbing about) information that was surely within the scope of the dozens of subpoenas issued previously. By blabbing such information (often beside a helicopter on the White House lawn), Trump demonstrated that he did not consider it to be something to be kept secret. Revealing such information is a waiver of the privilege.
Trump is a bozo who doesn't understand, acknowledge or obey legal requirements. He doesn't think the law applies to him. You should ask Mick Mulvaney to explain it to you.
I think it’s more likely his attorneys won’t let him. And I don’t think Bill knew he could just refuse to show up and not send over any documents. That’s a new option. But I do think he lied in his answers to Mueller. Can’t recall what it was but something having to do with Roger Stone.
This is exactly what I think of some Trump supporters here, but they don’t even get the fame part. Conservative Tom Nichols:” Someone asked me yesterday what has most surprised me about the age of Trump. It’s this: The ability of people like Alan Dershowitz to completely reverse a lifetime of stated principles at the last minute just for a few more seconds of fame while covering for a sociopathic ignoramus. “
Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are a few others. When you listen to the things they said about Trump and then about impeachment during Clinton’s time, it’s just hard to see how they sleep at night. Mitch doesn’t have a conscience, so I’m sure he sleeps like a baby.
Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are a few others. When you listen to the things they said about Trump and then about impeachment during Clinton’s time, it’s just hard to see how they sleep at night. Mitch doesn’t have a conscience, so I’m sure he sleeps like a baby.
I’m not talking about witness testimony. I’m talking about evidence subject to executive privilege.
“to argue that Congress must investigate the White House without any access to the inner workings of the White House itself is to argue that impeachment is stupid, and should be rendered toothless, making the President effectively an autarch”.
Your argument seems to be that executive privilege should always yield to impeachment proceedings. That makes EP worthless and that makes no sense. My point is that congress cannot blow through executive privilege in search of grounds for impeachment. That isn’t oversight. It’s a clear elimination of separation of powers.
Oh, and I don’t think applying EP makes impeachment stupid or rendered toothless. Congress has significant investigative power not to mention DOJ investigations that can form a basis for impeachment. You are selling nonsense with this argument.
No, my argument is that your argument that EP should never yield to impeachment makes no sense. Stop trying to take your own stupidity and transfer it to me. You're the one who drew this nonsense line to begin with, not me.
Witnesses the Republicans are saying are not credible because they lack firsthand knowledge of what happened in the room. You have just created circular reasoning to prove Republicans correct. Block everyone with firsthand knowledge from testifying, block all written matrrials, attack evidence as hearsay.
He’s acting like EP is some magical concept that the POTUS can use to cover anything and everything without an analysis as to whether it even applies to discrete issues and areas. It would be like going into court and telling the judge the reason you refuse to respond to discovery and disregard depo notices is because AC privilege. Yes, it is a valid privilege but your ass will be sanctioned because you didn’t even attempt to apply it correctly.
Again, there has been no determination regarding EP with any witness or document. It’s just a term some people use to justify wholesale obstruction of congress.
With all the talk about Executive Privilege, it's important to note that Trump has yet to assert it. Instead, he has just issued a blanket "Fxck you." So all the EP nonsense is a diversion. Trumps real stand is based on Absolute Immunity.
Yes, that’s my argument. You haven’t argued otherwise in a cogent fashion. To youse your framework, I’ll stipulate that it could handcuff congress (although I think that is highly unlikely for reasons I stated) but so what? That is the nature of privileged evidence.
Yeah he does seem to be arguing that. I was simply responding to his claim that all courts safeguard EP. Clearly the SCOTUS (and yes I know it was a GJ and not impeachment) back then did not agree that POTUS should enjoy absolute EP.
I've already presented my argument against yours. You claiming it isn't cogent doesn't make it so. Please, don't deign to "stipulate" anything for me. Either find the balls necessary to simply disagree like an adult, or stop trying to goad me.
The process of claiming privilege depends on several things. IIRC the house Dems never issued subpoenas to Bolton et al. Had they done so then you would have a point. In any event, the burden is on congress to seek appropriate court orders for witness appearance. The Dems never bothered.
As far as obstruction is concerned, you need to remember that Trump waived all privileges in the Mueller investigation in hopes to get the investigations over. When Mueller flopped, the Dems moved on to Ukraine with that phony whistleblower stunt. The Dems would rather grandstand and pontificate than conduct a serious investigation. Hence no effort to enforce witness appearance the usual way. Nadler said over and over that this impeachment is about the 2020 election and he is right. The Dems are using this to try and flip the senate and bloody Trump. The Dens have taken a wrecking ball to institutional order because they are beside themselves that Trump won. This started within hours of Trump taking the oath of office.
Yes, I’m trying to goad you into focusing on your reasons for running around privilege. That’s called Socratic method. I stipulated to handcuffing to take away that argument. I think you kinda want to argue for a balancing test, but you haven’t gone there So I don’t know what the hell you are trying to say.
You're not engaging in the Socratic method. You're engaging in evasion and arrogance. And if it were genuinely the Socratic method, I'd tell you to kiss off. You're not my mentor. Just because you're old doesn't mean you know anything about anything.
If you ever want to have an even discussion as adults, let me know. Until then, cheers.
The Socratic method has zip to do with being a mentor. I don’t think you know what it is. (“Kiss off”? WTF is that?). It’s a method for individuals (assumed you be intelligent) to drill down on issues and explore ideas. I’ve tried to engage you with this in several ways in this thread.
the socratic method is just a pedantic way for one party to address another. and i doubt Co Hoosier had any malice at all but it's impossible not to agree with the originalhappygoat. it connotes or implies a teacher/student relationship. Kiss off is a fair response to same.
That’s wrong. A teacher might employ the Socratic method to bring out thinking depth in a student. Many law students have learned this way. But the reverse is not true. The presence of Socratic dialogue does not necessarily imply a student teacher relationship. Any group of individuals can employ Socratic debate or method as a means of discussing any issue.
Can we stick a fork in this whole goal post moving BS? Bringing that up is never relevant and it’s usually a way to avoid saying anything important. Argument and discussion is a dynamic process. Goal posts are supposed to move as matters progress.
It's a tactic used by teachers to foster critical thinking. as a method of dialogue, i agree, any two persons can use it to discuss an issue. you are absolutely correct. that said, the manner you use it comes across as more akin to the teacher/student scenario. just an impression. continue on.
...he says as he moves them yet again, which he absolutely doesn't do, but is perfectly acceptable when he does. If he did. Which he doesn't.
What a load of bull. You move the goalposts on nearly every "discussion." Then when you get called on it you double down and change them again. There is no argument and discussion when the object of said argument and discussion changes every other post.
Grin. Moving goalposts? Talking about me is a different game on a different field.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
A pretty clear bright line is when it involves tampering with federal elections.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I think that can be put on the table if you were to ever admit you were wrong...... about anything. Until then..... no...... they can’t be removed.
