Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Noxx79]

And yet more then one President has used it to cover their ass. It's called politics. You can hate it all you like, but I can sure as shit have faith that not one liberal on this board ever got mad at Obama for defending Holder over the death of a Government official.

What right? State the right that the president is immune from oversight.

“But Obama” isn’t a right, monarchist.

[TexasRules]

Don't worry, I'll take it in the correct context, not whatever nonsense you just spewed.

As most democrats, you will do what you need to convey whatever point you think is necessary to keep your grasp on reality.


Infracted.

[Noxx79]

As most democrats, you will do what you need to convey whatever point you think is necessary to keep your grasp on reality.

All you can do is project, monarchist.


Infracted.

[beanman12345]

As most democrats, you will do what you need to convey whatever point you think is necessary to keep your grasp on reality.

I just convery the truth, unlike hardcore trump supporters and defenders you proved yourself to be in that post.

[TexasRules]

I thought the US operated under a system of separation of powers so the president could not interfere in the lawful business of Congress

There are checks and balances betweent he 2 branches. I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

[Nurasu]

As most democrats, you will do what you need to convey whatever point you think is necessary to keep your grasp on reality.

Are we talking about the alternate reality you keep mentioning where House Republicans didn't call any witnesses?

[Noxx79]

There are checks and balances betweent he 2 branches. I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

He has never claimed executive privileges on any of the house subpoenas, monarchist.

Stop gobbling up your fake news, mr. fake American.

[DarkTZeratul]

Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

Point out where the Constitution grants the president the ability to ignore Congressional oversight, or even where it mentions the words "executive privilege."

[Edge-]

There are checks and balances betweent he 2 branches. I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

Executive privilege is not a Constitutional right, nor does it cover matters unless they "impair government functions", and I've yet to see any evidence to support that allowing any of these witnesses to testify would do so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

(citations in the article)

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".

Democrats have been doing that since the start, by the way.

[Endus]

I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

The piece in bold is objectively false.

Use of executive privilege is literally not mentioned once in the Articles of Impeachment.

You're making this shit up.

Executive privilege is also, as Edge- pointed out, not actually a constitutional power of the Presidency.

[TexasRules]

I just convery the truth, unlike hardcore trump supporters and defenders you proved yourself to be in that post. I only wish you had a grasp on reality like you said I do.

Oh you mean like Schiff doing a reenactment of a phone call. Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I can dig it. Yep, me hardcore Trump supporter that I am, you tried to finally gotcha me when I admitted I supported the President using the constitution. It took 3 years , but you got me to support Trump when he sued the constitution to his advantage. 3 years, I am sure you were salivating thinking about the day when you could catch me and that day is so underwhelming for you....or is it? Today has been great for me, I saw liberals lose it over nothing, you guys still think the senate has a chance to remove Trump, had some stranger say I mask myself as 2 people to post, and found out I have a fan on another shit forum. I thought the 65 degree weather was great but........

- - - Updated - - -

There is no such right under the Constitution. None. You're literally making it up.

The President does not have free authority to obstruct Congress whenever he wants to. That's simply false.

Where does the right of executive privilege come from? The supreme court says it is derived from the constitution. But what do they know.

[Endus]

Executive privilege is not a Constitutional right, nor does it cover matters unless they "impair government functions", and I've yet to see any evidence to support that allowing any of these witnesses to testify would do so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

I guess the argument is that letting those witnesses testify will make Trump's guilt and malicious intent so crystal clear that he'll be removed from office even with a Republican-controlled Senate, and that would "impair government functions", or some similar self-affirming horse shit.

[Edge-]

Where does the right of executive privilege come from?

Executive privilege is not a Constitutional right, nor does it cover matters unless they "impair government functions", and I've yet to see any evidence to support that allowing any of these witnesses to testify would do so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

(citations in the article)



Democrats have been doing that since the start, by the way.

There. It's not in the Constitution, despite your repeated assertions.

[cubby]

Even the GOP are increasingly worried about Bolton's book.



Considering that the NSC directly confirmed they'd read Bolton's book, there's not a lot of options they have here. These are direct allegations by Team Trump itself that Ukraine was being blackmailed for Biden dirt. This isn't some tinfoil hat wearing random poster, or even a journalist citing unnamed sources. This is Bolton. At this point, one off three things will happen.

1) Bolton will testify under oath that this is what happened.
2) Someone else at the meeting will defend Trump by testifying that's not what happened.
3) Team Trump and the GOP will intentionally block all info to the issue and do it in public, therefore admitting the truth doesn't matter.

This is about the best news we ("we" being the rational part of the U.S.) could get. Bolton coming out and causing the GOP to actually call witnesses. If one gets called, does that open the floodgates?

[Endus]

Where does the right of executive privilege come from?

In the modern sense?

United States v. Nixon.

[cubby]

I'm waiting for a statement from Bolton that either confirms or denies the NYT allegation. The timing of the article is impeccable.

Right? It's almost like Bolton knew Team Deplorable would lie about it and cover it up, so he waited for the perfect timing to have the most impact. God forbid the truth comes out.

As a Deplorable Defender, tell us again why you're afraid of evidence? I love hearing this explanation.

[TexasRules]

Executive privilege is not a Constitutional right, nor does it cover matters unless they "impair government functions", and I've yet to see any evidence to support that allowing any of these witnesses to testify would do so - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege

(citations in the article)



Democrats have been doing that since the start, by the way.

However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

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.[

So the Supreme court says it is derived from the Executive branch area of constitutional activity. I am confused if the Supreme court says it is derived from the constitution, how is it not in there?

[beanman12345]

Oh you mean like Schiff doing a reenactment of a phone call. Okay, I see where you are coming from now. I can dig it. Yep, me hardcore Trump supporter that I am, you tried to finally gotcha me when I admitted I supported the President using the constitution. It took 3 years , but you got me to support Trump when he sued the constitution to his advantage. 3 years, I am sure you were salivating thinking about the day when you could catch me and that day is so underwhelming for you....or is it? Today has been great for me, I saw liberals lose it over nothing, you guys still think the senate has a chance to remove Trump, had some stranger say I mask myself as 2 people to post, and found out I have a fan on another shit forum. I thought the 65 degree weather was great but........

- - - Updated - - -



Where does the right of executive privilege come from? The supreme court says it is derived from the constitution. But what do they know.

INtelligent people in the past page already debunked all this nonsense. Try to keep up.

[Dhrizzle]

There are checks and balances betweent he 2 branches. I'd like to check you on the fact you have said you Republicans have contempt for the constitution and yet the democrats say that it is impeachable because Trump used constitutionally given executive privilege to stop people from testifying. I await your contempt for them.

First up I'm not entirely sure the president does have the power to block Congress from investigating him for impeachment, can you point out where that is said.

Secondly the contempt from Senate Republicans comes from them saying they will not be impartial jurors and will take the president's side in his trial. That is blatantly going against the US Constitution, it's not just a disagreement as to how exactly it should be interpreted.

[TexasRules]

There. It's not in the Constitution, despite your repeated assertions.

Right you keep posting a link that says the Supreme court rules it is derived from the constitution. I don't understand you contradicting your own post.