Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Edge-]

trump is now saying he will use executive privilege to try and "limit bolton's testimony."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill...estimony%3famp

"So we have to protect presidential privilege. For me, but for future presidents,"

This is a fair point....or would be if Trump wasn't using the "executive privilege" argument as a blanket gag-order on former staff.

[solinari6]

This is a fair point....or would be if Trump wasn't using the "executive privilege" argument as a blanket gag-order on former staff.

But since Bolton isn't a US employee anymore, he can't really FORCE him not to say things, right? Is Trump able to "executive privilege" Bolton's book before it comes out?

[Shadowferal]

I suspect Bolton won't be muzzled if he testifies, no matter what Moscow Mitch et al try.
He has a temper and it does show.

[Xyonai]

But since Bolton isn't a US employee anymore, he can't really FORCE him not to say things, right? Is Trump able to "executive privilege" Bolton's book before it comes out?

In theory he could 'Executive Privilege' the things they may have talked about, or anything Bolten may have been witness to. It's still slimy, but there's also slimy logic to it.

[Fugus]

In theory he could 'Executive Privilege' the things they may have talked about, or anything Bolten may have been witness to. It's still slimy, but there's also slimy logic to it.

Executive privilege can't be used to hide a crime though, so Bolton could very easily defy him in that regard and Trump couldn't say crap about it if it directly implicated him in a crime.

My fear is that Bolton will now try and protect him some since he gave him the pretense of War he wanted but at the same time, Bolton could just as easily turn on him now just because he fears Trump would screw it up with the Iran conflict anyways.

[Levelfive]

In theory he could 'Executive Privilege' the things they may have talked about, or anything Bolten may have been witness to. It's still slimy, but there's also slimy logic to it.

Keep in mind, violating executive privilege isn't a crime.

ETA a somewhat more useful link: https://www.businessinsider.com/can-...tifying-2017-6

[Logwyn]

Yes.

I keep getting told by you people there's nothing to this and it it is all bullshit. So why are you and Trump losing your collective shit over it? We all know he won't be removed. So why all the pearl clutching, screaming, crying, soiling of diapers?



Please provide evidence of this. I have eyewitness testimony, confessions, transcripts and corroborating emails to prove Trump did it. You have fuck all.

To be fair. I"m not a Trump supporter and never did vote for the guy. I doubt I will vote for him next time around as well. You seem to be the one that has the more clutching of pearls and screaming about it more. This all a waste of time much like the Clinton impeachment. Will dead end in the Senate. The only good thing is that both houses will be tied up with this crap and that tying up will allow them to do nothing and therefore maybe not screw up things even more than they could have.

Honestly, your discussion is drifting into the realm of emotional name-calling. Approaching pot-calling the kettle black territory as well.

[Shadowferal]

pfft...he's a Trump supporter who demands we trust Trump without qualification and take a beating without complaint or defending oneself.

[Breccia]

Question, since Bolton said he would comply with a subpoena from the Senate, couldn't the House just send him one now as well?

Yes.

And Trump would immediately declare it Executive Time. Privilege! Sorry, got those confused.

Also: McConnell is reportedly looking into the option of changing the Senate rules, which in turn, would let him dismiss the impeachment without any actual trial, witnesses, or statements.

He needs a 2/3rds majority to do so and has a whelk's chance in a supernova of that happening. This is just another demonstration for Trump to see McConnell has his shell. Back! Dammit, mixed those up too.

[Bodakane]

To be fair. I"m not a Trump supporter and never did vote for the guy. I doubt I will vote for him next time around as well. You seem to be the one that has the more clutching of pearls and screaming about it more. This all a waste of time much like the Clinton impeachment. Will dead end in the Senate. The only good thing is that both houses will be tied up with this crap and that tying up will allow them to do nothing and therefore maybe not screw up things even more than they could have.

Honestly, your discussion is drifting into the realm of emotional name-calling. Approaching pot-calling the kettle black territory as well.

No one....NO. ONE. believes a person would defend Trump without being a Trump supporter.
No one....NO. ONE. believes a person hasn't already made up their mind about voting for Trump.

[Levelfive]

But since Bolton isn't a US employee anymore, he can't really FORCE him not to say things, right? Is Trump able to "executive privilege" Bolton's book before it comes out?

This is about Comey but it applies just as well to Bolton:

"Experts say that if Trump tries to invoke executive privilege with respect to his conversations with Comey, it likely won't hold any water.

"Executive privilege has traditionally been used to justify the president refusing to make available people or documents within the control of the executive branch," said Keith Whittington, a professor of politics at Princeton University. Comey is no longer under the control of the executive branch, Whittington said, which is why "the executive branch has no capacity to withhold him from Congress."

The successful implementation of executive privilege also depends on whether the official wishes to cooperate with the action. "In this situation, Comey is no longer working for the FBI and may not wish to comply with the privilege," said Jens David Ohlin, an associate dean at Cornell Law School and expert on criminal law.

Ohlin said that if Trump invokes executive privilege and Comey testifies despite that, the administration has two avenues for recourse: an injunction before Comey's testimony, or a prosecution afterward, neither of which would be very helpful for Trump.

"It's highly unlikely a federal judge would issue an injunction," Ohlin said, and that leaves the second avenue of prosecuting Comey for violating executive privilege.

"But violating executive privilege isn't a crime. So basically, if Comey really wants to testify, realistically there's nothing the Trump administration can do to stop him," Ohlin said."

https://www.businessinsider.com/can-...tifying-2017-6

[Xyonai]

Executive privilege can't be used to hide a crime though.

Keep in mind, violating executive privilege isn't a crime.

Ah, actually this clears up a lot of my own personal confusion on the matter. Thanks, you guys.

[Breccia]

Vulnerable GOP Senator Collins seems to be middlemanning a negotiation to get witnesses in the Senate's impeachment trial.

It would be exceedingly risky to tell her "no, we don't want witnesses". Because if she decides her party is intentionally withholding the truth and also decided she wants no part of that, well, one vote flops a majority.

[CostinR]

He needs a 2/3rds majority to do so and has a whelk's chance in a supernova of that happening. This is just another demonstration for Trump to see McConnell has his shell. Back! Dammit, mixed those up too.

Actually he can use the nuclear option whereby he needs a simple majority to get the rules change.

Yeah, the shit Reid pulled off to change the rules, then McConnell used to get Gorusch on the bench, is what can be used now to change the rules again.

[Shadowferal]

Actually he can use the nuclear option whereby he needs a simple majority to get the rules change.
Yeah, the shit Reid pulled off to change the rules, then McConnell used to get Gorusch on the bench, is what can be used now to change the rules again.

If he does that he knows that it would probably cost him in votes that he'd need later.
Really it would alienate him from the handful of moderates he knows he can't afford to lose.

[Edge-]

Yeah, the shit Reid pulled off to change the rules, then McConnell used to get Gorusch on the bench, is what can be used now to change the rules again.

That's not on Reid. Reid used that because Republicans were intentionally stonewalling Obama nominees to keep vacancies in the hopes they could fill them later. That's not honest governing, that's not doing their jobs. That's the Republican party overtly pushing to heavily politicize what was supposed to be the a-political Judicial branch.

It's pretty much purely on McConnell. Stonewalling Obama nominees to force Reid to use the "nuclear option"? Intentional McConnell strategy. Refusing to even talk with Garland rather than do their jobs in good faith? Intentional McConnell strategy. Pack the courts with activist conservative justices that will reshape the judiciary for a generation? Intentional McConnell strategy.

He's openly bragged about this. Repeatedly. This is on him, not Reid.

[Breccia]

Actually he can use the nuclear option whereby he needs a simple majority to get the rules change.

The "nuclear option" is a rare thing. If he uses it to defend Trump from his first impeachment, he can't use it on the second...or on other legislative matters his slim-ass majority can't defend.

Don't blow your cooldowns on trash.

[Twdft]

Don't blow your cooldowns on trash.

Maybe McConnel sees this as fortified week

[Fugus]

Pelosi Alerts House to Be Ready to Send Impeachment Articles Next Week

I really would like to see them just create articles of impeachment for everything he did along with the blanket articles at the end.

Then release each article individually to them and FORCE them to hold each a trial for each one of them and FORCE them to try their crap on each one. Either they would move to acquit and the public force them to throw the truth out repeatedly or they could convict.

And if they repeatedly convicted but said that the individual offense wasn't bad enough to impeach though, then you release the blanket offenses that include all of them collectively that they just said wasn't enough to impeach individually and watch them try on that.

[Logwyn]

No one....NO. ONE. believes a person would defend Trump without being a Trump supporter.
No one....NO. ONE. believes a person hasn't already made up their mind about voting for Trump.

Do you really believe this? You really believe things so black and white...