Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Apologies - where?I have answered that.
Not true, the white house cannot stop the house taking court action to get the subpoena enforced. take the time to research the separation of powers before peddling your CNN/MSNBC tripe.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
White house obstructed justice, this is a fact, doesnt matter what your warped reality tells you.
The main issue is your massive bias, alongside the mental issues.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
Ah sorry missed that (got distracted by that awesome plane). However...
You specifically said they weren't called. Some were - yes they didn't go to court but that adds months of litigation. Be honest here - would you be as so objective if they had or would you claim the Democrats were dragging the whole thing along? As you have said this is about the 2020 election and surely doing it right and fast would end it more quickly/further away from the election.
Again - witnesses and evidence can either exonerate Trump or find him guilty. When you block these things - which seems the most likely? Trump is a master at bragging - if these people and documents could clear his name, why on earth is he blocking them?
His health MOT - bragged about it.
His love letters - bragged about it.
The tax code he was 'streamlining' - put it on a table and bragged about it.
The stock market - brags about it when it's doing well.
Sensitive military secrets (when Lavrov visited) - bragged about it.
Tax returns - zilch.
The real transcript of the Zelensky call - hidden.
His school grades - brags about how much of a genius he is but won't release his grades.
The reliance on NDAs.
When something benefits him or his brand - he releases it and brags about it. When it embarrasses him or implicates a crime - he hides it.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
If the outcome is already guaranteed, why would you risk anything going wrong just to boost your own ego?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Been freely available and reported on all news sites for weeks. There are numerous witnesses and evidence that have been refused.
When someone is endlessly trolling/denying freely available facts then abuse is warranted.
When someone is endlessly trolling/denying freely available facts then abuse is warranted.
Works both ways then???
But I have lowered my self enough already to try and talk to the Trump haters.
Funny how when you demand evidence it's an absolute but when other do, it's 'go find it yourself'. Sad indeed.
The white house has not obstructed justice, they used their constitutional right to executive privilege. The house then needs to take that to court and a judge will rule on it. You really, really need to get of that CNN/MSNBC high horse and look at the separation of powers, which is what is play here.
Hey Trumpazoids
If there was no such scheme with Ukraine, and it is all a sham, and everyone who has testified under OATH is lying, and Parnas is also telling porkies and forged all his physical evidence, including text and phone records etc..
Why won't Trump direct Rudy, Mulvaney, Pence, Bolton, Pompeo and Perry to testify under oath so they can clear everything up and tell congress, under oath, that there was no such scheme? If the Senate is so sure it is a sham and that Trump is innocent, why won't they subpeona all the witnesses in Trump's cabinet to testify under oath to totally destroy the democrats and give Trump the clear acquittal he so craves?
Furthermore, why won't Trump testify under oath to say this also? Clinton testified for his impeachment. Hilary has testified under oath before congress for hours and hours as well. Why can't Trump testify? Is he so weak and spineless that he is scared to do it?
If there was no such scheme with Ukraine, and it is all a sham, and everyone who has testified under OATH is lying, and Parnas is also telling porkies and forged all his physical evidence, including text and phone records etc..
Why won't Trump direct Rudy, Mulvaney, Pence, Bolton, Pompeo and Perry to testify under oath so they can clear everything up and tell congress, under oath, that there was no such scheme? If the Senate is so sure it is a sham and that Trump is innocent, why won't they subpeona all the witnesses in Trump's cabinet to testify under oath to totally destroy the democrats and give Trump the clear acquittal he so craves?
Furthermore, why won't Trump testify under oath to say this also? Clinton testified for his impeachment. Hilary has testified under oath before congress for hours and hours as well. Why can't Trump testify? Is he so weak and spineless that he is scared to do it?
If the Trump haters are so righteous, then be un-biased and see that the last administration also 'obstructed justice' as you call it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-facts-behind-obamas-executive-privilege-claim
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-facts-behind-obamas-executive-privilege-claim
So what is executive privilege?
The president can invoke executive privilege in order to withhold some internal executive branch communications from the other branches of government. The privilege is based on the separation of powers between the branches.
Executive privilege has been invoked since the U.S.'s early days. It was only in 1974, when Richard Nixon tried to prevent the release of White House tapes during the Watergate investigation, that the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, and set some parameters for it. The Court ruled that no claim on executive privilege is absolute, and can also be overcome if evidence is needed in a criminal trial. (For a full legal history, see this report from the Congressional Research Service.)
So what does it usually cover?
Various administrations have set their own policies as to when they can invoke the privilege. (The Washington Post has a handy timeline showing when presidents have used it.)
Bill Clinton used them a lot, 14 times during his presidency. In 1998, his attempt to keep White House aides from testifying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal was struck down, the first time since Nixon that executive privilege was overruled in court. George W. Bush invoked the privilege six times, not always successfully.
Legal challenges have established two general categories of executive privilege: presidential communications and deliberative process.
The presidential communications privilege applies to communications involving the president or his staff that immediately pertain to the president's decision-making process. The idea, according to Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, and author of a book on executive privilege, is that "the president should have the right to candid advice without fear of public disclosure."
Deliberative process involves a broader scope of executive branch activity: discussions involving White House staff or within other agencies on legal or policy decisions that don't necessarily involve the president or his immediate advisers. Again, the argument is that government officials need to feel like they can talk honestly. The deliberative process privilege, Rozell says, is generally easier to challenge than a claim of presidential communications privilege.
The president can invoke executive privilege in order to withhold some internal executive branch communications from the other branches of government. The privilege is based on the separation of powers between the branches.
Executive privilege has been invoked since the U.S.'s early days. It was only in 1974, when Richard Nixon tried to prevent the release of White House tapes during the Watergate investigation, that the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality, and set some parameters for it. The Court ruled that no claim on executive privilege is absolute, and can also be overcome if evidence is needed in a criminal trial. (For a full legal history, see this report from the Congressional Research Service.)
So what does it usually cover?
Various administrations have set their own policies as to when they can invoke the privilege. (The Washington Post has a handy timeline showing when presidents have used it.)
Bill Clinton used them a lot, 14 times during his presidency. In 1998, his attempt to keep White House aides from testifying about the Monica Lewinsky scandal was struck down, the first time since Nixon that executive privilege was overruled in court. George W. Bush invoked the privilege six times, not always successfully.
Legal challenges have established two general categories of executive privilege: presidential communications and deliberative process.
The presidential communications privilege applies to communications involving the president or his staff that immediately pertain to the president's decision-making process. The idea, according to Mark Rozell, a professor at George Mason University, and author of a book on executive privilege, is that "the president should have the right to candid advice without fear of public disclosure."
Deliberative process involves a broader scope of executive branch activity: discussions involving White House staff or within other agencies on legal or policy decisions that don't necessarily involve the president or his immediate advisers. Again, the argument is that government officials need to feel like they can talk honestly. The deliberative process privilege, Rozell says, is generally easier to challenge than a claim of presidential communications privilege.
Republicans have been voting straight down the party line on this issue from day one. They'll back him to the hilt, there's no way he'll be convicted.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,639
A rather different set of circumstances no?
Some federal agents lost some guns and there was an enquiry into it....it isn't like Obama was using executive privilege to try and cover for his crimes/abuse of power.
All that needs to be asked of Rudy, Mulvaney, Pence, Bolton, Pompeo and Perry is this: "Were you aware of and/or involved in a scheme within which the President was using congressionally mandated aid and a white house meeting to pressure Ukraine into simply just announcing an investigation into Burisma"
The Dems did the same in the house, it was a partisan impeachment enquiry.
And if that is what was needed, then the dems in the house should have done that, they didn't follow that through. They failed there.
Only because they got tied up in litigation because of White House obstruction, which no doubt would have gone on and on and on with the WH appealing everything until it got to the supreme court.
If Trump is innocent and no such scheme existed, why are they always trying to prevent people talking?
Even recently there are reports that they intend to classify Bolton's testimony (if he chooses to testify).
Incorrect. An independent also voted for his impeachment. A couple of Dems didn't.
Only all the Republicans completely towed the party line.
- Status