Why no Trump impeachment thread on Paw-Litics???

If not for how sad, somber, and heavy hearted the Democrats are, I would think this laughable. But, since they are so, it must be bi-partisan and essential to maintaining the republic. Oh, wait, Nancy is going to wait until Mitch tells her how he is going to operate before she sends over the articles? Did Republicans have their demands met for just how Schift or Naddy were going to conduct their railroad process?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I feel like you are capable of understanding the difference between an agreement with an improper purpose (such as a bribe or drug deal) and an agreement with a proper purpose (to resolve an issue or conduct proper business).

And likewise, I think you are capable of understanding the difference between a veto (a power the Constitution explicitly gives to the President) and complete refusal to recognize a power that is given to Congress in the Constitution.

---

You mean like making sure that a country lives up to their end of an anti corruption agreement before releasing aid. So, Trump is justified in releasing aid after Ukraine President signed 2 anti corruption measures. Glad that is settled.

Still have yet to see the court decision that says that an admin has no executive privilege and must turn over every envelope, paper clip, and floor mat that the legislature asks for.

I thought this was good...most of you, of course, will not:

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/...tm_source=copy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A BRAIN ON REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS

You mean like making sure that a country lives up to their end of an anti corruption agreement before releasing aid. So, Trump is justified in releasing aid after Ukraine President signed 2 anti corruption measures. Glad that is settled.

Still have yet to see the court decision that says that an admin has no executive privilege and must turn over every envelope, paper clip, and floor mat that the legislature asks for.

---

Why is potential Biden corruption the only corruption that Trump has ever seemed to care about? Why didn’t he follow the normal process for vetting compliance of our anti-corruption practices? Why did he fire our Ambassador with a strong anti-corruption record? Why did he arrange this unique backchannel to arrange for this deal with his personal lawyer and an Ambassador that gave him a million dollars?

Your second paragraph is something you could probably answer yourself if you thought about it.

Let’s start with the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, that means it trumps all other laws, whether statutory or common law. Impeachment is an explicit power given to the Congress. It was put in there for checks and balances. You can read about all the concerns that the Framers had about vesting so much power in a single executive in the Federalist papers.

Executive privilege does not actually appear in the Constitution. Which means that there is no way it could trump an express power. That should really be the end of the debate.

But even if you want to talk about how in other legal proceedings, courts recognize an executive privilege (outside of Impeachment) it has never been an absolute privilege the way Trump asserted it. And again, nothing other than another express constitutional power could ever trump an express constitutional power. In other proceedings, it is still a qualified and limited privilege. In other words, even in legal proceedings (not impeachment) where executive privilege applies, it can only be used to exclude certain evidence where it is determined that the proper functioning of an executive branch requires its protection over the potential value of its relevance to the issue at hand.

Executive privilege has never before been asserted so broadly to not turn over any documents and to instruct all executive witnesses not to comply with subpoenas.

That isn’t a claim of limited privilege but of an absolute privilege. There is simply no legal basis to support such a privilege and Congress as a co-equal branch does not need a judiciary to rule on something that is this clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I thought this was good...most of you, of course, will not:

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/...tm_source=copy

---

Takeaways from the article:

1. Trump is a meanie and has no decorum
2. Bernie and his supporters are crazy..

:laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Why is potential Biden corruption the only corruption that Trump has ever seemed to care about? Why didn’t he follow the normal process for vetting compliance of our anti-corruption practices? Why did he fire our Ambassador with a strong anti-corruption record? Why did he arrange this unique backchannel to arrange for this deal with his personal lawyer and an Ambassador that gave him a million dollars?

Your second paragraph is something you could probably answer yourself if you thought about it.

Let’s start with the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land, that means it trumps all other laws, whether statutory or common law. Impeachment is an explicit power given to the Congress. It was put in there for checks and balances. You can read about all the concerns that the Framers had about vesting so much power in a single executive in the Federalist papers.

Executive privilege does not actually appear in the Constitution. Which means that there is no way it could trump an express power. That should really be the end of the debate.

But even if you want to talk about how in other legal proceedings, courts recognize an executive privilege (outside of Impeachment) it has never been an absolute privilege the way Trump asserted it. And again, nothing other than another express constitutional power could ever trump an express constitutional power. In other proceedings, it is still a qualified and limited privilege. In other words, even in legal proceedings (not impeachment) where executive privilege applies, it can only be used to exclude certain evidence where it is determined that the proper functioning of an executive branch requires its protection over the potential value of its relevance to the issue at hand.

Executive privilege has never before been asserted so broadly to not turn over any documents and to instruct all executive witnesses not to comply with subpoenas.

That isn’t a claim of limited privilege but of an absolute privilege. There is simply no legal basis to support such a privilege and Congress as a co-equal branch does not need a judiciary to rule on something that is this clear.

---

Because The Constitution says POTUS has the right to have people ambassadors serve at his leisure. President sets foreign policy, not the STATE Dept. it's the State Dept job to execute it. They can try to influence the POTUS, but not set policy.

Constitution Article I... Congress
Constitution Article II.. Presidency
Constitution Article III .. Courts

No one is above other.. all three are equal.. If Congress and POTUS disagree.. you give it to Courts for decision. That never happened here. Democrats didn't want it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Takeaways from the article:

1. Trump is a meanie and has no decorum
2. Bernie and his supporters are crazy..

:laugh:

---

You got it half right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

Because The Constitution says POTUS has the right to have people ambassadors serve at his leisure. President sets foreign policy, not the STATE Dept. it's the State Dept job to execute it. They can try to influence the POTUS, but not set policy.

Constitution Article I... Congress
Constitution Article II.. Presidency
Constitution Article III .. Courts

No one is above other.. all three are equal.. If Congress and POTUS disagree.. you give it to Courts for decision. That never happened here. Democrats didn't want it.

---

So where does the Constitution say that Trump can refuse to turn over documents requested by Congress or order witnesses not to respond to subpoenas?

Your argument that third branch decides when there is a conflict between the other two - where does that appear in the Constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PawDawg

You have always lived in a different world (reality) than most of us here, most of the Tech family, and most hard working people. Your world is make believe. It has no moral absolutes, very few rules, and and an elite attitude toward anybody who does not agree with your every changing tenets. You and your kind define what is wrong with our country today. Most of all you are eaten up with a convenient hate of things the defeat you. Most of all you are disoriented between bottom and top.

---

This may be your best post ever!!!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

So where does the Constitution say that Trump can refuse to turn over documents requested by Congress or order witnesses not to respond to subpoenas?

Your argument that third branch decides when there is a conflict between the other two - where does that appear in the Constitution?

---

where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive Branch is subjective to and not equal to Legislative Branch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FriscoDog

where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive Branch is subjective to and not equal to Legislative Branch?

---

“The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” What does sole mean? Does it mean there is some partial Executive power that applies as well?

So, yeah, the President is subject to the House’s SOLE power of impeachment and doesn’t have an equal power in this regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

“The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” What does sole mean? Does it mean there is some partial Executive power that applies as well?

So, yeah, the President is subject to the House’s SOLE power of impeachment and doesn’t have an equal power in this regard.

---

The house did it and it's done. Impeachment means nothing. It won't cost him a single vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

I thought this was good...most of you, of course, will not:

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/...tm_source=copy

---

His theory that Nixon would survive in today's climate is sadly thought provoking. My initial reaction is that this is just more partisan talking points. I think there is truth to what he is saying, but not for the reasons he is saying it.

He implies that Nixon would survive because of his popularity. I don't agree with that premise. I do think comparisons would be drawn to Obama spying on Trump through the FISC and would probably spare Nixon based on the "well they did it too" defense which is primarily what keeps Trump from facing more serious repercussions.

There are some liberal talking points thrown in that indicate it's not exactly a non partisan viewpoint he's coming from, but it still is enough to make you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by detltu

There are some liberal talking points thrown in that indicate it's not exactly a non partisan viewpoint he's coming from, but it still is enough to make you think.

---

French is a conservative and a constitutional scholar. Maybe, if the talking point is coming from someone who’s not a liberal, it shouldn’t be relegated to the trash heap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

“The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” What does sole mean? Does it mean there is some partial Executive power that applies as well?

So, yeah, the President is subject to the House’s SOLE power of impeachment and doesn’t have an equal power in this regard.

---

Sole means that only congress has the power to impeach. That is not the same as they have absolute power over the Executive branch. They have the power to impeach, the Judicial and Executive branches do not have the power to impeach. Their power is in impeachment. They are the only ones. Impeachment doesn't mean they can do whatever they want.