- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/13/19 at 11:41 pm to BoarEd
quote:
No way does this happen.
Uhhhh....
Lawyer Alan Dershowitz Says Met Trump Amid Impeachment Battle Dec. 12, 2019, at 11:08 a.m.
Posted on 12/13/19 at 11:54 pm to davyjones
quote:
The House knows the judiciary does have reserved authority within the impeachment process. Otherwise they wouldn't have been participating in the ongoing court battles to enforce their subpoenas. That is ongoing. They simply chose to move forward regardless.
Right. And if the SCOTUS rules the POTUS can claim executive privilege and ignore congressional subpoenas, then their Obstruction article is fully destroyed.
I’m not sure SCOTUS has any power to interfere with impeachment directly. But I also don’t see a need with that ruling.
I am curious about the limits of executive privilege regarding congressional subpoenas. Looks like we may find out.
This post was edited on 12/13/19 at 11:56 pm
Posted on 12/14/19 at 12:05 am to jamboybarry
quote:
can eat a bag of dicks
That'll make 'em happy.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 12:12 am to BobBoucher
We will eventually find out I believe, on that exact question of the limits. I feel like it will be as applicable as it would be in any other Congressional proceeding wherein similar subpoenas are tendered and the same privilege invoked. Also, I think not only Executive privilege but attorney-client privilege is involved as well.
The main exception to most privileges is "crime-fraud exception," and that could possibly be the case with executive privilege as well, generally speaking, but I'd think that the specifics of the crime or fraud would have to be laid out to the court to determine whether sufficient to pierce the privilege. IMO the Dems wouldn't have a persuasive argument for that exception given what we know about their allegations. They didn't even allege any crime in the articles.
The main exception to most privileges is "crime-fraud exception," and that could possibly be the case with executive privilege as well, generally speaking, but I'd think that the specifics of the crime or fraud would have to be laid out to the court to determine whether sufficient to pierce the privilege. IMO the Dems wouldn't have a persuasive argument for that exception given what we know about their allegations. They didn't even allege any crime in the articles.
This post was edited on 12/14/19 at 12:15 am
Posted on 12/14/19 at 12:16 am to davyjones
quote:
but I'd think that the specifics of the crime or fraud would have to be laid out to the court to determine whether sufficient to pierce the privilege.
Probable cause (or similar)
I originally had it in the first post. Either way, neither party should be the sole judge of what constitutes probable cause as an exception to privilege. It MUST be the judiciary who decides.
Given the lack of substantive evidence by Congress, I like the looks of it.
We could be down to 1 article pretty quick. Wonder how long it would take SCOTUS to hear and rule.
This post was edited on 12/14/19 at 12:18 am
Posted on 12/14/19 at 12:22 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The argument that the judiciary has no place in determining the validity of a congressional subpoena or the scope of executive privilege is absolute insanity.
It's the argument, we lost the Presidency but now we have the House and we're gonna frickin' send you packing at our discretion.
Basically a partisan coup and we don't like you.
I'm not for dictators who can't be removed or abuse of power...but Nixon's impeachment inquiry was silly in the bigger picture (especially what is going now with Dems) and frankly Clinton's impeachment talk was silly because he what? soiled the Oval office with philandering? Hello JFK.
Impeachment shouldn't be Pope standards, it should be World Leaders of the most powerful nation on earth standards. Meaning, you really have to sell your country down the river.
Which is the complete opposite of what Trump is doing. They're trying to impeach a President for trying to HELP his country.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 12:59 am to SSpaniel
quote:
aren't they basically saying that
"We are congress. You must do what we say. You have no method for not doing what we say. No one can dispute us or go against us. If you don't do what we say, we'll hold you in contempt of us and remove you from office."
That's exactly what they are saying and regardless of which way they rule, SCOTUS just said, naw...
Posted on 12/14/19 at 1:06 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Which is the complete opposite of what Trump is doing. They're trying to impeach a President for trying to HELP his country.
This is the correct article
Posted on 12/14/19 at 1:17 am to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
Which is the complete opposite of what Trump is doing. They're trying to impeach a President for trying to HELP his country.
Agree 100%. POTUS has carte Blanche to investigate evidence of corruption.
Where he might have tripped up is by asking Ukraine to announce it. That doesn’t make it a crime, but creates the optics the Dems have been desperate to find.
It’s like throwing a half-eaten chicken wing to a pack of starving wolves.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 1:30 am to BobBoucher
It's reasonable to question that part, the request for announcement. But my theory on that is Trump wasn't fully convinced that Uk's president wasn't just giving them lip service with the one on one commitment to follow through with aggressive pursuit of corruption.
Uk president's public statement announcing commitment to doing so would make it much less likely that Uk's president could deny or back out on the commitment.
Uk president's public statement announcing commitment to doing so would make it much less likely that Uk's president could deny or back out on the commitment.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 5:30 am to BoarEd
Why don’t they go lock up Bill and Hilldawg? Apparently, Epstein had a portrait of Bill dressed in a blue dress.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 7:26 am to Oddibe
quote:
Said the courts found in favor of Trump for not complying with the House subpoena...which automatically nullifies 1 of the 2 articles of impeachment.
Nah - they have drawn a fine line thru that - they claim that the "sole power" in the constitution lies with the HoR = "nobody else gets a word about it."
Meaning - if the House says you gotta do a one-legged dance while playing tic-tac-toe on a greased hog's back as part of their investigation = then you gotta do it - or else they will write up an "article of impeachment" against you. That 'sole power' language gives them god-like power.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 7:31 am to ChineseBandit58
So true.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 7:46 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The argument that the judiciary has no place in determining the validity of a congressional subpoena or the scope of executive privilege is absolute insanity.
The word you are looking for is tyranny, not insanity.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 7:49 am to SCLibertarian
quote:
The argument that the judiciary has no place in determining the validity of a congressional subpoena or the scope of executive privilege is absolute insanity.
especially since it will be like that argument was never brought up when the Republicans take the House
If the Republicans take the House I wish the first thing they'd say is "We are going to run thi EXACTLY like the democrats did for 6 months, just to show everybody how that works, THEN we will run it correctly."
Posted on 12/14/19 at 7:51 am to jamboybarry
quote:
The Democratic Party has cheapened the mechanism of impeachment with this stunt and for that they can eat a bag of dicks
They can start with Durbin.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 8:35 am to BobBoucher
quote:
And if the SCOTUS rules the POTUS can claim executive privilege and ignore congressional subpoenas, then their Obstruction article is fully destroyed
The fact they granted cert on the issue obliterates the obstruction article.
SCOTUS doesn't grant cert on meritless, frivolous arguments. It denies them with comment.
It is prima facie evidence of good faith.
Posted on 12/14/19 at 8:56 am to Oddibe
quote:
But he was adamant the obstruction of congress was total BS.
As well he should be. It’s not a real thing.
If obstruction of Congress is an impeachable offense, then we’d need to go back and retroactively impeach every president who ever exercised a legislative veto. Because that’s the very definition of “obstruction of Congress”.
Oh, and incidentally, if “I’ve got a pen and a phone” isn’t “obstruction of Congress”, then literally nothing is.
This post was edited on 12/14/19 at 9:00 am
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News