Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Is impeachment close?  (Read 5579 times)

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #120 on: December 20, 2019, 11:02:40 pm »
As far as exerting executive privilege goes, the precedent is on his side.  If the House had decided to go to court and then he'd not followed the ruling that would have been different.  Obstruction of Congress by a president claiming executive privilege is not a thing.  If it was, every president would be guilty.
I am not convinced that you have this right, nor do I claim to have expertise in this area.
I am basing my understanding partially on the following 31 page document and the opinion in US v. Nixon (partially reproduced therein).
Sorry about the font size and line breaks. Read the intro and conclusion in the document.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdfPresidential Claims of Executive Privilege: History, Law, Practice, and RecentDevelopmentsTodd Garvey, Legislative AttorneyDecember 15, 2014Litigation over the scope of executive privilege in direct relation to congressional oversight and investigations has also been quite limited. In total, there have been only four cases dealing with executive privilege in the context of information access disputes between Congress and the executive,and only two of those resulted in decisions on the merits.Indeed, the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for informationConcluding ObservationsAs indicated in the above discussion, recent appellate court rulings may cast doubt on the broad claims of privilege posited by the executive branch in the past. Taken together, Espyand Judicial Watcharguably have effected important qualifications and restraints on the nature, scope, and reach of the presidential communications privilege. As established by those cases, and until reviewed by the Supreme Court, the following elements should be considered in determining when the privilege can be invoked properly: The communication must be authored or ?solicited and received? by a close White House adviseror the President. The judicial test requires that an adviserbe in ?operational proximity? to the President. This effectively means that the scope of the presidential communications privilege can extend only to the administrative boundaries of the Executive Officeof the President and the White House. It appears not to apply to communications or documents wholly produced within an executive department or agency.2.The presidential communications privilege maybe limited to communications relating to a ?quintessentialand non-delegable presidential power.? Espyand Judicial Watchinvolved the appointment and removal and the pardon powers, respectively. Other core, direct presidential decision-making powers include the Commander-in-Chief power, the sole authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and the power to negotiate treaties. However, neither case explicitly stated that the presidential communications privilege could only apply to communications and documents relating to ?quintessential and non-delegable presidential power.? 3.The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing that the information sought ?likely contains important evidence? and cannot be obtained from other sources. The Espycourt found an adequate showing of need by the Independent Counsel that overcame the privilege. In Judicial Watch, the court found the presidential communications privilege did not apply, and remanded to the district court to determine if the deliberative process privilege would apply to specific documents. Definitively applying the te
Tom

Offline TheHoneyPump

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 620
  • Work Hard. Play Harder.
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #121 on: December 22, 2019, 02:58:07 pm »
Consider the following:

In the house of cards; Pelosi believes she has drawn a high Trump card. Some think that at best she has a low Trump card and further some others believe she has only a high sluff card she is bluffing off of.  Unless someone is able to force her hand and draw it out, there can be no knowing which card she has.  Someone needs to play another Trump card to pull on her and see who wins the trick.

It appears to me that she is playing the long game. Hoping to hold out and win the last trick on the table. What this will look like is she will likely hold onto the articles until after Trump is re-elected, then will try to have him removed from office in his 2nd term. She may perhaps even have to hold on until after the next Senate elections.  She can hope for enough seat changes in the senate, drawing out those other Trump cards, so she can safely play her high Stuff to win the Trick.

So the two questions are:   How can one force her hand to play her card?  Is there a time limitation for how long impeachment can be stalled in process?  Can it hang out there for 10 years, 50 years, 1000 years, ... ?  Or is there something that says it must proceed within xx days/months from one stage to the next?   If there is no such time limitation, this whole experience exposes a serious flaw in the process, thus presenting opportunities for strategic political manipulation - the likes of which is currently occurring.

Food for thought .......
Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees Buzz Bees

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #122 on: December 22, 2019, 03:19:30 pm »
HP,
You are on the right track.


The 6th amendment requires a speedy trial in a criminal prosecution so not helpful in this analysis.

Each governmental division gets to set its own rules in exercising its powers.


So....does the senate choose another nuclear option in modifying its rules to do an end run against whatever stalling tactics she employs? Or does she simply rescind last weeks action and reenact at another date?

It only proves that this is all politically motivated on her part.

 
Tom

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17372
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #123 on: December 22, 2019, 03:41:40 pm »
Quote
I am not convinced that you have this right, nor do I claim to have expertise in this area.

A president can claim executive privilege, but a court may over-rule that claim.  This happened with Nixon.  Where the current House thing is different is that they chose not to go to court.  If they are not willing to do that, then they can't force him to turn over those things for which he has claimed privilege. 
Their reasoning for not going to court was that it would take to long and Trump was an immediate danger.  NPs actions seem to have negated that argument.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline minz

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 302
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #124 on: December 22, 2019, 04:09:39 pm »
Consider the following:

 Hoping to hold out and win the last trick on the table. What this will look like is she will likely hold onto the articles until after Trump is re-elected, then will try to have him removed from office in his 2nd term. She may perhaps even have to hold on until after the next Senate elections.  She can hope for enough seat changes in the senate, drawing out those other Trump cards, so she can safely play her high Stuff to win the Trick.


So right now the impeachment will go no where. The debate is not if he will get convicted but rather if they will just simply 'vote' rather than try him. The thought is that no witness will even be called.
You are thinking that if the Dems win the senate they can roll that out on their last day and the tide will be in total reverse (or exactly the same).
That is a clever statement HP, starting to sound like a chess game.
Poor decisions make the best stories.

Offline minz

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 302
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2019, 04:20:42 pm »


We don't have to guess at the medias leanings.

If your source of news is the 6pm nightly, then yes, you have been lied to.  There is no kinder way to put it.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who never question what they are told by those talking heads.  I get it. 

I think the talking heads average that Trump averages 5.5 lies per day. As far as I know he has doubled down on most.
Do you question what is being said to you from the talking turnip?
I hung out with a bunch of fishermen. You know which of them has caught the biggest fish the last weekend before the door opens. I do not trust his report to decide on which bait to purchase, what depth or even which river. It does not make them bad, just not reliable source of information.

Poor decisions make the best stories.

Online iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2019, 06:04:48 pm »
You are right, Minz. When all you hear are lies from all directions, the best you can do is look at the recent past results. If you look at what has happened to income, jobs, net worths, increased freedoms and fewer restrictions, more fair application of laws across the board, ETC. ETC. ETC., you have to side with Trump. His actions speak louder then his words, and their inactions speak louder than their words.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17372
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #127 on: December 22, 2019, 09:02:59 pm »
Quote
I think the talking heads average that Trump averages 5.5 lies per day. As far as I know he has doubled down on most.

But you are getting your stats from the people who have been caught over and over in lies.

One of sites that I actually like had to put out an article this week about how their own trustability has suffered because of some of their reporting on the FISA abuses.  At least a few are starting to wake up, but there are still too many on places like CNN and MSNBC who are openly partisan, don't care about facts, and often openly lie.  There are too many people still getting info from those sources. 

That is not to say that you are incorrect about some of the things Trump has said, but there is a big difference between insisting incorrectly that a crowd size is bigger than it was, and lying about things like FBI malfeasance and Russia collusion. 
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #128 on: December 23, 2019, 02:34:32 am »
Quote
I am not convinced that you have this right, nor do I claim to have expertise in this area.

A president can claim executive privilege, but a court may over-rule that claim.  This happened with Nixon.  Where the current House thing is different is that they chose not to go to court.  If they are not willing to do that, then they can't force him to turn over those things for which he has claimed privilege. 
Their reasoning for not going to court was that it would take to long and Trump was an immediate danger.  NPs actions seem to have negated that argument.

The legislature goes to the court for enforcement, not permission. And even then, the judiciary would rather not arbitrate the resolution between the other two equal branches of government but would prefer that the other two equal branches worked it out among themselves.


The reason for not going to court is that the Democrats did not want the remedy since the infraction was already committed. Why let him off the hook? It is better to have the infraction unresolved so impeachment articles could be approved.



In US v. Nixon the court ruled that the executive branch of government has executive privilege on a subset of its documents - not all of its documents.  Certain documents  were requested from executive by judiciary to prove wrong doings of others in fulfillment of judicial's constitutional authority to preside over the criminal trials. Unfortunately for Nixon, those documents contained information implicating Nixon as well as the others subject of the request.


Just because the legislative branch can presumably get a judgement enforcing its right to the documents it requested (like judiciary did in Nixon), does not mean that the legislature's constitutionally granted authority has not been obstructed by the executive noncompliance to date. There is no doubt that executive branch has obstructed the legislative branch's authority to investigate.




Tom

Online Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 5778
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #129 on: December 23, 2019, 09:00:18 am »
there is a big difference between insisting incorrectly that a crowd size is bigger than it was
A liar is a liar.  They can't help themselves.  In their mind they did not lie so they continue unobstructed from the truth.  What blows my mind is that the followers do the same even when it is black and white.  I can't explain that.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Online iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #130 on: December 23, 2019, 09:43:41 am »
""They can't help themselves.""

"They" being all politicians, of all parties and all levels, from township on up.

So why try to segregate one group into it and leave out all the others? That in itself is a lie.
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17372
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #131 on: December 23, 2019, 11:24:01 am »
Quote
Just because the legislative branch can presumably get a judgement enforcing its right to the documents it requested (like judiciary did in Nixon), does not mean that the legislature's constitutionally granted authority has not been obstructed by the executive noncompliance to date. There is no doubt that executive branch has obstructed the legislative branch's authority to investigate.

They have been obstructed in their desires.  They have not been obstructed in a legal way because the president, being one branch of government, has the right to claim executive privilege.  The Congress then has the right to go to the 3rd branch and seek a remedy.  They chose not to do that, they even chose not to subpoena or withdraw the subpoenas for those they wished to hear from.   I am not sure what the court would have done with that.  They can't enforce what has not been issued.

If you can find Turleys testimony this was the point he was making.  Congress does not have more power than the other branches and if they claim it, they are committing abuse of power. 




They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #132 on: December 23, 2019, 12:21:41 pm »

> They chose not to do that, they even chose not to subpoena or withdraw the subpoenas for those they wished to hear from. They can't enforce what has not been issued. <
I was not aware of this. That changes my view regarding the obstruction article. 

I do not know if Turley contradicted the following, or if anything changed over the past 5 years since 12/15/2014 when the below referenced paper was issued. I only saw small portions of that day's hearings.

FYI -

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf

Presidential claims of a right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative demands have figured prominently, though intermittently, in executive-congressional relations since at least 1792. Few such inter-branch disputes over access to information have reached the courts for substantive resolution. The vast majority of these disputes are resolved through political negotiation and accommodation. In fact, it was not until the Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970s seeking access to President Nixon?s tapes that the existence of a presidential confidentiality privilege was judicially established as a necessary derivative of the President?s status in our constitutional scheme of separated powers. There have been only four cases involving information access disputes between Congress and the executive, and two of these resulted in decisions on the merits. The Nixon and post-Watergate cases established the broad contours of the presidential communications privilege. Under those precedents, the privilege, which is constitutionally rooted, could be invoked by the President when asked to produce documents or other materials or information that reflect presidential decision making and deliberations that he believes should remain confidential. If the President asserts the privilege, the materials become presumptively privileged. The privilege, however, is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need. Finally, while reviewing courts have expressed reluctance in balancing executive privilege claims against a congressional demand for information, they have acknowledged they will do so if the political branches have tried, in good faith, but failed to reach an accommodation.
[/font]***
[/font]Supreme Court decisions have left considerable gaps in the law of presidential privilege. Among the more significant issues left open include whether the President must have actually seen or been familiar with the disputed matter; whether the presidential privilege encompasses documents and information developed by, or in the possession of, officers and employees in the departments and agencies of the executive branch, outside of the Executive Office of the President; whether the privilege encompasses all communications with respect to which the President may be interested or is confined to presidential decision making and, if so, whether it is limited to a particular type of presidential decision making; and precisely what kind of demonstration of need must be shown to overcome the privilege and compel disclosure of the materials. The District of Columbia Circuit?s 1997 ruling in In re Sealed Case (Espy), and its 2004 decision in Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice, addressed many of these questions in a manner that may alter the future legal playing field in resolving such disputes. Moreover, two recent disputes between the executive branch and Congress over the removal of U.S. Attorneys during the George W. Bush Administration and the Department of Justice?s response to a congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious may provide further insight into the scope of executive privilege in the congressional oversight context.[/font]
Tom

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 17372
  • Gender: Female
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #133 on: December 23, 2019, 03:11:34 pm »
I am not sure what argument you are trying to make, but thanks for the large print   :cheesy:

They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline incognito

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 304
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #134 on: December 23, 2019, 11:35:46 pm »
I am not sure what argument you are trying to make, but thanks for the large print   :cheesy:

No argument. Just sharing what I found.
Tom

Offline Ben Framed

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3486
  • North Mississippi
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #135 on: December 24, 2019, 04:16:59 am »
U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4 states,
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.?

In  this particular case the President was accused of quid pro quo by some in congress as stated by Adam Schiff when standing before congress, quoting the conversation between The President  of the Untied States of America and President of Ukraine as Schiff was quoting directly to congress and for all the world to hear a total pack of made up lies and accusations, false accusations, lies, and quotes. This accusal was PROVEN to be a made up pack of lies as shown by the cleverness of our President providing transcripts of the very same conversation that schiffs whistle blower made up and schiff so eagerly portrayed and play acted well! Let us give schiff credit, he played it as well as, or better than John Wilks Booth could have play acted a make believe script! Immediately, any honorable person, should have, would have proven himself to be honorable and, would have exposed the lying whistle blower and brought forth charges of treason.
Shift did not do so but double downed of impeachment anyway. Impeachment  was the only. matter that the do nothing Democrats seemed to be interested in accomplishing. Holding secret meeting in the bottom of The Capital basement. Sneaking, conniving, colluding steady forward as she goes, trying to build a case against the president. Even though their case was weak as water as evidence had been provided by our Patriotic President in the form of the authentic transcript proving he had committed no high crime or Misdemeanor as originally set forth by his accusers. The lack of evidence against the president was there for all the world to see and hear for themselves via the actual transcript of the conversation.  Even so, the kangaroo court went on. The word bribery was floating around next as the new word of choice and quid pro quo was dropped like a hot potato. Witness after witness was called to testify by and for the Democrats, disallowing republicans to call one single witness as requested. Even still not even one witness could verify a single high crime or misdemeanor against the president. This was an open and shut case yet the democrats, all but one, voted to impeach 45 anyway. Just as the Roman senate did to Julius Cesar destroyed him physically. The Democrats are attempting to politically destroy our President. Thieves of deplorable origins in my opinion and apparently the opinion 63 million others. Patriots... 



.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2019, 04:58:13 am by Ben Framed »

Offline gww

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 982
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #136 on: December 24, 2019, 11:51:29 am »
Shiff's paraphrasing of the transcript was a proper interpretation of trumps released transcript.  No, it did not use trumps words but did put trumps words into perspective.  Every one can read it for themselves and see this is true.  It is just a way to muddy the waters to say shift should have used the exact words rather than putting trumps words into perspective.  It would be better for trumps defenders to defend or put a different perspective on the transcript rather then just call shiff a lair.  When I read it, I think shift got it right and then with all the testimony or others, it becomes even clearer.  The best defense I have heard from republicans so far is that trump had mueller on his mind and so little self control that he was just blabbing about what was on his mind and he should be forgiven for that.  That might be fine had he not let giuliana go on tv and tell of all the resources put behind the "looking" adding more then just blabbing to the story.

So it still comes down to every one really knowing what trump really did and either thinking it is ok cause they are convinced every one else does the same and they are ok with that or it is wrong.
Cheers
gww

Online iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #137 on: December 24, 2019, 12:10:31 pm »
You're right, gww. Adolf Shitt did it the democrat way.

""A professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton's great uncle, Remus Rodham, a fellow lacking in moral character, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889. The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: "Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, and robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889."

The researcher e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary's staff of professional image adjusters cropped Remus' picture, scanned it, enlarged the image, and edited it with image processing software so that all that's seen is a head shot. The accompanying biographical sketch was as follows:

"Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory. His business empire grew to include the acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the Railroad. In 1887, he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency. In 1889, Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor when the platform upon which he was standing collapsed.""
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*

Offline gww

  • Field Bee
  • ***
  • Posts: 982
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #138 on: December 24, 2019, 12:53:04 pm »
Hi Iddee
 :grin:
Cheers
gww

Online iddee

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 9755
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is impeachment close?
« Reply #139 on: December 24, 2019, 02:04:18 pm »
Merry Christmas, gww. Glad to see you back.   :smile:
"Listen to the mustn'ts, child. Listen to the don'ts. Listen to the shouldn'ts, the impossibles, the won'ts. Listen to the never haves, then listen close to me . . . Anything can happen, child. Anything can be"

*Shel Silverstein*