Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[El OchoCinco]

Furthermore..US v. Nixon is controlling constitutional law and Nixon lost his challenge. The court said

In U.S. vs. Nixon, the justices said there is a “general privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications” that has “constitutional underpinnings.” It was the first time the court had squarely recognized executive privilege. It is “fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution,” the justices said.

However, it is not “an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity,” they added. And most importantly, the president’s “generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, special need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.” Nixon was told he must turn over the tapes. He did so, and within two weeks, he had resigned.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Unless someone can cite law versus opinion...US v. Nixon is controlling. If Bolton chooses to testify on his own accord, Trump cannot block him, especially since he no longer works for the government and the information is not military classified.

Without a legal contrary citation, that is the legal view of this question.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

You didn't read what I wrote well..the question is whether Trump can claim executive privilege to stop a 3rd party from willfully testifying...

If Bolton says he will appear on his own will to testify, can Trump block him. The precedent here is really thin and only case law is persuasive citing other privileges under the law.

Bolton does not have a special privilege under the law and since he was fired I doubt he signed an NDA. we are talking about public office not private relationships that have well recognized law.

Thus the question....

I understood the question and I answered it correctly----Yes, Trump can invoke executive privilege to keep Bolton from testifying. The litigation of this would be 9 to 12 months long with The President victorious.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Unless someone can cite law versus opinion...US v. Nixon is controlling. If Bolton chooses to testify on his own accord, Trump cannot block him, especially since he no longer works for the government and the information is not military classified.

Without a legal contrary citation, that is the legal view of this question.

In the case you cited, you have answered the question and corroborated what I have said. By the way, the second part of what you quoted has no bearing here. There is no criminal trial pending.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Sorry...you lose...

US v Nixon is controlling law here and Trump cannot keep Bolton from testifying in a trial such as this.

You are also wrong about litigation. Constitution Grant's Senate 100% control over impeachments. Courts have no place in an impeachment.

0 - 2......swing and a miss.

Cite a law that says otherwise.

 

[El OchoCinco]

In the case you cited, you have answered the question and corroborated what I have said. By the way, the second part of what you quoted has no bearing here. There is no criminal trial pending.

US v. Nixon is the law and a UNANIMOUS SC said the right is not absolute.

swing and a miss...still have not cited any case law to refute US v. Nixon

 

[El OchoCinco]

Sekulow also hinted at the possibility of going to court to assert executive privilege. Most legal experts have downplayed this option because the Constitution clearly says “the Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.” And the Senate’s rules for impeachment say: “The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses.” It would be unusual for a federal district judge to step into the middle and assert the power to decide whether the Senate may call a witness.

 

[El OchoCinco]

White House may favor a middle option in which, for example, Bolton could testify but only behind closed doors before the Senate. This could be justified as a means to protect national security and confidentiality while allowing the senators to hear Bolton answer questions under oath.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Sorry...you lose...

US v Nixon is controlling law here and Trump cannot keep Bolton from testifying in a trial such as this.

You are also wrong about litigation. Constitution Grant's Senate 100% control over impeachments. Courts have no place in an impeachment.

0 - 2......swing and a miss.

Cite a law that says otherwise.

US presidents have executive privilege to stop witnesses from testifying in an impeachment trial. The Senate has sole power to try an impeachment and call witnesses, but does not have sole power to compel testimony. The litigation would be very lengthy in this regard and The President's position would emerge as the winning tilt.

 

[El OchoCinco]

cannot make up law there...Senate has sole power to compel testimony...says it in the law which gives Senate sole discretion on rules.

Courts have no jurisdiction so there would be NO litigation.....you need to read more.

Swing and a miss..strike three. Making up shit is always a good way to look silly.