Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[Buy1Sell2]

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

Your own quote proves my point

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.

The second paragraph of your quote is not applicable here. There is no crime contained in The Articles of Shampeachment and thus no hint of immunity. There is no pending or implied criminal trial

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

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.

US v. Nixon involved a request from the judiciary for evidence in a criminal trial versus -in Trump' scenario - a generalized request from Congress to make a witness available with no crime having been specified. So it is controlling law for requests comparable for Nixon's. Otherwise, there is work to be done to convince the court that it applies to Trump's situtation.
And Nixon resigned because he knew there was a sitting grand jury that had several charges before it, and more importantly that he knew that he did not have the support of many, many members of his own party along with the dems so the handwriting was on the wall. Again, not what Trump is facing.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

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

Yeah------no, The Senate does not have the power to compel testimony and this would be litigated for a long time. This is what the Idiot Dems want.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

US v. Nixon involved a request from the judiciary for evidence in a criminal trial versus -in Trump' scenario - a generalized request from Congress to make a witness available with no crime having been specified. So it is controlling law for requests comparable for Nixon's. Otherwise, there is work to be done to convince the court that it applies to Trump's situtation.
And Nixon resigned because he knew there was a sitting grand jury that had several charges before it, and more importantly that he knew that he did not have the support of many, many members of his own party along with the dems so the handwriting was on the wall. Again, not what Trump is facing.

Yep----his own posting defeated his position.

 

[El OchoCinco]

sorry guys..your understanding of the law is weak.

The court said executive privilege is NOT absolute.

Also Bolton already talked about the conversation AND put it in a book. Trump also talked about the conversation denying what Bolton said. With those facts divulged ...privilege is basically gone.

WH cannot argue EP to stop the book. Trump then screwed himself by tweeting about it. For example if there is attorney client privilege, if the client openly talks about the conversation, privilege also can be stripped.

I hear lots of opinions but no case law.....

There is no executive privilege in the Constitution.

Senate rules says they can hear witnesses.

If Bolton VOLUNTEERS to testify, Senate is not compelling him, he is volunteering just like in his book.

swing and a miss again guys.

Dont give me opinions....think like a lawyer. Legal experts on both sides said the courts will not get involved as they have no jurisdiction. Senate can vote themselves on what to do on witnesses.

case closed

 

[El OchoCinco]

You cannot claim privilege on someone else and then talk about it. Trump is tweeting nonstop about the conversations and what Bolton knew.....

As usual Trump does not follow good legal advice to shut the fuck up. He is carving a path for Bolton to speak.

Lets see what happens. Senate needs 4 more votes to agree on witnesses. they have all the power, not Trump or Pelosi or anyone else. Senate has to vote on whether they want to hear witnesses.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

This SCOTUS could simply rule to revert the unanimous decision of US vs Nixon saying the court was wrong and give Trump a 5-4 win though.

 

[Snarkhund]

You cannot claim privilege on someone else and then talk about it. Trump is tweeting nonstop about the conversations and what Bolton knew.....

As usual Trump does not follow good legal advice to shut the fuck up. He is carving a path for Bolton to speak.

Lets see what happens. Senate needs 4 more votes to agree on witnesses. they have all the power, not Trump or Pelosi or anyone else. Senate has to vote on whether they want to hear witnesses.

An interesting viewpoint on John Bolton:

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/01/joltin-bolton-and-reckless-romney.php

Its not clear he would say what the left expects him to say.

The book was scheduled for release in March, well after the Senate impeachment exercise would nominally be completed. Excerpts of the book were leaked to the New York Times. The timing is remarkable and reminiscent of the Kavanaugh hearings.

Democrats are counting their chickens before they have hatched.

 

[UsualName]

sorry guys..your understanding of the law is weak.

The court said executive privilege is NOT absolute.

Also Bolton already talked about the conversation AND put it in a book. Trump also talked about the conversation denying what Bolton said. With those facts divulged ...privilege is basically gone.

WH cannot argue EP to stop the book. Trump then screwed himself by tweeting about it. For example if there is attorney client privilege, if the client openly talks about the conversation, privilege also can be stripped.

I hear lots of opinions but no case law.....

There is no executive privilege in the Constitution.

Senate rules says they can hear witnesses.

If Bolton VOLUNTEERS to testify, Senate is not compelling him, he is volunteering just like in his book.

swing and a miss again guys.

Dont give me opinions....think like a lawyer. Legal experts on both sides said the courts will not get involved as they have no jurisdiction. Senate can vote themselves on what to do on witnesses.

case closed

This is spot on.

Trump already publicly breached the topic, so he has foregone any privilege rights. Twitter strikes again.

However, I do not think US v Nixon applies to senate trials. That ruling was related to a justice department subpoena. While it’s in the same ballpark as a senate trial, it’s not a clean carryover. The original argument on behalf of Nixon even made a carve out for impeachments.

This all goes back to the Jay Treaty and Washington’s first use of executive privilege. When he made the case for executive privilege, again, the carve out was for impeachments.

 

[DTB2]

It has not even been established that what was leaked is genuine.