Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[TreeFrogTrader]

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

Try again yourself, failed lawyer.

The fact that executive privilege is not absolute does not mean that there are not valid assertions of it. Most legal pundits agree that converstations between a president and a national security advisor are at the very core of what is covered. And it is only your failed-lawyer opinion that executive privilege is not in the constitution. Again, most with knowledge of the constitution would and do argue that it in inherent in the separation of powers. You think Congress can request notes and interview Supreme Court justices about the deliberations of their cases and their private conversations related to it, even though it does not specifically say in the Constitutition that they can't? Maybe one of your lefty buddies in the senate can run that one by John Roberts and let us know how it works out.

FAIL!! There is a reason why you are not practicing law and it is on full display.

 

[piezoe]

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.

pure B.S.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

pure B.S.

Yeah-----no, Trump may not invoke executive privilege in the end, but your response shows how little Lefties understand concerning separation of powers in The US Constitution. Frothy Lefties twist things so that they fit their narrative.

 

[piezoe]

The fact that executive privilege is not absolute does not mean that there are not valid assertions of it.

In the case being discussed no one has yet identified a valid assertion, nor would it appear they will be able to. The existing case law would stand were the issue to get as far as adjudication by the Court. This issue can be settled in a matter of hours not months.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

In the case being discussed no one has yet identified a valid assertion, nor would it appear they will be able to. The existing case law would stand were the issue to get as far as adjudication by the Court. This issue can be settled in a matter of hours not months.

FROTH

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

In the case being discussed no one has yet identified a valid assertion, nor would it appear they will be able to. The existing case law would stand were the issue to get as far as adjudication by the Court. This issue can be settled in a matter of hours not months.

I said that yesterday. Try to keep up. There is the possibility that it could drag on but I said that it is equally possible that it will be expedited, and the dems will get a ruling fast but not the one they want.

Regardless of the outcome, your statement is absurd. ie. "no on has identified a valid assertion, nor would it appear they will be able to." Completely bogus. A president asserting a claim of executive privilege to protect conversations with direct subordinates is totally within the case law and a core area falling under executive privilege. The burden is on those trying to negate it. Nixon was the subject of criminal investigation, had charges pending before grand juries and the information was being sought by the judiciary as part of a criminal process, not Congress. There may be areas where dem lawyers can huff and puff and make some inroads but your google-lawyer dismissal by saying that no one can identify any areas where an assertion can be made is just your low-level google understanding. The lawyers who need to work against it know that it is a sizeable task.

 

[piezoe]

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

I'm sure that even 100 Senators can figure it out if they try.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Try again yourself, failed lawyer.

The fact that executive privilege is not absolute does not mean that there are not valid assertions of it. Most legal pundits agree that converstations between a president and a national security advisor are at the very core of what is covered. And it is only your failed-lawyer opinion that executive privilege is not in the constitution. Again, most with knowledge of the constitution would and do argue that it in inherent in the separation of powers. You think Congress can request notes and interview Supreme Court justices about the deliberations of their cases and their private conversations related to it, even though it does not specifically say in the Constitutition that they can't? Maybe one of your lefty buddies in the senate can run that one by John Roberts and let us know how it works out.

FAIL!! There is a reason why you are not practicing law and it is on full display.

Wow so much opinion and rhetoric without a legal argument...

I already clearly stated why there is not a valid assertion of it in this case.

Trump is already talking about the conversation publicly.
Bolton can voluntarily appear as a witness.

Bolton already is publishing his comments/"testimony" in a book.

There is a huge grey area in invoking executive privilege to prevent release of someone else's testimony. Trump can assert it to prevent himself and current staff from handing over information, Bolton was fired and no longer works for the WH.

Trump is not invoking EP for himself.

Trump's conversation of import is NOT about a national security issue.

Bolton can testify behind closed doors with no public presence to protect any imagined national security issues.

If Bolton is testifying that Trump did clearly state a quid pro quo situation, this is not a privileged coverage area such as consulting with an advisor to see possible ideas or outcomes. it is first person testimony of a coverup, if it occurred.

Impeachment is a Congressional function under the Constitution, the courts do not necessarily have jurisdiction to weigh in on Bolton testifying. Senate has the vote to decide if he testifies or not.

The reason I am not practicing anymore is because I had to deal with asshats like you who PRETEND to know the law but only cite OPINION, not facts. Also, lawyer pay is shit compared to what I make now.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Impeachment is a Congressional function under the Constitution, the courts do not necessarily have jurisdiction to weigh in on Bolton testifying. Senate has the vote to decide if he testifies or not.

Also, lawyer pay is shit compared to what I make now.



.

Correct. If you had been taking notes when I explained this you could have saved yourself some wear and tear.

And yes, no doubt pay for your lawyer work was shit.

 

[El OchoCinco]

A president asserting a claim of executive privilege to protect conversations with direct subordinates is totally within the case law and a core area falling under executive privilege.

Please cite this magic case law you imagined in your sleep. I have a few that might help...

1.In 1796, President George Washington refused to comply with a request by the House of Representatives for documents related to the negotiation of the then-recently adopted Jay Treaty with the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Senate alone plays a role in the ratification of treaties, Washington reasoned, and therefore the House had no legitimate claim to the material. Therefore, Washington provided the documents to the Senate but not the House."

2. Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of the powers of the federal government but also a political opponent of Jefferson, ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for these sorts of court orders for criminal defendants, did not provide any exception for the president. As for Jefferson's claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the president, would be the judge of that. Jefferson refused to personally testify but provided selected letters.

3. Bush invoked executive privilege "in substance" in refusing to disclose the details of Vice PresidentDick Cheney's meetings with energy executives, which was not appealed by the GAO. In a separate Supreme Court decision in 2004, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.'" United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953).


3. A federal judge has ruled that President Clinton cannot use the power of his office to block prosecutors from questioning his senior aides, rejecting Clinton's assertion of executive privilege in the Monica S. Lewinsky investigation, lawyers familiar with the decision said yesterday.

In a ruling issued under court seal Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson concluded that independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr's need to collect evidence in his obstruction of justice probe outweighs Clinton's interest in preserving the confidentiality of White House discussions, the lawyers said.

The decision made Clinton the first president to take a claim of executive privilege to court and lose since the dramatic Watergate showdown in 1974, when the Supreme Court unanimously ordered Richard M. Nixon to turn over the secret Oval Office tapes that ultimately led to his resignation.



OK now cite me your cases counsel or will you admit that your statement is actually a lie.