Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

[El OchoCinco]

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.

Your explanation is devoid of any law or facts. I am not interested in your opinion, I want to know your legal justification which you have NONE. It is on full display here, simply trying to insult me to deflect from your lack of legal analysis is not going to work.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

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.

Thus the 9 to 12 months litigation that Piehole think will take 4 days.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

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.

For starters, I see at a glance that at least two of your citations involve criminal cases and I have covered that and why that is a different matter and that there are no criminal charges against trump.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

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.

----criminal cases were pending or implied with Nixon and Clinton. There is no pending or implied criminal case with Trump as there is no crime asserted. Your own postings make the case for the other side.---

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Your explanation is devoid of any law or facts. I am not interested in your opinion, I want to know your legal justification which you have NONE. It is on full display here, simply trying to insult me to deflect from your lack of legal analysis is not going to work.

Other way round Cowboy. Just saying that you are a lawyer did not work.

In any case, it is before the Senate as we have both agreed. If it becomes a matter before the court then we can go to that level as needed.

 

[El OchoCinco]

What is the legal basis to determine it will take 9 to 12 months of litigation?

March 20, 1998: President Clinton decides to formally invoke executive privilege.

May 5, 1998: Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson rules against President Clinton's claim of executive privilege.

Precedent's a bitch at times...

 

[El OchoCinco]

Other way round Cowboy. Just saying that you are a lawyer did not work.

In any case, it is before the Senate as we have both agreed. If it becomes a matter before the court then we can go to that level as needed.

We will call it a draw for the moment...

 

[Buy1Sell2]

The idea of impeachment is that the case is made in The House and witnesses, if any are called there. The Senate Trial does not involve witnesses, rather it is a trial of the House Articles, basically a report. The Senate is to examine what The House has found and presented. It is not the job of The Senate to then try and discover new evidence. --Plain and Simple---

 

[El OchoCinco]

For starters, I see at a glance that at least two of your citations involve criminal cases and I have covered that and why that is a different matter and that there are no criminal charges against trump.

Then that means the other 2 were NOT criminal cases.... cup is half empty or half full...

 

[Buy1Sell2]

What is the legal basis to determine it will take 9 to 12 months of litigation?

March 20, 1998: President Clinton decides to formally invoke executive privilege.

May 5, 1998: Federal Judge Norma Holloway Johnson rules against President Clinton's claim of executive privilege.

Precedent's a bitch at times...

Senate trial didn't start until January 1999 so not sure what precedent you are trying to cite here from March 1998.