Trump To Use Executive Privilege?

[Terraceth]

Really, did you see what Lincoln and Jackson did? They often ignored the court.

When did Jackson ignore the Supreme Court? If this is a reference to the supposed "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" quote in reference to Worcester v. Georgia, that's actually of dubious legitimacy and the only source for it is thirdhand. For that matter, there was nothing for Jackson to ignore or enforce anyway, as there was no instruction given to the federal government in the decision.

For Lincoln, I assume you're referring to Ex Parte Merryman, but that was a weird case and in any event not actually a decision of the Supreme Court.

[seer]

When did Jackson ignore the Supreme Court? If this is a reference to the supposed "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it" quote in reference to Worcester v. Georgia, that's actually of dubious legitimacy and the only source for it is thirdhand. For that matter, there was nothing for Jackson to ignore or enforce anyway, as there was no instruction given to the federal government in the decision.

For Lincoln, I assume you're referring to Ex Parte Merryman, but that was a weird case and in any event not actually a decision of the Supreme Court.

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, which he did not have the right to, according to the court, and Jackson was the Worcester v. Georgia case, where he was clearly on Georgia's side and refused to reign in Georgia. And where does the Constitution say that the court has the final say?

[Terraceth]

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, which he did not have the right to, according to the court,

The Supreme Court never made any decision. That was a unilateral declaration from Roger Taney that did not involve the rest of the Court and due to that and other circumstances is very ambiguous as to how binding it actually was (e.g. it never actually made any order on Lincoln whatsoever, like actually telling him to release Merryman).

and Jackson was the Worcester v. Georgia case, where he was clearly on Georgia's side and refused to reign in Georgia.

As noted, there was nothing in the decision for Jackson to enforce, so he in no way declined to operate according to the ruling.

Notably, even if Jackson and Lincoln did straight up ignore the Supreme Court, the claim that they "often" ignored it is not supported with a single example from each.

And where does the Constitution say that the court has the final say?

The ratification debates and Federalist Papers made it obvious it was believed the Supreme Court would have that ability. The Constitution also does not say that citizens are granted the right to travel freely between states. In both of these cases, it was considered so obvious a fact there was no need to explicitly lay it out.

[Tassman]

Of course he can Jim, that is separation of powers. Congress does not get to run endless witch hunts against the President.

https://www.axios.com/mueller-report...c5c0c38c8.html

Any responsible citizen should be anxious to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice by the President of the US, rather than defend a possible cover-up as you are doing.

And remember Jim you said you would accept the findings of Mueller report as I did. And the Mueller report did not find any prosecutable offense.

It did not exonerate Trump from Obstruction of Justice either.

[seer]

The Supreme Court never made any decision. That was a unilateral declaration from Roger Taney that did not involve the rest of the Court and due to that and other circumstances is very ambiguous as to how binding it actually was (e.g. it never actually made any order on Lincoln whatsoever, like actually telling him to release Merryman).

As noted, there was nothing in the decision for Jackson to enforce, so he in no way declined to operate according to the ruling.

Notably, even if Jackson and Lincoln did straight up ignore the Supreme Court, the claim that they "often" ignored it is not supported with a single example from each.

The ratification debates and Federalist Papers made it obvious it was believed the Supreme Court would have that ability. The Constitution also does not say that citizens are granted the right to travel freely between states. In both of these cases, it was considered so obvious a fact there was no need to explicitly lay it out.

OK, I think you are right...

[JimL]

Jim I have no idea what the backstory is with the Manafort thing is,

Apparently you don't care to know either, isn't that correct?

but if it was a conspiracy don't you think Mueller would have charged him with conspiracy?

What you or I think is irrelevant, we need to see for ourselves, and so does Congress. To me, sharing such data to foriegn adversaries is conspiracy on its face. We don't know half of what's in the Mueller report, or half of what Mueller has to say about it. Don't you want to hear from him, see if he agrees with Atty. Gen Barr's assessment of his report? I don't think you want to hear that, do you?

And fear what, the report is there for all to read. Do you really think these jokers in congress are able to find more than Mueller? This isn't about finding truth Jim, it is about making Trump look bad until the next election. But like said, if these obstruction cases are so obvious then the Dems need to start impeachment, now. But you and I know they don't have the guts.

Your atty gen redacted the report, so no, it is not there for all to see, and if you think that is all you need, then why can't you agree that sharing polling data and geographical targeting data with Russians is collusion since that is there for you to see? The Dems need to start hearings so the American people, those who want to see, can see, before they begin Impeachment proceedings. We understand you Trumpsters don't want to see, don't want transparency, probably because you know that what will be found will only make it even harder for you to deny.

[carpedm9587]

Lincoln did suspend habeas corpus, which he did not have the right to, according to the court, and Jackson was the Worcester v. Georgia case, where he was clearly on Georgia's side and refused to reign in Georgia. And where does the Constitution say that the court has the final say?

No branch has "the final say." That is the beauty of the crafted system.

• Congress can pass a law
• The president can veto
• Congress can override the veto
• Anyone can sue that the law is unconstitutional
• The courts can overturn the law on those grounds
• Congress can rewrite the law
• Congress can move to pass an amendment to change the constitution (which the states must ratify)

At the end of the day - the people have the final say - because they elect the representatives to two of the three branches at both the state and federal levels, and all three branches in some states.

[seer]

Any responsible citizen should be anxious to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice by the President of the US, rather than defend a possible cover-up as you are doing.

That is the point Tass, there has been a comprehensive two year investigation with testimony from the relevant players. Congress is not going to get anything that Mueller didn't. So let congress use that to impeach, after all Jim said there were 12 obvious cases of obstruction.

[seer]

What you or I think is irrelevant, we need to see for ourselves, and so does Congress. To me, sharing such data to foriegn adversaries is conspiracy on its face. We don't know half of what's in the Mueller report, or half of what Mueller has to say about it. Don't you want to hear from him, see if he agrees with Atty. Gen Barr's assessment of his report? I don't think you want to hear that, do you?

So you really don't think Mueller would have charged Manafort with conspiracy if that was the case? And you are correct, it doesn't matter what we think is relevant. Trump will assert executive privilege (as he should) and congress will fight it in the courts and that will bring us past the next election cycle.

[Tassman]

That is the point Tass, there has been a comprehensive two year investigation with testimony from the relevant players. Congress is not going to get anything that Mueller didn't. So let congress use that to impeach, after all Jim said there were 12 obvious cases of obstruction.

Indeed. But Congress needs full access to the unredacted Report of the before it can determine how best to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice by the President of the US.

[JimL]

So you really don't think Mueller would have charged Manafort with conspiracy if that was the case? And you are correct, it doesn't matter what we think is relevant. Trump will assert executive privilege (as he should) and congress will fight it in the courts and that will bring us past the next election cycle.

Just like you, I have no idea what Mueller had in mind, but I can figure out all by my self that a presidential candidate giving polling data and geographical targeting data to foriegn adversaries is a crime against the U.S. whether it is literally a crime or not. Can't you? It would, if the President was aware of it, be listed under the category of high crimes and misdemeaners, and left for Congress to deal with. Now it could be argued that the President didn't know anything about it,but that should be argued in front of Congress, in a public forum, not hidden by a corrupt administration.

Got to love how all you Trumpsters are only concerned about whether he did anything illegal or not, which btw he has, and so you're not really even concerned about that. But you don't concern yourself with his obvious attempt to undermine our democratic institutions. A sad bunch you are! Really sad!

[seer]

Just like you, I have no idea what Mueller had in mind, but I can figure out all by my self that a presidential candidate giving polling data and geographical targeting data to foriegn adversaries is a crime against the U.S. whether it is literally a crime or not. Can't you? It would, if the President was aware of it, be listed under the category of high crimes and misdemeaners, and left for Congress to deal with. Now it could be argued that the President didn't know anything about it,:but that should be argued in front of Congress, in a public forum, not hidden by a corrupt administration.

Like these feckless bozos in congress are going to find out more than Mueller. The fact is, if there was evidence of conspiracy Mueller had the best chance of finding it. This is nothing more than a political show. Trump needs to stick to his guns.

Got to love how all you Trumpsters are only concerned about whether he did anything illegal or not, which btw he has, and so you're not really even concerned about that. But you don't concern yourself with his obvious attempt to undermine our democratic institutions. A sad bunch you are! Really sad!

Oh please with the democratic institutions, you cared nothing about Lois Lerner stonewalling congress by claiming the fifth with the IRS targeting of conservative groups, or Eric Holder stonewalling on fast and furious. Where hundreds of Mexicans were killed by these illegal firearms and one border patrol officer. If you did decried these please link your posts...If not, this is no more than partisan pap on your part.

[seer]

Indeed. But Congress needs full access to the unredacted Report of the before it can determine how best to pursue evidence of obstruction of justice by the President of the US.

No, they do not get ongoing case information, by law. They have been referred to the appropriate local authorities where the alleged crimes took place. And Barr already said he would show the redacted intelligence information to selected member on the intelligence committee (from both parties)

[Mountain Man]

Like these feckless bozos in congress are going to find out more than Mueller. The fact is, if there was evidence of conspiracy Mueller had the best chance of finding it. This is nothing more than a political show. Trump needs to stick to his guns.

Probably the best play for the Democrats is to slow-walk whatever "investigations" they have planned and try to turn this whole charade into a 2020 campaign issue.

[JimL]

Probably the best play for the Democrats is to slow-walk whatever "investigations" they have planned and try to turn this whole charade into a 2020 campaign issue.

The only one slow walking it, as he has been doing since day one, is the president itself. His obstruction and attempted obstruction is itself evidence of his guilt, and now he wants to slow it down as much as possible in the hopes of getting him through to the point where impeachent is no longer viable. Are you really that blind.