Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[JimL]

If the House did not have the intestinal fortitude to let the courts make a determination concerning Executive Privilege v. Congressional subpoenas then the onus is on them. They shouldn't have dropped any subpoena just because someone turned to the courts for direction concerning the conflicting claims.

That is how the system works. Folks are allowed to appeal decisions. In truly important cases the case can be expedited up to the SCOTUS.

In that case the Founders wouldn't have bothered with an impeachment clause. As the Judge in the Mcgahn case said, the President is not a King!

[Cow Poke]

In that case the Founders wouldn't have bothered with an impeachment clause. As the Judge in the Mcgahn case said, the President is not a King!

Long life King Schiff and Queen Nancy!

[NorrinRadd]

I still don't know who he is or why I should give a pair of fetid dingos about his opinion.

I think he's a butt-hurt Bushophile, but I'm not going to bother verifying that.

[NorrinRadd]

In that case the Founders wouldn't have bothered with an impeachment clause. As the Judge in the Mcgahn case said, the President is not a King!

You agree with Judge Butthurt Napolitano and, inexplicably, Andy McCarthy. I'll go with Turley, Dersh, and a ton of others.

The fact that impeachment is an Article I power does not end the issue. It does not make Article II and III entities subordinate. When an Article II entity disputes the extent of an Article I power, the Article I entity does not get to say, "We win." An Article III entity resolves the conflict.

[JimL]

You agree with Judge Butthurt Napolitano and, inexplicably, Andy McCarthy. I'll go with Turley, Dersh, and a ton of others.

The fact that impeachment is an Article I power does not end the issue. It does not make Article II and III entities subordinate. When an Article II entity disputes the extent of an Article I power, the Article I entity does not get to say, "We win." An Article III entity resolves the conflict.

They don't need to say we win, it's already determined. Just because the President defies a legal subpoena and takes it to the court (a delay tactic) doesn't make his defiance of it in the first place a legal action. It's obstruction unless there is a justified reason for defying it in the first place.

[Teallaura]

They don't need to say we win, it's already determined. Just because the President defies a legal subpoena and takes it to the court (a delay tactic) doesn't make his defiance of it in the first place a legal action. It's obstruction unless there is a justified reason for defying it in the first place.

Not even close...

[RumTumTugger]

They don't need to say we win, it's already determined. Just because the President defies a legal subpoena and takes it to the court (a delay tactic) doesn't make his defiance of it in the first place a legal action. It's obstruction unless there is a justified reason for defying it in the first place.

The President has a right to ask the court if he has to for go his Executive Privilege going up to the highest court if he wants it is up to the congress to show just cause through out the whole appeal process. The House Democrats chose not to continue fighting the appeal they do not have the right to call it obstruction for the President to ask the THIRD BRANCH of the government rule on whether the legislative branch's reason for wanting the privileged information is enough to overturn the Executive branches privilege.

By your criteria here Obama was guilty of obstruction of Congress when he did the same thing Trump is doing appeal ask the Judicial branch to decide between his administration and congress. Do you really want to go there or will you admit that your leftist handlers are wrong here and finely think for youself.

The Founding Fathers created 3 Branches of Government just for this type of situation where 2 co equal branches disagree with each other on who is right.

[Mountain Man]

Democrats are preparing for bipartisan opposition to impeachment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a1_story.html

[Watermelon]

The President has a right to ask the court if he has to for go his Executive Privilege going up to the highest court if he wants it is up to the congress to show just cause through out the whole appeal process. The House Democrats chose not to continue fighting the appeal they do not have the right to call it obstruction for the President to ask the THIRD BRANCH of the government rule on whether the legislative branch's reason for wanting the privileged information is enough to overturn the Executive branches privilege.

By your criteria here Obama was guilty of obstruction of Congress when he did the same thing Trump is doing appeal ask the Judicial branch to decide between his administration and congress. Do you really want to go there or will you admit that your leftist handlers are wrong here and finely think for youself.

The Founding Fathers created 3 Branches of Government just for this type of situation where 2 co equal branches disagree with each other on who is right.

3 branches of government were created to exercise independent and unique powers. Disagreements can’t be ‘judged’ by another branch, like you said they are equal. Disputes between branches are settled by the constitution and this particular ‘dispute’ seems quite clear.

Nixon v US stated unanimously that the sole power of impeachment means that it’s outside judicial review.

Another important point it raised was that impeachment is a check not just on the executive but also the judiciary.

It then follows:

How can the judiciary decide what can or can’t be done to a power that is designed to keep them in check?

Likewise how can executive privilege extend beyond the reach of this power?

They can’t, it’s unconstitutional and goes against the separation of powers according to this decision.

The word ‘sole’ in the constitution deliberately leaves all aspects of impeachment to house discretion. This means that the house defines the rules as well as what constitutes an impeachable offence and has the power to compel participation through subpoenas. Refusing the cooperate is clearly an obstruction.

What are the arguments claiming this impeachment to be illegal actually based on?

[Mountain Man]

Since you mention Nixon, it's also worth pointing out that the courts ruled during the Nixon impeachment that a legislative committee can issue subpoenas when granted the authority to do so by their chamber. In an impeachment inquiry, this authority can only come from a House vote, which in this case never happened, so the House was limited to issuing non-binding demand letters which didn't even carry a threat for noncompliance, so the White House was right to contest them in court, and ironically, the House was right not to push back because they would have lost.

[Sparko]

Democrats are preparing for bipartisan opposition to impeachment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7a1_story.html

when you are linking to a site with a paywall, please be nice and post an excerpt of what it says at least.

[Cow Poke]

when you are linking to a site with a paywall, please be nice and post an excerpt of what it says at least.

In fact, do it anyway, because it's possible the paywall does a maximum count, like 3 free visits, then throws up the block --- no reason not to just post a relevant portion.

(It may not be a paywall when you visit, but it may be to others)

[Mountain Man]

when you are linking to a site with a paywall, please be nice and post an excerpt of what it says at least.

I was able to read the whole article on my phone, so I didn't realize it was pay-walled...

Anyway, here's the Breitbart version that references the WaPop article:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...eachment-vote/

Bade and DeBonis quote three senior House Democrat officials saying that there will be at least a half dozen Democrats who join with all Republicans to oppose impeaching President Trump, but a third senior Democrat aide told them there would probably be many more than just a half dozen defections.

Bade and DeBonis wrote:

Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.

[...]

Predictions about some defections come as a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts. While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month. Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called ‘splitting the baby’: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.

[Mountain Man]

"Blockbuster hearings" ... more like a bust!

[Cow Poke]

I was able to read the whole article on my phone, so I didn't realize it was pay-walled...

Anyway, here's the Breitbart version that references the WaPop article:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...eachment-vote/

Bade and DeBonis quote three senior House Democrat officials saying that there will be at least a half dozen Democrats who join with all Republicans to oppose impeaching President Trump, but a third senior Democrat aide told them there would probably be many more than just a half dozen defections.

Bade and DeBonis wrote:

Lawmakers and senior aides are privately predicting they will lose more than the two Democrats who opposed the impeachment inquiry rules package in late September, according to multiple officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to talk frankly. Two senior Democratic aides said the total could be as many as a half-dozen, while a third said the number could be higher.

[...]

Predictions about some defections come as a core group of centrists from districts Trump won in 2016 are having second thoughts. While many knew impeachment would never be popular in their GOP-leaning districts, some have been surprised that support hasn’t increased despite negative testimony about Trump from a series of blockbuster hearings last month. Several moderates have privately pined for other options, including a censure vote they know they’re unlikely to get. Others have even considered what one moderate called ‘splitting the baby’: backing one article of impeachment but not the other to try to show independence from the party.

I'll believe it when I see it - Democrats have, traditionally, been MUCH better at sticking together than Republicans.

HOWEVER --- I have to admit, I've not seen the Republicans this united in a long time. GOOD JOB, Schiff, Pelosi and Nadler!!!