Schumer's pipe dream, a trial with.....you know.....evidence.

[colfax_m]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Congress disagrees. They were going to impeach Nixon for his obstruction and they’ve impeached Trump for the same.

 

[Olde Europe]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

 

[Nostra]

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

What they would testify to is irrelevant. The Executive Branch has the right to challenge House subpoenas in court. End of story.

The fact your moronic leaders didn't want to play by the rules doesn't change that fact.

Trump and the republicans hold all the cards now

LOLOL

What they don't hold are the Articles of Impeachment.

Which leave trump haters dead in the water

Not really. As it stands so far, Impeached Trump is the only U.S. president to be impeached but not acquitted.

Nope. Not impeached yet, Dummy.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

 

[AntonToo]

Can you imagine a real trial where witnesses could simply refuse court order to show up?

Can you come up with a single reason, aside from guilty conscience, why Trump admin refused witnesses and documents?

I can’t and that’s why along with the evidence we have I’m certain Trump is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as charged by the two articles on Abuse of Power and gross Obstruction.

Pelosi didnt bother to obtain a court order from real judges

she chose to hold a kangaroo court instead

There is now a court order for McGhan(you know, that character from Mueller report on Trump’s Obstruction efforts) to come testify, that took 8 fucking months after his refusal to come testify was referred to courts.

You know when he will testify? NOPE and nietger does anyone else because now it will probably take about as long for appeal.

I’m sorry that libs find the judicial system too burdensome

Its the same for us when some sniveling lib lawyer sues to stop an executive order that trump issues

Then months or years later the lib injunction is overturned by the highest court

Congress has the authority to subpoena witnesses to conduct investigations. This has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Impeached Trump blocked that, which led to Article II. Now you come along and falsely claim that Pelosi had all of her witnesses testify.

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

“has a right”?

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

you have to suspend your critical thought to believe that the testimony would be anything but a consistent extension of the damning testimonies we already have.

I’m yet to hear from you why you think he is refusing testimony of all these directly involved people if he actually thought it would exonerate him.

I dont know the inside scoop on the trump legal defense plan

we are all just spectators in this struggle between democrat sore losers and our duly elected president

But you have a head on shoulders. USE IT, even if it means coming to conclusions you don’t like.

Don’t be apprehensive to call a spade what it is.

I would say the same to you

liberals cannot accept the fact that trump is president and have resorted to impeachment in your anger

Accepted it just fine and hoped that the office of presidency would change his bombastic, lying, shady ways. But he hasn't changed how he operates and this is the result.

If Trump didn't criminally try to obstruct investigations and push foreign countries for political favors, Democrats would have nothing to impeach him for.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Great.
Now show us where Trump invoked executive privilege.

 

[Auld Phart]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Why lie about what the three were actually saying? Clinton was already serving "another term" while being impeached, which should give you a hint why your expression was ambiguous, to put it mildly.

BTW, Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and was "able to serve another term" after impeachment (but did not win the presidential nomination). There weren't any term limits back then anyway. So, your pap was part misleading, part wrong, and, being unable to see your own faults, you felt the need to disparage the three posters.

My post: "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

how is that 'misleading?

As you pointed out, both other presidents were already on their second term, impeachment did not factor into their running again, they couldn't anyway.

Trump will be the first to be able to run for another term

BTW, how stupid was jill for stating Clinton served another term?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

I did indeed. Your dopey logic was hilarious.

Now quote me saying what you attributed to me, idiot.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Did you notice that US v Nixon wasn’t about Congressional subpoenas at all? Seems that would not make it relevant here.

It’s not moot at all. If Congress disagrees, they are entitled to impeach the president over it.

 

[Auld Phart]

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Quote me, dope.

Did you, or did you not funny post 1774, which stated "and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term. "

I did indeed. Your dopey logic was hilarious.

Now quote me saying what you attributed to me, idiot.

I just did.

maybe I should put lines around it?

Nah, you obviously can't read between the lines.

 

[Nostra]

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Did you notice that US v Nixon wasn’t about Congressional subpoenas at all? Seems that would not make it relevant here.

It’s not moot at all. If Congress disagrees, they are entitled to impeach the president over it.

If Congress disagrees, their course of action is to go to the courts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

 

[Faun]

Pending a court order trump jas the right to refuse congress and he exercised that right

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Of course you did. No one said they believed Johnson or Clinton were elected again after being impeached. Yet that's what you claimed we believe.

 

[AntonToo]

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

There is no such wholesale privilege.

You can claim it about specific conversations with president but you can't simply not show up before Congress if you don't feel like it.

Trump has instsructed his administration members to break the law by refusing to comply with subpoenas.

And by the way - Jiuliani is not even a member of the administration.

 

[Mac-7]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

 

[colfax_m]

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Nope. Doing nothing does not mean he’s invoking executive privilege. Never has been.

Congress is within their power to disagree and impeach based on this. Congress does not require judicial permission to exercise their constitutional authority. That would make them subordinate to the other branches.

 

[colfax_m]

Congress has legal authority to initiate subpoena. A subpoena from Congress does not need to be deemed legal by a court.

If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Trump has not claimed executive privilege

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.
If a court does not determine a subpoena is legal, someone acting on executive privilege is not compelled to answer it.
When were the subpoenas in question determined legal by a court?
They weren't?
Thanks.

Incorrect. He has not asserted executive privilege over these subpoenas unless and until he actually asserts executive privilege.

Congress has authority to issue subpoenas whether you want to admit it or not. They do not need permission from any court.

Nixon was going to be impeached for this and now Trump has. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

Incorrect. That, in fact, is where it is primarily directed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don't lie to yourself.
Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Executive privilege - Wikipedia

Thus, onus is on congress to prove the subpoenas are legal and prove their need for the information supersedes the right to claim EP.

Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

Please show me where Trump has invoked privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

Congress disagrees.

Their disagreement with established jurisprudence from the USSC renders their disagreement moot.
Absent a court ruling in favor of Congress, there's no legal subpoena, and no legal requirement to answer it.

No, an assertion of executive privilege is an assertion of executive privilege. Doing nothing is not an assertion of executive privilege.

Trump directed the people in question to not answer the subpoenas. That's an assertion of executive privilege.

There is no such wholesale privilege.

You claim has no basis in truth or law.

 

[Auld Phart]

Except he doesn't since the Supreme Court had already affirmed the Congresses authority to issue subpoenas for the purpose of investigations. Impeached Trump was just hoping to stall his impeachment until the point it made no sense to impeach him because the election would have been that much sooner, if not passed.

It was a stupid plan that backfired on him. Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

Now he's the 3rd impeached president in U.S. history.

and, unlike the first 2, he'll be able to serve another term.

Remarkable

3 posters, jillian Hutch Starskey Faun, actually believe Johnson and Clinton were reelected after being impeached

Don't put words in my mouth just because you posted something stupid, mr. moderator.

hardly stupid, and I didn't 'put words in your mouth'. the 'funny' emojis are there for all to see

Of course you did. No one said they believed Johnson or Clinton were elected again after being impeached. Yet that's what you claimed we believe.

No one said they believed Johnson or Clinton were elected again after being impeached.

you're wrong

Jill did.

Bill served another term you idiot

 

[Faun]

Not true again. They issued subpoenas that were not respected. They had 4 choices (or combination of):

1) ignore it
2) have them charged with contempt of Congress
3) tried to get a court to compel them to testify
4) since Trump was blocking them from testifying, charging him with obstruction.

Any of those would have been proper measures. They chose option 4.

Legal challenges to subpoenas in court is not obstruction, Dummy.

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

Not yet, Window Licker.

Yup.