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

[Olde Europe]

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

Point out "after impeachment" in this:

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

If you can't, you owe three posters an apology.

 

[Nostra]

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

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Even Trump's WH Council has to testify, never mind other, less protected members of administration.

Been appealed.

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Judge rules former WH counsel McGahn must testify under subpoena

 

[AntonToo]

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.

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

 

[Auld Phart]

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

Point out "after impeachment" in this:

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

If you can't, you owe three posters an apology.

oddly, you didn't include what I was quoting in your link.

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

might make a difference.

(Oops, forgot who I was talking to)

 

[Nostra]

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

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

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify.

Nobody cares what YOU demand, Chowderhead.

 

[Mac-7]

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.

Executive Privilege

Is not a blanket protection.

True

But trump has it till the black robes say otherwise

 

[Faun]

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?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

 

[Faun]

Telling your people not to cooperate is.
Imbecile

Trump voters do not agree

So? Impeached Trump still remains impeached.

Not yet, Window Licker.

Yup.

Dimwinger libnut hack on the web brings a meme....................

Should I go with him, or the Constitutional Expert Dimwingers brought to testify on impeachment.............

Hmmmmmmm..........

Well I would suggest you use your own brain and understand what the Constitution states, but clearly, that's not within your limited capabilities...

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.​

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

You really, really, REALLY, are dense, aren't you?

Until 1998, Clinton was NOT an impeached president.
It was only AFTER impeachment that he was.

and he couldn't run again.

Trump will be able to, unless 20 or more Republicans cross the aisle to vote him out of office.

I'm kinda tired trying to explain this to 3 year olds.

bye

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you
.

.

 

[Mac-7]

Congress authority to issue subpoenas ends at the white house gate

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

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Again you are admitting that dems in the House went off half-cocked without the necessary evidence

 

[Olde Europe]

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

Point out "after impeachment" in this:

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

If you can't, you owe three posters an apology.

oddly, you didn't include what I was quoting in your link.

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

might make a difference.

(Oops, forgot who I was talking to)

It doesn't make one whit of a difference.

You were wrong on Johnson, who was actually able to run for another term, and tried, after impeachment, but you aren't man enough to admit it.

You were ambiguous, at best, about Clinton, who actually served another term, but you aren't man enough to admit that, either. Your lazy way to express yourself caught up to you.

You owe three posters an apology, but, again, you aren't man enough for that.

Now run along.

 

[AntonToo]

There is no such wholesale privilege.

You claim has no basis in truth or law.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you
.

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

 

[Auld Phart]

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

Point out "after impeachment" in this:

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

If you can't, you owe three posters an apology.

oddly, you didn't include what I was quoting in your link.

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

might make a difference.

(Oops, forgot who I was talking to)

It doesn't make one whit of a difference.

You were wrong on Johnson, who was actually able to run for another term, and tried, after impeachment, but you aren't man enough to admit it.

You were ambiguous, at best, about Clinton, who actually served another term, but you aren't man enough to admit that, either. Your lazy way to express yourself caught up to you.

You owe three posters an apology, but, again, you aren't man enough for that.

Now run along.

, about Clinton, who actually served another term,

He ran, and won, in 2020?

but you aren't man enough to admit that, either.

are you man enough to admit YOUR mistake?

and, even without your permission, I'll 'run along'.

 

[Faun]

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?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

You really, really, REALLY, are dense, aren't you?

Until 1998, Clinton was NOT an impeached president.
It was only AFTER impeachment that he was.

and he couldn't run again.

Trump will be able to, unless 20 or more Republicans cross the aisle to vote him out of office.

I'm kinda tired trying to explain this to 3 year olds.

bye

Clearly not as dense as you since you didn't say "after impeachment," your claim could have, and was, interpreted to mean he could stll serve 2 terms despite being impeached.

If you meant "after impeachment," as you say now, you should have said so.

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first. If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you would understand.

I'll state again, and make an extra effort at clarity this time, since reading isn't your strong suit. Nixon couldn't run for another term after the impeachment efforts, but he wasn't impeached.

Johnson served out Lincoln's term, and tried to run for another after impeachment, but failed to win the nomination.

Do please read as often as necessary for (even) you to understand. BTW, calling others "stupid" is, coming from you, really funny.

Clinton served "another term". That would be the one after the first.

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

LOLOL

You didn't say "after impeachment." All you said was...

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

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

You really, really, REALLY, are dense, aren't you?

Until 1998, Clinton was NOT an impeached president.
It was only AFTER impeachment that he was.

and he couldn't run again.

Trump will be able to, unless 20 or more Republicans cross the aisle to vote him out of office.

I'm kinda tired trying to explain this to 3 year olds.

bye

Clearly not as dense as you since you didn't say "after impeachment," your claim could have, and was, interpreted to mean he could stll serve 2 terms despite being impeached.

If you meant "after impeachment," as you say now, you should have said so.

considering you were referring to impeached presidents, you ARE far denser than I could ever be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You claim has no basis in truth or law.

Court ruling on McGhan's case says I'm right and you are wrong.

Cite the source, and quote the text.

Justice Department lawyers, on behalf of Trump, argued that McGahn has “absolute immunity” from complying with House Democrats’ subpoena. During oral arguments last month, Jackson appeared skeptical of this blanket assertion.

In her ruling today, Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s argument, citing a case involving former George W. Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers.

“As a matter of law, such aides do not have absolute testimonial immunity,” the judge wrote.

Oh look.
A claim of executive privilege, and ruling by a court that determined the legality of a subpoena and created a compulsion to testify, prior to which did not exist.
You proved my point. Thank you

No dummy, no matter what administrations may have claimed, there was never any legal basis for administration members to refuse to comply with the Congressional sabpoenas, court simply re-affirmed that yet again.

This is false, on all counts.

Further, the compulsion to testify is on hold pending appeal.

 

[Faun]

he did NOT serve another term after impeachment, but thanks for the spin

Point out "after impeachment" in this:

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

If you can't, you owe three posters an apology.

oddly, you didn't include what I was quoting in your link.

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

might make a difference.

(Oops, forgot who I was talking to)

It doesn't make one whit of a difference.

You were wrong on Johnson, who was actually able to run for another term, and tried, after impeachment, but you aren't man enough to admit it.

You were ambiguous, at best, about Clinton, who actually served another term, but you aren't man enough to admit that, either. Your lazy way to express yourself caught up to you.

You owe three posters an apology, but, again, you aren't man enough for that.

Now run along.

, about Clinton, who actually served another term,

He ran, and won, in 2020?

but you aren't man enough to admit that, either.

are you man enough to admit YOUR mistake?

and, even without your permission, I'll 'run along'.

LOL

Yes, run along even though you were wrong about Johnson even applying your non-verbal "after impeachment" correction.

 

[AntonToo]

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

Executive Privilege

Covers only specific conversations with the president, not wholesale pass to ignore supoenas to show up before Congress.

And again, why claim it if the testimony would exonorate the President facing impeachment? Makes no sense.

You are still demanding that trump prove his innocence which he does not have to do

No, I'm demanding that witnesses show up as the Congress conducting impeachment trial requires them to.

Fighting tooth and nail against such reasonable, legaly binding Congressional requests is evidence of guilt and intent to obstruct investigation.

If Trump wanted you to know the truth he would instruct people involved to testify. He does not.

Again you are admitting that dems in the House went off half-cocked without the necessary evidence

Because you can't quite get that wholesale Obstruction itself is evidence of the concience of guilt.

All the volumous, consistent testimony and evidence we have plus the fact of never ending Obstruction by the President makes for a compelling case that any reasonable jury would convict on.

Trump is guilty as charged and you are the dupe electing to carry water for this swamp.