Why Is The GOP Senate So Afraid To Call Witnesses??

[Biff_Poindexter]

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately. I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January. Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?

What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


"U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

 

[Oldstyle]

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately. I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January. Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?

What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


"U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

I hate to point out the inconvenient, Biff but even Obama appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't reject Executive Privilege...she ruled that McGahn needed to invoke it in person.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately. I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January. Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?

What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


"U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

I hate to point out the inconvenient, Biff but even Obama appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't reject Executive Privilege...she ruled that McGahn needed to invoke it in person.

She also didn't say that whatever Trump claims is executive privilege is executive privilege...….Thus the whole thing about "the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas."

Don't like it, rewrite the Constitution...….but something tells me you will want to rewrite it again when a Dem is back in office....the rest of us are content with having co-equal branches of government and not a dictatorship....sorry Trumpers...

 

[Oldstyle]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

 

[Oldstyle]

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately. I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January. Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?

What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


"U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

I hate to point out the inconvenient, Biff but even Obama appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't reject Executive Privilege...she ruled that McGahn needed to invoke it in person.

She also didn't say that whatever Trump claims is executive privilege is executive privilege...….Thus the whole thing about "the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas."

Don't like it, rewrite the Constitution...….but something tells me you will want to rewrite it again when a Dem is back in office....the rest of us are content with having co-equal branches of government and not a dictatorship....sorry Trumpers...

How can it be "co-equal" branches of government when you liberals don't wait for a ruling on Executive Privilege to be rendered by the Supreme Court but forge ahead with impeachment citing obstruction of justice as one of the things you're impeaching over?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....

 

[Oldstyle]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....

With all due respect, Biff...holding Hillary Clinton up as your example of cooperation with a committee is amusing! She lied to Congressional investigators about emails she had in her possession that they were seeking...telling them she'd released EVERYTHING related to their investigation...then she destroyed tens of thousands of emails that she knew Congress wanted. Trump hasn't done ANYTHING like that!

 

[Oldstyle]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....

As for Obama? He asserted Executive Privilege in the Fast & Furious investigation. His Attorney General was found to be in contempt of Congress over it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....

With all due respect, Biff...holding Hillary Clinton up as your example of cooperation with a committee is amusing! She lied to Congressional investigators about emails she had in her possession that they were seeking...telling them she'd released EVERYTHING related to their investigation...then she destroyed tens of thousands of emails that she knew Congress wanted. Trump hasn't done ANYTHING like that!

Remember those 9 different Benghazi investigations?? What did all of them come up with?? ZERO.....

Remember how one single investigation into Trump produced 80 indictments??

Remember how Trump's own personal lawyer named Trump a co-conspirator in a felony conviction??

If Trump testified under oath for 10 minutes, you Trumpers would piss yourselves...

Thus is the reason Trumpers are so scared to death of ANYONE in the Trump admin testifying under oath...

 

[hadit]

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

If you have evidence someone else got him they job, prove it...

That's the point, it's supposition based on incredulity that it could be any other option, much like that upon which the case against Trump is based. In all seriousness, it is very unlikely indeed that Hunter decided, completely on his own, to apply for and get that job. Clearly he did not get it because of his qualifications, but because of who his father was. Maybe we need a WB that says they heard someone say they heard a phone call between Joe and a high ranking official in the company discussing the job application and Joe leaning on him to hire his son. You know, to kick off an investigation and stuff.

I already said Hunter got that job because his dad was VP, even though you edited that out of my quote in your previous post.

There is nothing illegal about Hunter getting that job for that reason. Now if there's evidence that his father got him that job, that's different; but your lack of evidence to support that indicates you don't know that to be the case. Try again when you have such evidence.

1. I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post. I know you say Hunter got the job because of who his dad was, but you're splitting hairs when it comes to admitting that Joe most likely got him that job.
2. "The lack of evidence" is what makes the case against Trump so weak, and is why the democrats are desperately hoping some new revelation will come out at the last moment to save the day, like they attempted to do against Kavanaugh. You do remember the onslaught of ever weaker allegations when it became obvious that there just wasn't enough to the original one to sink the nomination. I expect nothing less this time around. Expect democrat shrieks to include stuff that isn't in the original articles, which they can't do without voting on it.

"I did not intentionally edit anything out of your post."

Liar.

I posted...

Don't conflate Hunter gettimg the job on his own because his father was the U.S. VP with Joe getting the job for him.

... and you cut out all but...

He "get the job on his own". Okay, that's a stretch.

Seriously? You think that was editing out part of your post? The entirety of your post is right there. I merely responded to one part of it, which I indicated in quotes. I edited nothing out.

 

[hadit]

Joe says he didn't get his son that job. Unless you have proof he's lying, you're argument is screwed.

And you never seek to investigate anything, which is why all these corrupt politicians feel comfortable with using their positions in high government office to swing all kinds of high paying no-show jobs for their friends, family members and campaign donors.

When did people like you become sellouts to government corruption and crony capitalism?

Then impeached Trump should have followed legal protocol to have him investigated. Instead, he abused the power of his office by violating a law which prohibits soliciting a foreign national to investigate political rivals.

Hysterically, it will be you people freaking out over this is if it's allowed to stand and a Democrat president running for re-election some day starts getting foreign leaders to investigate all of their Republican competitors.

And of course all the democrats now freaking out over it defending it with all their might.

Of course they are. As anyone should. No president running for re-election should be allowed to engage foreign leaders to help them get re-elected. Our Founding Fathers even spoke of the inherent dangers in exactly that. Now we have a rogue president doing it with the right defending him. If you've learned nothing from politics you should have at least learned that no turn gets left undone. What one party does, the other party does. If this is allowed to stand, I guarantee the day will come when a Democrat pulls a stunt like this. I also guarantee the right will flip out.

The FF also warned us about the dangers of partisan impeachment, which we seeing right now, and I guarantee the day will come when a democrat president faces an equally partisan impeachment now that the door is open, and the left will go absolutely bonkers.

 

[Oldstyle]

Not to mention that it's impossible for the Senate to call witnesses for something they haven't been given yet!

But it was definitely possible for Mitch McConnell to confirm he would not call witnesses before he was even given any articles of impeachment....

I will hold on to those articles long enough to make the point crystal clear to the American public that Trump and Republicans are SCARED TO DEATH OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING UNDER OATH......why?? Because those lies hit different when you are under oath

If you wanted witnesses to testify under oath, Biff...you should have called them during the House hearings. If it's your belief that administration officials should be stripped of Executive Privilege and forced to testify then you should have pursued that through the courts until you got a ruling that gave you that outcome. You liberals didn't DO that though...did you? Oh no, you rushed through an impeachment on the grounds that Trump was a danger to national security and needed to be removed immediately...then turned around and said there was no hurry and we'll get back to this after we take a three week vacation! It's laughable...

Meanwhile Hillary Clinton testified under oath for 10 hours ……..and not one time did Obama assert executive privilege....nor did Hillary hide behind the courts to avoid testifying under oath....


Guess people with nothing to hide don't concern themselves with such evasive tactics....

With all due respect, Biff...holding Hillary Clinton up as your example of cooperation with a committee is amusing! She lied to Congressional investigators about emails she had in her possession that they were seeking...telling them she'd released EVERYTHING related to their investigation...then she destroyed tens of thousands of emails that she knew Congress wanted. Trump hasn't done ANYTHING like that!

Remember those 9 different Benghazi investigations?? What did all of them come up with?? ZERO.....

Remember how one single investigation into Trump produced 80 indictments??

Remember how Trump's own personal lawyer named Trump a co-conspirator in a felony conviction??

If Trump testified under oath for 10 minutes, you Trumpers would piss yourselves...

Thus is the reason Trumpers are so scared to death of ANYONE in the Trump admin testifying under oath...

The investigations into Benghazi didn't come up with anything? LOL Wow, how soon they forget!

Let me remind you, Biff what the Benghazi investigations DID come up with! They uncovered the pay for play scheme that Hillary Clinton was employing at the State Department. They uncovered her use of two private servers hidden in her private residence to run that scheme. They uncovered that Hillary Clinton paid to have those servers wiped clean...destroying over 30,000 emails. The Benghazi investigations kept Hillary Clinton from becoming President! Didn't come up with anything...now THAT is amusing!

 

[Mac-7]

We know the intel rats did concoct

Oh? What did they "concoct" after Schumer said what he said?

The trump-russia collusion hoax

That wasn't a hoax according to the IG report and even what you speak of happened before Schumer said what he said.

Trump did nothing wrong and the Derp State knew it

that made it a hoax

They knew Russia was hacking Democrats and they had reason to believe some in Impeached Trump's campaign had Russisn connections. Thd investigation was warranted. The IG report confirms this.

All they were doing was spying on trump to try and get him out of office

 

[Mac-7]

Not without a warrant signed ny a judge

which you dont have

Which they don't need since they didn't seek to lock any of them up.

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

A lower court decision can be appealed

and if its reversed the lower court judge should be removed from the bench

 

[Mac-7]

The AG and special criminal investigator durham disagreed

So? Unlike Horowitz, they have not fully investigated the matter. What we have is the long awaited IG report stating the reason for investigating collusion were "justified."

Horowitz has looked at it long but not very hard

Sadly for you, he's the only one who investigated the matter. His report stands.

No

dunham is doing a criminal investigation

Until he completes it, he doesn't have all the facts. The IG investigation spanned some 2 years and was completed. It stands as the authoritative position on what occurred. Folks can certainly bitch and moan about it, but there is nothing in evidence to refute it.

The investigation was justified.

I dont agree

the IG is a creampuff who has to live with the Deep State after trump is gone

 

[lantern2814]

Most of the jobs that Obama created were in the private sector. Not dependent on tax dollars.

Most of the jobs that trump has created are low paying service jobs and jobs dependent on tax dollars in the military industrial complex.
.

Me thinks you have your presidents confused.

Most of OBAMA'S jobs were low paying jobs and unlike you, I have proof.

Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract

So while liars like Faun love to look at "jobs created" he'll put his fingers in his ears and his head up his ass when confronted about WHAT KIND OF JOBS.

Obama: part time menial work
Trump: Manufacturing

Manufacturers Added 6 Times More Jobs Under Trump Than Under Obama's Last 2 Years

Mining:

Construction:

This chart shows jobs in industries like mining and construction are thriving under Trump

"Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract"

Lying human scum, that was actually a study from 2005-2015. Obama was president from 2009-2017. Rendering that claim false as it includes 4 years under Bush, who produced the fewest jobs since Herbert Hoover, and it doesn't cover Obama's entire presidency.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Says a lying uneducated little yellow coward who has been dismissed as the idiot he is. So you now claim that stat is false because it doesn’t include ALL of Obozo’s FAILURES. You just continue to look stupid. By the way asshole, STILL NOT IMPEACHED! Cue pawn’s idiotic deflection to the House having power though they haven’t finished the process yet.

LOLOL

You poor, triggered cuck. Not even the actual study started, "Nearly 95% of all new jobs during Obama era were part-time, or contract." Obsma's name doesn't even appear in the study since it encompasses a period of 4 years before he was even president.

What the study actually showed was...

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

"A striking implication of these estimates is that 94 percent of the net employment growth
in the U.S. economy from 2005 to 2015 appears to have occurred in alternative work arrangements."​

Poor baby. The years include Obozo’s years too moron. Keep laughing as you get bitch slapped over and over you little yellow coward. Learn how to spell you uneducated eunuch. Then again, a lying, desperate, stupid little yellow coward who’s been beaten down constantly shows he has nothing. As usual. You are dismissed idiot. STILL NOT IMPEACHED!

 

[Mac-7]

Then you have nothing to complain about

I'm not complaining. Impeached Trump got himself impeached, among other reasons, for blocking some folks from testifying who were subpoenaed. What I did say is there is no reason for the Senate to not subpoena them as well. They won't because they're interested in protecting Trump, not getting to the truth.

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

I think this may be what you are looking for
The Don McGahn Ruling Has Big Consequences for Impeachment

 

[Mac-7]

Exerting executive privilege is not a crime or an impeachable offense

There's nothing to show Bolton, Mulvaney, et al., are entitled to Executive Privilege. The Supreme Court has ruled the Congress has subpoena powers for investigations. And recently, a federal court declared McGahn was not shielded by Executive Privilege...

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”​

Since the Administration appealed that ruling made by a liberal judge in Federal District Court as soon as it was issued, the Supreme Court has the final say over whether Executive Privilege extends to the President's staff.

Get back to me when the Supreme Court rules that Executive Privilege doesn't apply to Bolton, Mulvaney, et al!

Post a link to where Impeached Trump filed an appeal....

The Trump Administration filed an emergency appeal immediately. I believe hearings on that are slated to begin in early January. Do you really need a "link" for something that you should already know?

What is it with the Trump Admin and always trying to prevent its witnesses from testifying???

Trump claims he wants a long trial with plenty of witnesses -- but continues to do everything he can to stop witnesses from testifying?? Why?? Are they gonna say something bad or something?


"U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson rejected the White House's claims of absolute immunity, saying the president "does not have the power" to prevent his aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

Trump is entitled to conduct his office without the democrats looking over his shoulder

 

[lennypartiv]

All they were doing was spying on trump to try and get him out of office

And the Dems are still in denial.