Trump signals he will use executive privilege to block Bolton testimony in Senate

[Flash]

Yes it does. It prevents their bills from becoming law, as intended.

Exactly, constitutional checks are not illegal attempts to block or hinder a congressional proceeding like refusing subpoenas.

You fail to make the simple distinction between a constitutional check and an illegal obstruction.

[Nordberg]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

[canceled.2021.2]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

I am very comfortable with Trump following the precedent of Obama

[Southern Chicken]

You cannot delay obeying a subpoena unless the courts block that action.

If I am convicted for a crime I cannot delay my sentence until my appeal is completed. If I appeal a judges pre-trial ruling I cannot delay the trial and sentence until the appeal is complete.

When the House issues a legal subpoena (which the courts have already established the congressional power to subpoena) that order must be obeyed.

I applaud Your remarkable attempt at comparing criminal trial to legislative hearings as if they are the same thing. However, They are different..... Now on to your last sentence-" When the House issues a legal subpoena "(stop there) The legality of the power of the Congressional subpoena is what the executive branch is challenging. The courts will be the the branch that interprets that and not the House. The executive branch has every right to wait on the Judicial review before action. At its most basic, executive privilege is the proposition that certain confidential or sensitive communications within the executive branch are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure to the executive’s coequal branches.

[Southern Chicken]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

Nonsense

[Into the Night]

Exactly, constitutional checks are not illegal attempts to block or hinder a congressional proceeding like refusing subpoenas.

You fail to make the simple distinction between a constitutional check and an illegal obstruction.

No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.

[Into the Night]

Rightys are quite comfortable with Trump not only ignoring subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents but prohibiting everyone else from doing it either. This is simply obstruction. Not hard to see there must be a reason trump is doing it. He has a ton to hide. It is tantamount to a confession and sticking his tongue out at the law.

Negative proof fallacy.

[Flash]

The legality of the power of the Congressional subpoena is what the executive branch is challenging. The courts will be the the branch that interprets that and not the House. The executive branch has every right to wait on the Judicial review before action. At its most basic, executive privilege is the proposition that certain confidential or sensitive communications within the executive branch are constitutionally protected from compelled disclosure to the executive’s coequal branches.

I was not trying to make impeachment and criminal trials similar--they are very different. I was talking about subpoenas.

The courts have long established the power of Congress to subpoena meaning they don't have to stop and wait for the courts before carrying on their investigation unless the courts order them to stop. The courts have also ruled executive privilege cannot be used to protect criminal activities.

Sometimes the courts block these attempts and sometimes they do not.

Appeals court refuses to block House subpoena for Trump's Financial Records
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...ncial-records/

Supreme Court stops House subpoena for Trump financial Records
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...ancial-records

[Flash]

No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.

There is a big difference between an illegal obstruction and a constitutional power.

[Flash]

Republicans never even once considered that Trump might be guilty. Instead, they assumed he was innocent, and came to his defense, refused to consider the evidence.

Isn't that what they are supposed to do until enough evidence convinced them he should be impeached?

[Flash]

No. You are trying to make a difference where there is none. False dichotomy fallacy.

You don't understand the difference between engaging in illegal acts to block an investigation and exercising a constitutional power to veto a bill?

False equivalence fallacy.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Isn't that what they are supposed to do until enough evidence convinced them he should be impeached?

They should be open minded about it, not totally reject and fight any evidence with prejudice. They were not trying to make up their minds. They were trying to defend him. They were not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to take impeachment seriously. There is no oath to defend the president, show allegiance to him. But that is exactly what Republicans did. They were the partisans.

[Flash]

Hello Flash,



They should be open minded about it, not totally reject and fight any evidence with prejudice. They were not trying to make up their minds. They were trying to defend him. They were not fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to take impeachment seriously. There is no oath to defend the president, show allegiance to him. But that is exactly what Republicans did. They were the partisans.

Agreed, but no more partisan than the Democrats. Posters on JPP have been calling for Trump's impeachment for three years. Every week they had a new issue that was sure to impeach him.

Democrats introduced articles of impeachment in the House on 5/17/2017 and voted on this issue 12/6/2017, 1/19/2018, 7/17/2019. When the impeachment proceedings started did you ever think he might not be guilty or did you want him impeached even prior to the articles being written?

[cawacko]

Agreed, but no more partisan than the Democrats. Posters on JPP have been calling for Trump's impeachment for three years. Every week they had a new issue that was sure to impeach him.

Democrats introduced articles of impeachment in the House on 5/17/2017 and voted on this issue 12/6/2017, 1/19/2018, 7/17/2019. When the impeachment proceedings started did you ever think he might not be guilty or did you want him impeached even prior to the articles being written?

I've followed none of this impeachment process. Have paid no attention. But the idea that anyone in Congress is impartial about any of this is laughable to me. Just as there are Republicans who will fight to their dying day to defend Trump some of these Democrats who have hated him and wanted him gone from Day One now professing principled and non prejudicial positions in backing impeachment is a joke.

[Flash]

I've followed none of this impeachment process. Have paid no attention. But the idea that anyone in Congress is impartial about any of this is laughable to me. Just as there are Republicans who will fight to their dying day to defend Trump some of these Democrats who have hated him and wanted him gone from Day One now professing principled and non prejudicial positions in backing impeachment is a joke.

The final result was determined before it started. We all knew he would probably be impeached but acquitted in the Senate.

If the Ukraine had agreed to investigate (which Zelensky did) that would have much produced very little or no news; instead, all kinds of publicity has been generated about the Bidens. Trump couldn't have benefited more if he had planned it.