Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rep. Ratcliffe sounds like he is arguing for Dictatorship in the USA. He seems to believe that Trump should investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. But he also states he is upset at Obama for the FBI investigate into 2016. By Mr. Ratcliffe's own statements would allow for Obama to investigate what ever he wants which is the opposite of what he says Trump can do. IRS going after conservatives would be ok, Fast and Furious is fine per Mr. Ratcliff rules.
Some of the Republican talking points make absolutely no sense. If you give Trump power then you give ALL that hold the office the same Power including a nut job Democrat or a crazy Independent if that ever happens. That also means you would sign off on ALL abuses of Obama that Republicans are upset about since apparently Mr. Ratcliffe thinks the office is ALL POWERFUL.
To the extent the testimony relied on presumption and drawing conclusions from the attendant circumstances (also known as "circumstantial evidence"), the only reason that was necessary was because the President used the powers of his office to obstruct the introduction of other evidence in the face of Congressional subpoenas. Had he not affirmatively obstructed the subpoenas, we would not be in this position.
Many posters here are confusing "choosing not to participate" with "actively interfering with subpoenas by ordering others not to respond to them." Trump has done the latter and there is a chasm of difference between the two.
Criminal defendants who use whatever power they have to prevent witnesses from testifying and documents from being produced are usually prosecuted for doing so.
It was within his rights to refuse those subpoenas and have others within the Executive do the same thus it would be no different than refusing to be interrogated without counsel present.
I know you have a misguided understanding of what executive privilege is, and that's likely the cause of your confusion here, but I can't do anything about that.
You can make excuses as to why they were unable to come up with any proof of wrongdoing, but proof is what is required, you can't convict someone with excuses.
It was within his rights to refuse those subpoenas and have others within the Executive do the same thus it would be no different than refusing to be interrogated without counsel present.
I know you have a misguided understanding of what executive privilege is, and that's likely the cause of your confusion here, but I can't do anything about that.
You can make excuses as to why they were unable to come up with any proof of wrongdoing, but proof is what is required, you can't convict someone with excuses.
Executive privilege has never extended to every person and document in the executive branch. We know this because the Supreme Court has already said so.
On a tangent - Hank Johnson is a complete clown. How he manages to keep getting reelected is beyond me.
I admit not knowing too much about him other than a few astonishing sound bites here and there, but the sight of him with a neck full of band aids brought me a cheerful moment of humor in an otherwise somber proceeding.
Executive privilege has never extended to every person and document in the executive branch. We know this because the Supreme Court has already said so.
The Executive branch extends beyond one person, thus Executive privilege extends beyond that one person because it refers to the branch, not just the person. We've been over how laughably wrong you are about this issue, so there's no point in doing it again.
Suffice it to say that we all know if you knew what you were talking about and the Democrats had a legitimate case, they'd have brought that case before SCOTUS in order to get what they wanted. They knew they'd fail because your interpretation of executive privilege is clearly and obviously inaccurate....in fact they wouldn't even be making that argument in the first place, they'd be arguing that the court should override executive privilege because there was no other manner for them to carry out their duties, not that it was a wrongful claim of executive privilege as you keep claiming.
The Executive branch extends beyond one person, thus Executive privilege extends beyond that one person because it refers to the branch, not just the person. We've been over how laughably wrong you are about this issue, so there's no point in doing it again.
Suffice it to say that we all know if you knew what you were talking about and the Democrats had a legitimate case, they'd have brought that case before SCOTUS in order to get what they wanted. They knew they'd fail because your interpretation of executive privilege is clearly and obviously inaccurate....in fact they wouldn't even be making that argument in the first place, they'd be arguing that the court should override executive privilege because there was no other manner for them to carry out their duties, not that it was a wrongful claim of executive privilege as you keep claiming.
Again, we already know that executive privilege can cover close aides and documents provided to assist the President with his/her deliberative process, particularly when concerning the military and related matters of national security. We also already know it does not extend to every corner of the executive branch, but is a qualified privilege construed narrowly to protect the President's deliberative process. We know this because the Supreme Court has already told us.
Had Trump used executive privilege to justify blocking testimony and documents from anyone who even arguably had a claim of executive privilege, he would be on more solid footing. Instead, he blocked the entire executive branch from responding to Congressional subpoenas, something that the Supreme Court in Nixon already said won't fly. He dug he own grave in that regard.
Rep. Ratcliffe sounds like he is arguing for Dictatorship in the USA. He seems to believe that Trump should investigate Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. But he also states he is upset at Obama for the FBI investigate into 2016. By Mr. Ratcliffe's own statements would allow for Obama to investigate what ever he wants which is the opposite of what he says Trump can do. IRS going after conservatives would be ok, Fast and Furious is fine per Mr. Ratcliff rules.
Some of the Republican talking points make absolutely no sense. If you give Trump power then you give ALL that hold the office the same Power including a nut job Democrat or a crazy Independent if that ever happens. That also means you would sign off on ALL abuses of Obama that Republicans are upset about since apparently Mr. Ratcliffe thinks the office is ALL POWERFUL.
Is that really the argument he is going with?
Looks like Gaetz is also arguing the same point. A Trump like Democrat would just play quotes from Republicans to justify about any action that person takes. I never thought Republicans would give that much power to the executive, that is scary. I don't trust any 1 person that much.
Again, we already know that executive privilege can cover close aides and documents provided to assist the President with his/her deliberative process, particularly when concerning the military and related matters of national security. We also already know it does not extend to every corner of the executive branch, but is a qualified privilege construed narrowly to protect the President's deliberative process. We know this because the Supreme Court has already told us.
Had Trump used executive privilege to justify blocking testimony and documents from anyone who even arguably had a claim of executive privilege, he would be on more solid footing. Instead, he blocked the entire executive branch from responding to Congressional subpoenas, something that the Supreme Court in Nixon already said won't fly. He dug he own grave in that regard.
Again, if they had a case, they'd have taken it to the courts. You are simply wrong here. If the Democrats had taken it to court and won, they'd have standing to legitimately issue an obstruction of Congress article against the president if he attempted to block those subpoenas after that fact.
Unfortunately the House Democrats care nothing about legitimacy, they are merely corrupt enough to abuse their power and push forward with illegitimate articles of impeachment because they have the votes no matter what.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
