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.
They didn't need the Courts for the first article of impeachment. & they didn't need his consent to impeach him.
Exactly. But they also didn't need a reason, they just needed a majority of congress willing to vote for impeachment. The check is that it would take a super majority of the senate to ratify the 50%+1 congressional mob ruling.
No... he did invoke it, and it went unchallenged. The manner in which he did it and his grounds for doing so are irrelevant since it went unchallenged in court.
As far as I know, Mr. Trump asserted executive privilege here:
Quote:
On May 8, 2019, Trump asserted executive privilege regarding the full Mueller Report at the request of the attorney general. According to The New York Times, this was Trump's "first use of the secrecy powers as president".[37]
On June 12, 2019, Trump asserted executive privilege over documents related to the addition of a citizenship question on the 2020 census. This was in response to a subpoena from the House of Representatives leading up to their impending vote over whether to hold Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress over the census question.[38]
Unless your assumption is that his executive privilege extends to him giving the House his consent to impeach him? Rudy Giuliani seems to have claimed something like.
If you think there was a legal challenge, by all means provide a link. I can't prove a negative.
You can cite a source for your insistence that Trump has specifically declared that every document and witness is subject to “executive privilege,†as opposed to simply refusing to provide information to Congress because he doesn’t want to be investigated.
Unless your assumption is that his executive privilege extends to him giving the House his consent to impeach him? Rudy Giuliani seems to have claimed something like.
You keep jumping to ridiculous conclusions, Trump claimed executive privilege when members of the executive were subpoenaed, this was not challenged in court but is the basis of the obstruction of Congress article shamefully passed by Congress.
In a hypothetical scenario where Trump's executive privilege claim was challenged in court and overturned and he still refused to comply and requested others do the same, then you'd have a valid obstruction case... but none of that happened. Democrats didn't even challenge the president's claim, likely because they didn't think they could do so successfully, and that's the end of it.
He did not assert executive privilege in response to the first article of impeachment, he has offered no defense as far as I can tell.
Quote:
ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:
(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government?corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—
(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—
(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
& he did not need to consent to being impeached. After all, he's not a king.
Some people are urging Pelosi to have the impeachment vote in the House but to not send the articles to the Senate if McConnell refuses to hold a trial with witnesses. Trump would remain impeached forever and never exonerated by the Senate. He could never crow about being found not guilty.
I think she should do it. McConnell does not want a fair trial presumably because he knows Bolton will sink Trump. If Trump is not guilty he should welcome an open fair trail not a whitewash.
Will Stormy be testifying? Her and the Other Bimbos, Rudy and Roger Stone? At this point we need some entertainment value.
He did not assert executive privilege in response to the first article of impeachment:
& he did not need to consent to being impeached. After all, he's not a king.
No one made either claim, this is a particularly weird strawman you are attempting to beat up on.
The discussion was about how the obstruction of Congress article was baseless.
Everyone knows that Congress can abuse their power and impeach the president despite having no legitimate grounds to do so....I mean it's what they are trying to do now and what will happen now if Pelosi ever stops blocking the impeachment.
You keep jumping to ridiculous conclusions, Trump claimed executive privilege when members of the executive were subpoenaed, this was not challenged in court but is the basis of the obstruction of Congress article shamefully passed by Congress.
That's the conversation we're having.
The conversation does keep changing although I don't mind that.
Do you remember stating that it was not valid "because no crime was committed"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
They spell out the fact that there was no valid reason for impeachment because no crime was committed and there's not even evidence of wrongdoing.... the fact that they went forward anyway suggests "because they hate the orange man" is the likely reason.
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.
