The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[BlindBoo]

The President is not an all powerful King and doesn't have the power to declare a US Citizens guilty or not.

Seriously? You watched that sham of a shit show Mueller investigation and House Impeachment and think people in power can't declare a US citizen guilty? The whole damn thing started with an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the DNC and their presidential candidate.

Not sure what you're whining about cupcake, Mueller was appointed by Republicans. Trumpybear was impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigations into his Democrat opponent as well as the Russian theory that it was The Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in our 2016 election.

I don't believe any amount of witness testimony will change enough Trumpublican votes to convict the POS however. They could all come out and admit they did it for old Trumpybear and the TOP, and the Senate would still embrace the corruption that The Dirty Don and his Cronies represents.

You want to impeach a sitting President for doing what Presidents before him have done for hundreds of years. This isn't about "corruption", Boo...this is about you not getting the result you wanted in the last Presidential election and trying to rectify that with a political "impeachment". It's a pathetic tack to take and it's going to ultimately come back to bite you in the ass!

Not one president has ever used foreign aid approved by both parties as leverage to corruptly coerce a foreign government into announcing an investigation into half of our two party system. They deserve the backlash that is coming later this year.

As for "backlash"? It's becoming more and more apparent that the only backlash that seems to be looming is going to be against the Democrats who were behind this political farce.

We'll see in November.

 

[Oldstyle]

What other way do you see the Supreme Court ruling saying that Executive Privilege can be lost?

Irrelevant. The court has never made an exhaustive list.

It hasn't made a "list" because there is only one exception to Executive Privilege and that's spelled out quite clearly.

That’s not what the ruling says.

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

 

[Oldstyle]

Seriously? You watched that sham of a shit show Mueller investigation and House Impeachment and think people in power can't declare a US citizen guilty? The whole damn thing started with an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the DNC and their presidential candidate.

Not sure what you're whining about cupcake, Mueller was appointed by Republicans. Trumpybear was impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigations into his Democrat opponent as well as the Russian theory that it was The Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in our 2016 election.

I don't believe any amount of witness testimony will change enough Trumpublican votes to convict the POS however. They could all come out and admit they did it for old Trumpybear and the TOP, and the Senate would still embrace the corruption that The Dirty Don and his Cronies represents.

You want to impeach a sitting President for doing what Presidents before him have done for hundreds of years. This isn't about "corruption", Boo...this is about you not getting the result you wanted in the last Presidential election and trying to rectify that with a political "impeachment". It's a pathetic tack to take and it's going to ultimately come back to bite you in the ass!

Not one president has ever used foreign aid approved by both parties as leverage to corruptly coerce a foreign government into announcing an investigation into half of our two party system. They deserve the backlash that is coming later this year.

As for "backlash"? It's becoming more and more apparent that the only backlash that seems to be looming is going to be against the Democrats who were behind this political farce.

We'll see in November.

We sure will...
Feeling confident about that, Boo?

 

[colfax_m]

Irrelevant. The court has never made an exhaustive list.

It hasn't made a "list" because there is only one exception to Executive Privilege and that's spelled out quite clearly.

That’s not what the ruling says.

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

 

[Oldstyle]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

 

[Dragonlady]

"What was the President wanting investigated? Something involving Hunter Biden? What was happening that needed investigating?"

Hunter Biden needs to testify as his scandal is at the center of Schiff's manufactured coup....

...and Hunter's testimony / scandal leads to Joe Biden & his videotaped confession of extorting the Ukraine PM...

....and Ukraine leads to Schiff...and his Ukraine & Burisma payments...and the Whistle Blower...and his new employee, the IC IG...




.

The Biden's didn't try to extort the Ukrainians, Donald Trump did. The Bidens have no knowledge or evidence of this extortion attempt.

Even if the Biden's were guilty of all of the corruption Trump claims, Trump's "military aid for investigations" deal was illegal and improper. THE US PRESIDENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WITHHOLD FOREIGN AID ONCE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY CONGRESS.

THE US PRESIDENT CANNOT ASK A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE A US CITIZEN. THAT REQUEST NEEDS TO COME FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT - THERE IS A PROCESS.

Last but not least, now that your GRU has hacked Burisma, have they planted false evidence to be "found" in such an investigation?

Is that why you're now promoting Biden's testimony? You Russians have shot yourselves in the foot with that hacking, Evgeny.

More lies just repeated often does not make any of your post true, dumbass!

I'm not lying:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...0ea7aa-37a3-11ea-9c01-d674772db96b_story.html

 

[Oldstyle]

It hasn't made a "list" because there is only one exception to Executive Privilege and that's spelled out quite clearly.

That’s not what the ruling says.

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm still waiting to hear from you what OTHER exceptions you think there are in United States Vs Nixon!

 

[colfax_m]

That’s not what the ruling says.

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[easyt65]

I'm not lying:

Where is your link to the law that you and Schiff clam affords whistle blowers 'anonymity' and 'immunity'?!

.

 

[Oldstyle]

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

If the Supreme Court Justices intended "other exceptions" then they would have included them! They didn't. They were very specific about what exception applied.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

If the Supreme Court Justices intended "other exceptions" then they would have included them! They didn't. They were very specific about what exception applied.

Nope. That’s now how it works. The court answers the question before them. That’s it. There was no reason to include any other exemptions other than what was necessary to rule on the case.

 

[Care4all]

I hate being ignorant. Can you point to the case which establishes absolute immunity for the president’s advisors from Congressional subpoenas?

There is no case that establishes absolute immunity for communications between a President and advisors!
There is in fact only one case regarding Executive Privilege that's been heard by the Supreme Court and that is United States vs. Nixon and in that ruling they stated that there was no such thing as absolute immunity. It is a "qualified privilege" that can be lost if the courts are seeking subpoenaed materials in a criminal case!

"1. The Supreme Court and executive privilege

As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.” Instead, the case in which the court first recognized such a privilege—Nixon—arose from a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski as part of his investigation into the Watergate break-in. But the court’s 8-0 ruling in Nixon nevertheless provides three important benchmarks for executive privilege vis-à-vis Congress today.

First, emphasizing “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties,” the Nixon court traced executive privilege not to the common law, but to Article II of the Constitution. As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “[w]hatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art[icle] II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.” In other words, “the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has … constitutional underpinnings,” meaning that the privilege cannot be abrogated by statute. Indeed, even though President Richard Nixon ultimately lost before the court, this part of the court’s decision was a significant (and, given the result, unnecessary) win for the presidency.

Second, the Nixon court rejected the president’s claim that such a privilege is absolute, emphasizing that “the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.” Instead, the court held that the executive privilege protected by Article II is a qualified privilege, and concluded that “it is necessary to resolve [the] competing interests” between executive privilege and the role of the courts “in a manner that preserves the essential functions of each branch.”

Third, Nixon held that the president’s interest in the confidentiality of his own communications, as memorialized in the tapes sought by the subpoena, was outweighed by “our historic commitment to the rule of law.” In Nixon, specifically, “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.” And as the court would explain three years later in another case involving Nixon, the privilege recognized in the earlier 1974 Nixon ruling “is limited to communications ‘in performance of (a President’s) responsibilities … of his office,’ and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”
Executive privilege, Congress’ subpoena power, and the courts: A brief overview of a complex topic - SCOTUSblog

Where is the case that says that executive privilege can only lost in criminal prosecutions?

That would be The United States vs. Nixon. Can't you read?

I can but that’s not what it says. It says that executive privilege cannot be used to avoid criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t say that’s the ONLY way that you can lose executive privilege.

There is no court case which states what you’re claiming.

What other way do you see the Supreme Court ruling saying that Executive Privilege can be lost?

was the nixon case a criminal trial or an impeachment inquiry?

 

[BlindBoo]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

 

[Care4all]

Time to get an independent counsel and a criminal case going, I guess, eh Oldstyle?

 

[Siete]

There is no case that establishes absolute immunity for communications between a President and advisors!
There is in fact only one case regarding Executive Privilege that's been heard by the Supreme Court and that is United States vs. Nixon and in that ruling they stated that there was no such thing as absolute immunity. It is a "qualified privilege" that can be lost if the courts are seeking subpoenaed materials in a criminal case!

"1. The Supreme Court and executive privilege

As the 2014 CRS study explained, “the Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information.” Instead, the case in which the court first recognized such a privilege—Nixon—arose from a subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski as part of his investigation into the Watergate break-in. But the court’s 8-0 ruling in Nixon nevertheless provides three important benchmarks for executive privilege vis-à-vis Congress today.

First, emphasizing “the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties,” the Nixon court traced executive privilege not to the common law, but to Article II of the Constitution. As Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, “[w]hatever the nature of the privilege of confidentiality of Presidential communications in the exercise of Art[icle] II powers, the privilege can be said to derive from the supremacy of each branch within its own assigned area of constitutional duties.” In other words, “the protection of the confidentiality of Presidential communications has … constitutional underpinnings,” meaning that the privilege cannot be abrogated by statute. Indeed, even though President Richard Nixon ultimately lost before the court, this part of the court’s decision was a significant (and, given the result, unnecessary) win for the presidency.

Second, the Nixon court rejected the president’s claim that such a privilege is absolute, emphasizing that “the impediment that an absolute, unqualified privilege would place in the way of the primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions would plainly conflict with the function of the courts under Art[icle] III.” Instead, the court held that the executive privilege protected by Article II is a qualified privilege, and concluded that “it is necessary to resolve [the] competing interests” between executive privilege and the role of the courts “in a manner that preserves the essential functions of each branch.”

Third, Nixon held that the president’s interest in the confidentiality of his own communications, as memorialized in the tapes sought by the subpoena, was outweighed by “our historic commitment to the rule of law.” In Nixon, specifically, “when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice.” And as the court would explain three years later in another case involving Nixon, the privilege recognized in the earlier 1974 Nixon ruling “is limited to communications ‘in performance of (a President’s) responsibilities … of his office,’ and made ‘in the process of shaping policies and making decisions.’”
Executive privilege, Congress’ subpoena power, and the courts: A brief overview of a complex topic - SCOTUSblog

Where is the case that says that executive privilege can only lost in criminal prosecutions?

That would be The United States vs. Nixon. Can't you read?

I can but that’s not what it says. It says that executive privilege cannot be used to avoid criminal prosecutions. It doesn’t say that’s the ONLY way that you can lose executive privilege.

There is no court case which states what you’re claiming.

What other way do you see the Supreme Court ruling saying that Executive Privilege can be lost?

was the nixon case a criminal trial or an impeachment inquiry?

crickets -

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Care4all]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

agree, but just one correction, Rosenstein, another Republican, appointed a special counsel, because Session was already recused, for his involvement.

 

[BlindBoo]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

agree, but just one correction, Rosenstein, another Republican, appointed a special counsel, because Session was already recused, for his involvement.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

 

[progressive hunter]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

 

[BlindBoo]

It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling.

No, it was a demand to publicly announce politically motivated investigations into Trumpybears political enemies and an attempt to turn the White House into a two-bit, tin pot dictatorship, which is the Dirty Don's speed. He is after all, a two bit hustler-shuckster.

Oh, you mean like give Democrats a little taste of what they'd been doing to him for the previous three years? Those kinds of "politically motivated investigations", Boo?

Comey was not a Democrat and was certainly no help to Hillary. Who fired him? Why did Sessions appoint the Republican Mueller to investigate what Russia did again? Furthermore, Mueller didn't report his findings to Congress,and much of the evidence is still sequestered from Congress.

Democrats never held for ransom millions of dollars worth of bipartisan foreign aid until a certain country did their bidding to take action against one of our two parties here at home.

neither did the republicans or trump,,,

Hahaha good one. The Republicans are extinct. The last one died in Arizona a while back. The rest had to quit or Kiss the Ring and become Trumpublicans. I bet ol'Trumpybear was livid when he found out he was busted in his Ukraine Shakedown.

I think Congress should rename Pennsylvanian Ave too.

Call it:



Send your letters to
President Trumpybear
1600 Shake Down Street
Washington DC 20500