The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[kwc57]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

This is a conversation about the impeachment trial. Don't get distracted, this has nothing to with Clapper, Brennan, Page, Strzok or any other boogey men. We are asking about their official duties as government officials. We have a right to know what they're doing in that capacity.

What rights are being violated?

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

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?

 

[colfax_m]

The information that launched the investigation came from the Australian diplomatic staff. You probably should know this by now.

About a comment someone made at a cocktail party? That's laughable! What "launched" the investigation was the smear job bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC! The excuse that people like Clapper, Brennan, Page & Strozk used was that comment made at a cocktail party. They took a bunch of lies...the Steele dossiers...called them credible intelligence when they knew they were not... and used that to both spy on the Trump campaign and to smear Donald Trump personally!

Well, yeah. Sometimes that's how these things start. Turns out that they were right too.

The rest of your post is factually incorrect.

Sometimes that's how these things start? That's your rationale? The Australian cocktail party story was what those people attempting to smear Trump and spy on his campaign used to justify their actions once the Steele dossiers were exposed for what they really were.

Now you're claiming they were "right" about collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia? Are you smoking crack today, Colfax?

I’m claiming they were right to be suspicious and open an investigation. A two year review of the investigation proves it.

They were "right" to open an investigation based on one comment made at an embassy cocktail party in Australia? Really? LOL

Yes.

 

[BlindBoo]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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.

 

[Olde Europe]

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 know, Boo, that would all be quite correct, but... You are debating folks who would believe that instigating politically motivated investigations of a political rival - the pinnacle of corruption - is actually consistent with a crusade against corruption. And they still believe that crap upon learning that Trump also fired an Ambassador from her post, overseeing Ukraine's anti-corruption efforts, with an admirable track record of fighting against corruption. That would be the same Ambassador they had asked, just weeks prior, to stay on her post beyond her term so as to ensure consistency while the Ukrainian government changed hands.

And that's just one of the seven completely implausible things they believe before finishing their breakfast. Subservience to the Mob Boss requires no less.

 

[Oldstyle]

Now Clapper, Brennan, Page and Strzok are "boogey men"? I assume that means you think we should ignore how they abused the power of their positions in an attempt at influencing our election?

As for your right to know things as a citizen? Presidents are given the right to have private conversations with their staffs...you have zero right to be privy to what those conversations consist of unless they involve criminal acts and before you claim that they DO involve criminal acts let me be quite clear that you don't get to look at those private conversations unless you've got a crime that you are investigating such as the Watergate break in and subsequent coverup! There was no crime in this case. No criminal charges have been brought against ANYONE involved in this farce!

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

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?

 

[colfax_m]

Trump was using our money. Whatever decisions he made are fair game for examination. We have a right to know why he did something. You can live in ignorance if you want, but I don't.

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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!

 

[Oldstyle]

On what do you base your claim that we have a "right" to be privy to private conversations between the President and his Staff? It's established that we DON'T have such a right unless it involves an investigation into a crime. The ignorance is all yours, Colfax!

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?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Irrelevant. The court has never made an exhaustive list.

 

[Oldstyle]

What the Supreme Court ruling essentially says is that because our system is set up with three equal branches of government it isn't Constitutional for the Legislative Branch to bully the Executive Branch with multiple subpoenas related to how the Executive arrived at decisions. The only exception to that is if it involves a criminal trial at which point the power of the Courts would be diminished if evidence in a criminal trial could be withheld. Once again...that is something that is decided by the Courts...not the Legislative Branch!

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

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.

 

[BlindBoo]

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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.

This wasn't an investigation by the Ukraine into the Democratic Party, Boo! It was a request to the Ukraine to look into an obvious matter of influence peddling. Nice attempt at drama though! Well...not really!

The fact is every Administration uses foreign aid as leverage to "coerce" things from foreign governments and they've been doing so since we started handing out foreign aid! Anyone who believes that isn't true is beyond naïve!

 

[Oldstyle]

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

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.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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.

 

[Oldstyle]

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?

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!

 

[colfax_m]

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?

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?

 

[Care4all]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

I have no problem with it, see it as simply Trump's usual tactics of flailing and accusing everyone else of wrong doing.

The way all the president's men, and the president have without evidence accused Hunter of all kinds of crimes, if called, and his lawyer loses any battles on Hunter not having any first hand information on Trump's quid pro quo, or abuse of power... and he is called to testify, he will likely be advised by his lawyer, to take the 5th because of the government witch hunt via the president, against him.

This of course allows Trump to bring out his usual comment that if someone pleads the 5th... they are guilty.....

But, Mulveney if brought fourth, will likely have to plead the 5th as well on some things, because he is implicated in breaking the impoundment control act, by holding the congressionally allocated military money back from the Ukraine, when he KNEW it broke the law and he should have rejected the president's request, to break the law. It was only released, when they got caught... the WB complaint was made known to congress.

And others being called will likely plead the 5th or try to skirt on executive privilege, I don't know how that privilege crud will work out?

On the whistle blower, the questioning can be done in private, maybe making the senators swear to identity protection of him.... or behind some screen, I dunno?

BTW, all the witnesses testifying, could be on video, not before us live. In Clinton's impeachment, it was all done in private.... and tapings of it, were released I believe....

ALSO, the R senators do not even close to the majority, want hunter and the WB to testify, so they likely would NOT get the 51 votes for each one.imo.

GO FOR IT!

CALL THEIR BLUFF....

 

[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.