The Courts interpret the Constitution, they don't make law. SCOTUS' interpretation is binding for matters that come to them. However, Congress is also free to interpret the Constitution - they do this all the time when passing laws. SCOTUS can overrule their interpretation and throw out laws when (and only when) a case comes to them. However, in the case of impeachment - there is no appeal to the Supreme Court, so the Senate could, in theory, interepret the President's blanket rejection of all subpoenas as unconstitutional and remove him from office for that.

Further, it's a reasonable interpretation. There's zero probability SCOTUS would agree that a President has the authority for a blanket rejection of all subpoenas associated with an impeachment inquiry - it would be contrary to US vs Nixon, which was a unanimous SCOTUS decision. In that decision, SCOTUS directly rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

Senate could interpret it that way, but they would be stupid to do so, because it would be ruinous to the constitution and any future presidency. It would blur the separation of powers and set up any future presidents (and all past presidents) for impeachment just for asserting executive privilege.

US vs Nixon was regarding a judicial process, not a political one. So though it made a decision on Executive privilege vis-a-vis a federal district court grand jury, it never made a decision on executive privilege vis-a-vis congressional demands.

“The Supreme Court has never addressed executive privilege in the face of a congressional demand for information”.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf

So we’re probably treading new ground on the issue here.

It was never proven because it was never taken to court. — NOS4A2

This just doesn't carry much weight when viewed in light everyday facts and openly expressed public behaviour.

A court is not necessary to prove that Trump has done and still does everything within his power to stop any and all subsequent investigations into the 2016 election. He continues to make a concerted attempt to distract and derail the processes and the progress being made. He has done and continues to impede any and all investigations into his behaviour.

These are all constitutional processes, clearly demarcated in the US Constitution. He is not allowing the checks and balances to work as the framers intended. He is impeding the only recourse for removing an unwanted president. For some reason, the defense wants to say things like "The Senate is not on trial".

Well...

Not if it's doing it's job and acting impartially to the case, which means not already having made up one's mind before careful examination of all the relevant evidence.

Fer fuck's sake... it's sickening.

:vomit:

:clap:

The Senate majority leader is knowingly concealing evidence from the investigation. There has been newly emerging information which certain persons who were an active part of the process under consideration are willing to testify at the Senate trial and in doing so claim to be introducing new evidence that has yet to have been introduced in any previous testimony.

That is the former National Security Advisor to the president.

Mitch McConnell cannot argue on procedural grounds in such urgent matters of national security. John Bolton resigned in bewilderment and/or befuddled. John Bolton's testimony must be heard. This is not some civil case where only a handful of people's lives and/or livelihoods are concerned. The prosecution has offered more than enough evidence to show that the defendant did everything in his power to conceal and hide his behaviours, including hiring an outside council to speak on his behalf about the relevant matters. Mr. Guiliani has openly admitted to more than enough behaviour to prove that president Trump was using unofficial means for conducting official business.

Not allowing necessary available relevant testimony is to knowingly conceal evidence. That is not acting impartially towards all the evidence regarding the case at hand. It is for these reasons that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. McConnell is in gross dereliction of duty, and needs to be removed from office.

It all reeks of corruption.

What Piffle. The article of impeachment is “obstruction of Congress”, which relates to the impeachment inquiry, not to any investigation regarding 2016, all of which turned up nothing on the president.

Further, house inquiry subpoenas for White House documents were invalid. The House had not specifically authorized the committees to issue subpoenas in furtherance of an inquiry. The subpoenas were issued prior to the full House formally voting to pursue an impeachment inquiry, which is unconstitutional, because the the full House of Representatives—all of them, not just the ones Pelosi chooses—“shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”. The White House Council said if the House had done it properly, that is constitutionally, they were ready to start the accommodation process for documents. Of course they wouldn’t wait to do that.

As for the testimonies of officials, the Whitehouse was acting on the guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice, not out of its own self-interest.

As for new evidence and testimony, the senate will deliberate on that matter in a week or so after hearing the opening cases. So all this talk about “concealing evidence” is a Democrat lie, and you’re falling for it.

"We're doing very well," Trump said, summing up the performance of his legal team after watching the [opening of the impeachment] trial from Davos, Switzerland. "But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material."

And why don't they have 'the material?' Because Trump has prevented the investigators from receiving it - one of the two things he's being tried for!

For Republicans, the sooner the better the acquittal vote, before Trump incriminates himself even further.

It all reeks of deep deep state corruption. — creativesoul

It's not 'deep' - it's right out there in the open. The Republican defense basically says, he did nothing wrong, even despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary. What it really means is: Trump is above the law. If the Senate acquits, this is what they will be saying. That is why it is a threat to the rule of law.

You're a fountain of misinformation.

There are two articles. The first is abuse of power. The second is obstruction of congress. Trump has shown a pattern of behaviour and openly publicly bragged about impeding the constitutional processes. That pattern goes back to the Mueller investigation.

He is guilty of intent to impede constitutional processes, as the overwhelming amount of evidence shows. He admits and brags about it. Arguing on procedural grounds is to deliberately and knowingly... purposefully conceal easily obtainable new evidence that is clearly relevant to both articles... both cases.

The Republican defense... — Wayfarer

Members of the Senate are not Trump's defense team. That is a problem. McConnell needs removed.

Executive privilege does not permit and/or allow a president to impede an investigation into his own possible unconstitutional/illegal behaviors, regardless of whether or not the president is guilty of the behaviours being investigated.

Trump has invoked executive privilege to impede investigations(constitutional processes). Again, the evidence for this is overwhelming, including Trump's own admission.

If it’s misinformation it should be easy to refute. Oddly enough, any valid response to my arguments and/or accurate information is missing in your rebuttal, which is diaper-full of unjust accusations and anti-Trump histrionics.

Again, the Whitehouse doesn’t comply because 1) the subpoenas for documents were invalid, unauthorized and thus unconstitutional, and 2) to ensure testimony does not disclose privileged communications. This was done at the advise of the Office of Legal Council. Unless they can deny the opinion of the OLC (I’ll link them again for you below), based as they are on precedent and the constitution, House Democrats have nothing but their fee-fees and fallacy to run with, because they never settled the dispute in the judiciary when they had the chance. This might work on those prone to fallacy and pathos, but it will not work on sober legal analysis.

If They want to undo the 2016 election, blur the separation of powers, and deny the constitution because the Whitehouse followed the legal counsel of the DOJ, it’s going to be ruinous to any future presidency if they are not censured by the Senate. History will be unkind to this witch-hunt.

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1236346/download
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1214996/download

Senate could interpret it that way, but they would be stupid to do so, because it would be ruinous to the constitution and any future presidency. It would blur the separation of powers and set up any future presidents (and all past presidents) for impeachment just for asserting executive privilege. — NOS4A2

Trump's invoking privilege to justify a blanket stonewalling of Congress is clearly outside the boundaries set by U.S. v Nixon. Therefore Congress would not be making a "ruinous" novel judgment. Nor is it a disastrous precedent to assert Congress will not tolerate a blanket refusal to comply with any all subpoenas.

Quick question:
Is "trolling" a high crime?

Quick question:
Is "trolling" a high crime? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Only if you were high at the time.

History will be unkind to this witch-hunt. — NOS4A2

Someone's been hitting the Hannity a little too hard.

Trump's invoking privilege to justify a blanket stonewalling of Congress is clearly outside the boundaries set by U.S. v Nixon. Therefore Congress would not be making a "ruinous" novel judgment. Nor is it a disastrous precedent to assert Congress will not tolerate a blanket refusal to comply with any all subpoenas.

Do you believe that every president that evokes executive privilege against congressional demands—Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Ford, Kennedy, for example—should be impeached for doing so?

"Someone's been hitting the Hannity a little too hard." - Don Lemon

A quote without a reference. Typical.

Thanks for the insight, Don. Very astute.

You get what Fox News talking points deserve.

No, and please remember that I told you that I think the Dems should have taken Trump to court. I feel that way because it would remove all controversy.

That said, I'm also saying that it isn't really technically necessary, because they are free to interpret the Constitution themselves -and to apply past SCOTUS precedent. In the hypothetical case in which they were to do this, it would serve as a precedent for future Congresses to impeach a President if, and only if, both these elements were present: 1) That President issued a blanket refusal to reject any and all Congressional subpoenas. 2) The subpoenas are associated with investigation of the President's potentially impeachable conduct.

So yes, I think it would be reasonable to impeach any President who exhibited both elements.

all of which turned up nothing on the president. — NOS4A2

A lie.

"What did the report say about obstruction of justice?

The investigation looked into a “variety of actions” that raised obstruction of justice questions – including the president’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey; his effort to get his associates to fire Mueller; and his effort to pressure Jeff Sessions to “unrecuse” himself from the case.

Mueller ultimately didn’t accuse the president of obstruction of justice, he wrote that he couldn’t rule out the possibility and declare that the president is exonerated."


https://time.com/5567077/mueller-report-release/

"Mueller ultimately didn’t accuse the president of obstruction of justice, he wrote that he couldn’t rule out the possibility and declare that the president is exonerated."

Three years of "Russian collusion" and this is the best you guys came up with. Bravo.

So yes, I think it would be reasonable to impeach any President who exhibited both elements.

What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution?

Three years of "Russian collusion" and this is the best you guys came up with. Bravo. — NOS4A2

A lie.

"Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

“Wherever law ends, tyranny begins,” John Locke cautioned in his Two Treatises of Government. This is how autocracy comes to America: not with a declaration of martial law and tanks in the street, but by a roll-call vote in the Senate whipped by the leader of the Senate in violation of the Constitution.

If on the day the Senate returns its verdict, history records the failure to convict the president following a trial without witnesses, that will be the day the rule of law dies in America. The courts will remain open for business. Congress will be in session. Citizens will still be able to vote. And a free press will continue to launch withering attacks on President Trump. But the American people will no longer be living in a constitutional democracy. — Paul Savoy

The Atlantic Monthly.

“ However, Mueller did not allege any crimes directly connecting the two — that is, that Trump advisers criminally conspired with Russian officials to impact the election.

Other reported focuses of Mueller’s investigation — such as potential obstruction of justice by the Trump administration — also did not result in any charges.”

The Russia collusion has become a topic like climate change.

Or nuclear energy for Germans.

Set out all the quotes you like. Close friends and associates Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Cohen and Stone were taken down. I don't doubt the day your divine Trump is no longer hedged by the presidency, he will be too.

Set out all the quotes you like. Close friends and associates Papadopoulos, Manafort, Gates, Cohen and Stone were taken down. I don't doubt the day your divine Trump is no longer hedged by the presidency, he will be too.

Meanwhile your coveted deep-state, the DNC, and the media will receive the two-tiered justice they always have, and life will go on.

Meanwhile your coveted deep-state, the DNC, and the media will receive the two-tiered justice they always have, and life will go on. — NOS4A2

Is Fox News a part of the media? Is AM talk radio a part of the media?

Can you provide a lick of evidence to support the claim that the DNC "[has always benefited from a two-tiered justice system]"? Please be specific and provide citations.


P.S.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/479548-fox-leads-ratings-in-day-one-of-impeachment-trial