Posted on Feb 6, 2020
Could Trump’s acquittal spell the end of White Houses honoring congressional subpoenas?
596
31
19
2
2
0
White House
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
6
6
0
Not likely. Congress can subpoena and the Executive branch does have executive privilege they can use. The Judiciary can settle the times there is a conflict. That is the way the system is supposed to work. They are separate but equal branches of government.
You might remember that the Trump white house turned over everything Mueller asked for, allowed everyone to testify (even his attorney), waived executive privilege more than once etc. This is another "the sky is falling" story. The dems played an unfair game in their impeachment investigation, the white house pushed back. The dems didn't want to go to the courts, that is their failure not a process failure.
This is more democrat whining and crying foul after running an unfair investigation and being lazy and wanting to move quickly not accurately or allowing for due process.
You might remember that the Trump white house turned over everything Mueller asked for, allowed everyone to testify (even his attorney), waived executive privilege more than once etc. This is another "the sky is falling" story. The dems played an unfair game in their impeachment investigation, the white house pushed back. The dems didn't want to go to the courts, that is their failure not a process failure.
This is more democrat whining and crying foul after running an unfair investigation and being lazy and wanting to move quickly not accurately or allowing for due process.
(6)
(0)
SSG Robert Mark Odom
Regardless of who is in office Constitution must be adhered to. Thanks for commenting and have a great day.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
4
4
0
The reporter on this issue, Niels Lesniewski, has crafted a scenario some consider to be probable to express concern over what could be a blanket response in all future impeachment attempts of the POTUS, yet failed to acknowledge the proximate cause behind the decision to do so.
The House IC had an obligation to investigate without presupposition, the information presented by the 'whistleblower' but acted capriciously as they determined to use the opportunity to rid themselves of a duly elected president they just don't happen to like; something that was obvious to the greater part of the nation that their efforts were politically motivated. It stands to reason that when the process is perverted as it was by house democrats, that reasonable minds will consider what is true and worthy of further action but given the circumstance of being able to clearly see through the thin veil covering their intent, they tainted their case. In short, they were case makers, not truth seekers, and they didn't make a good case for anything they alleged, hence the response of the WH and the ultimate action of the Senate.
That anything done in this case sets a precedent of that sort for future impeachment proceedings is unlikely as the WH has always resisted turning over evidence (or refusing to testify) to those demanding it when the guns are aimed at the president, so to speak, and will continue to do so.
If the house wants a better outcome, they need to be more judicious and less vindictive than what was displayed in this colossally expensive waste of time and taxpayer money.
Now if they thought they were going to be able to use this debacle to win in the November election, they need to rethink that piece an find a new strategy. Recent Rassmussen polls reflect a higher approval rating of Trump among Democrat [Likely voters] since the beginning of the impeachment hearings and with Nancy Pelosi's antics following the SOTU address Tuesday, the CBS and NBC lines were lit up with Dems calling saying they will never vote for another Democrat again, and it serves the Dems right as they have brought this on themselves.
Thanks for the post, SSG Odom and have a great day!
The House IC had an obligation to investigate without presupposition, the information presented by the 'whistleblower' but acted capriciously as they determined to use the opportunity to rid themselves of a duly elected president they just don't happen to like; something that was obvious to the greater part of the nation that their efforts were politically motivated. It stands to reason that when the process is perverted as it was by house democrats, that reasonable minds will consider what is true and worthy of further action but given the circumstance of being able to clearly see through the thin veil covering their intent, they tainted their case. In short, they were case makers, not truth seekers, and they didn't make a good case for anything they alleged, hence the response of the WH and the ultimate action of the Senate.
That anything done in this case sets a precedent of that sort for future impeachment proceedings is unlikely as the WH has always resisted turning over evidence (or refusing to testify) to those demanding it when the guns are aimed at the president, so to speak, and will continue to do so.
If the house wants a better outcome, they need to be more judicious and less vindictive than what was displayed in this colossally expensive waste of time and taxpayer money.
Now if they thought they were going to be able to use this debacle to win in the November election, they need to rethink that piece an find a new strategy. Recent Rassmussen polls reflect a higher approval rating of Trump among Democrat [Likely voters] since the beginning of the impeachment hearings and with Nancy Pelosi's antics following the SOTU address Tuesday, the CBS and NBC lines were lit up with Dems calling saying they will never vote for another Democrat again, and it serves the Dems right as they have brought this on themselves.
Thanks for the post, SSG Odom and have a great day!
(4)
(0)
MSgt Steve Sweeney
Given that impeachment is a political process, it certainly may have been politically motivated. That said, you are attributing motive to the House process that you cannot substantiate beyond your personal feelings of how the proceeded. A greater part of the nation knows that they made an outstanding case for both articles of impeachment, as evidenced by Republican Senators confirming what Trump did was wrong, but they didn't want to remove him from office. Also, I doubt those lines were "lit up" by Democrats, unless you have some way of independently verifying the political affiliation of the person on the other end of the call. Republican crisis actors.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
A greater part of the nation knows no such thing. If the houses case was so outstanding why would they have needed more witnesses and documents to prove it? Witnesses they did not call or subpoena in their investigation. Their case received a party line vote in the house with 3 dems either against or abstaining. The had one Rep vote to remove in the Senate. That is not an outstanding case. That is a failure.
Doing something wrong is not cause for impeachment. Impeachment is for Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, not doing something "wrong". It is a very high bar for the very reason we watched unfold in the house.
Was it wrong for Obama to ask Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more flexibility after the election (regarding talks on missile defense)? Essentially asking Putin to back off so he wouldn't hurt Obama's re-lection bid, rather than tackling the issue before election as it would hurt him? This is a raw political calculation. Wrong, yes. Impeachable? not really, at least until now. Had Trump had that conversation the dems say it is impeachable now.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326
Doing something wrong is not cause for impeachment. Impeachment is for Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, not doing something "wrong". It is a very high bar for the very reason we watched unfold in the house.
Was it wrong for Obama to ask Medvedev to tell Putin he would have more flexibility after the election (regarding talks on missile defense)? Essentially asking Putin to back off so he wouldn't hurt Obama's re-lection bid, rather than tackling the issue before election as it would hurt him? This is a raw political calculation. Wrong, yes. Impeachable? not really, at least until now. Had Trump had that conversation the dems say it is impeachable now.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-summit-obama-medvedev-idUSBRE82P0JI20120326
(3)
(0)
LTC Wayne Brandon
MSgt Steve Sweeney - There is no question their intent was to rid themselves of the president and was politically motivated - no guesswork required on that fact.
As for my personal feelings, I left those at the door when I first took interest in the 'evidence' being presented as was my practice for more than 30 years as an investigator of both civil torts and criminal activity. It is the facts that determine the proper outcome and when Schiff wrote his own narrative of how the phone conversation was to have allegedly taken place and presented that fairy tale as truth to the American people, he lost all credibility in my view, would have to earn it back and that would take some doing.
From then on, everything he did would have to be by the book according to even the loose standards of the impeachment process; they weren't even close.
I could go on for pages about that fiasco but will make better use of our time today and simply address your last two remarks.
1. (a) Regarding "A greater part of the nation knows that they made an outstanding case for both articles of impeachment, as evidenced by Republican Senators confirming what Trump did was wrong,..." Apparently you did not see the vote counts because if you had you would not have wrongly offered that there was more than one Republican senator ("Senators") who voted guilty in the first of the two votes. There was only one and his name is Mitt Romney who is a RINO and it is well known there is bad blood between the president and Romney. The other two were Independents.
The second vote found Romney switching to the NG side of the ledger as the Dems and Independents stood firm.
1 (b) How did you determine that the "A greater part of the nation knows that they made an outstanding case for both articles of impeachment"? What was your source for that assertion? All of the polls Gallop, Rasmussen, and others from the top 25 organizations show nothing but Trumps' approval rating rising to 46% from June to December and a corresponding drop in support for impeachment until it leveled off as the trial began.
According to the Washinton Post, Nancy Pelosi stated that "the Dems have been set on Impeaching the President since November 9, 2016", and that, with the intent of nullifying his presidency and according to the Washington Sentinal: "Leading Democrats are now saying that even if they impeach President Donald Trump and the Senate does not remove him from office, they will impeach Trump all over again, even if he is re-elected." You read that right. Democrats say they will impeach Trump all over again even if he wins re-election.
2. You can doubt all you want about the 'Lines lighting up" at NBC & CBS following that theatrical stunt pulled by the SOTH but that is what THEY reported. I do not vouch for the veracity of their claims because I don't trust them to tell the truth, in general. However, in this case, it would be unseemly for them to make such a claim given their left-leaning tendencies (putting it mildly.)
It is not my responsibility to validate what the left reports the way I do when reporting something espoused by Fox, NewsMax, and other conservative news outlets and then only to assure I am on sound footing when making such statements and can back them up through proper fact-checking.
I hope this helps you put things into a proper perspective where my post is concerned.
As for my personal feelings, I left those at the door when I first took interest in the 'evidence' being presented as was my practice for more than 30 years as an investigator of both civil torts and criminal activity. It is the facts that determine the proper outcome and when Schiff wrote his own narrative of how the phone conversation was to have allegedly taken place and presented that fairy tale as truth to the American people, he lost all credibility in my view, would have to earn it back and that would take some doing.
From then on, everything he did would have to be by the book according to even the loose standards of the impeachment process; they weren't even close.
I could go on for pages about that fiasco but will make better use of our time today and simply address your last two remarks.
1. (a) Regarding "A greater part of the nation knows that they made an outstanding case for both articles of impeachment, as evidenced by Republican Senators confirming what Trump did was wrong,..." Apparently you did not see the vote counts because if you had you would not have wrongly offered that there was more than one Republican senator ("Senators") who voted guilty in the first of the two votes. There was only one and his name is Mitt Romney who is a RINO and it is well known there is bad blood between the president and Romney. The other two were Independents.
The second vote found Romney switching to the NG side of the ledger as the Dems and Independents stood firm.
1 (b) How did you determine that the "A greater part of the nation knows that they made an outstanding case for both articles of impeachment"? What was your source for that assertion? All of the polls Gallop, Rasmussen, and others from the top 25 organizations show nothing but Trumps' approval rating rising to 46% from June to December and a corresponding drop in support for impeachment until it leveled off as the trial began.
According to the Washinton Post, Nancy Pelosi stated that "the Dems have been set on Impeaching the President since November 9, 2016", and that, with the intent of nullifying his presidency and according to the Washington Sentinal: "Leading Democrats are now saying that even if they impeach President Donald Trump and the Senate does not remove him from office, they will impeach Trump all over again, even if he is re-elected." You read that right. Democrats say they will impeach Trump all over again even if he wins re-election.
2. You can doubt all you want about the 'Lines lighting up" at NBC & CBS following that theatrical stunt pulled by the SOTH but that is what THEY reported. I do not vouch for the veracity of their claims because I don't trust them to tell the truth, in general. However, in this case, it would be unseemly for them to make such a claim given their left-leaning tendencies (putting it mildly.)
It is not my responsibility to validate what the left reports the way I do when reporting something espoused by Fox, NewsMax, and other conservative news outlets and then only to assure I am on sound footing when making such statements and can back them up through proper fact-checking.
I hope this helps you put things into a proper perspective where my post is concerned.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google