Trump ordered different people to not honor the subpoena to testify.
That is obstruction.
Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications.
Trump has executive privilege. — NOS4A2
Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions.
A president does not have the privilege of obstructing an investigation into his behaviour...
More Fox rhetorical drivel.
That they explicitly said, not least in the person of statements by Mulvaney.The idea that Trump was pressuring Zelensky for political gain was siphoned from the presumptions of a NYT article, and not anything Trump or his administration said. — NOS4A2
That they explicitly said, not least in the person of statements by Mulvaney.
That is, your "not anything [they] said" is countered with what they exactly and explicitly said. Hmm. what does that make you, nose4?
You seem a like a pantywaist. Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned in the Constitution. — NOS4A2
A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.Off the top of my head
According to testimony two of the three direct conversations with Trump contained explicit denials of a quid pro quo, including one in August, before the whistleblower complaint was sent to Congress. — NOS4A2
That's exculpatory with regard to a direct bribe, but only implies Zelensky and Yermak did not get direct pressure from Trump. However Zelensky clearly knew that it was in his country's best interest to do whatever Trump asked - so it's still consistent with an abuse of power. Trump's requested "favor" is abuse of power even if it wasn't tied to release of funds. Withholding funds, and then using them to reward Zelensky for that "favor" is even worse.The supposed victim, president Zelensky, has denied being pressured on countless occasions....Andre Yermak, a close aid to Zelensky, denied discussing quid pro quo with Sondland.
A guilty person denying a crime is not exculpatory evidence. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that is inconsistent with guilt. For that matter, the corruption of Trump's act is not contingent upon there being a direct quid pro quo.
Did I say anything about the Constitution? No, I was concerned with your claim that "word crimes" are not "actual crimes".
Do you see that you are undeniably wrong? Word crimes are actual crimes. Therefore, If president Trump was involved in word crimes, as you said he was, he is a criminal.
Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.Yes he does have executive privilege, which includes denying congressional subpoenas. — NOS4A2
Only selectively. He does not have absolute immunity from subpoena, as he claims. Do you sincerely believe that would hold up in court? Past precedent even shows that executive privilege is applicable most narrowly when there is an impeachment investigation.
I’m not sure it will hold up in court, but Obama, Bush and Clinton all evoked executive privilege to stonewall congressional investigations. Should they be impeached? — NOS4A2
It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes... — NOS4A2
Irrelevant to this situation. Red herring.
Even if they ought, it does not fucking matter here. In fact, if they ought to have been but were not, then we certainly ought to follow the rules now, for that has been part of the problem... if they ought to have been, that is.
The request to investigate is wrong when the request is made; it does not magically become wrong only after the request is executed. It's wrong irrespective of whether it was tied to aid; that's a separate issue that makes it even worse - but again here, it's wrong to have ordered it and does not become virtuous when he's caught and releases it.He never investigated any US citizen. The hold on aid was lifted before the expiry date. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.