When a judge reveals too much

Progressives have long ago poisoned the Judiciary.


Rules of civility apply

Let's see if you can answer a couple of simple questions before you lock the seed. 

How are the two sentences in your quote from the 120 page ruling either personal or political? 

Can you cite even one court ruling that does NOT make citations to other cases? 

Don't you think that Federalist 51 is pertinent to the issues in the case? If not, why not? 

How are the two sentences in your quote from the 120 page ruling either personal or political? 

Comparing the President to a "king" for simply invoking executive privilege is a clear evidence of bias. Anyone who won't admit it is biased as well.


Can you cite even one court ruling that does NOT make citations to other cases? 

No. Why?  Did I ever say she shouldn't?  Or merely noting that she had?
I think someone is twisting words again.


Don't you think that Federalist 51 is pertinent to the issues in the case?

I think Federalist 65 would be the pertinent one, as a matter of fact it was prophetic:

"According to Alan Dershowitz, the problem Hamilton addresses (in Federalist 65) is that the accuser of wrongdoing as well as the judge of the accusation are both political bodies. Hamilton warned that the process of impeachment might become political, causing factions to polarize further away from each other in their defense or prosecution of the impeached individual. He rejects the notion that the Supreme Court should judge impeachment due to its small size. His recommendation is for the Senate to conduct impeachment proceedings as apolitically as possible."

en.wikipedia


Now I have a question for you. Regardless of how the courts eventually rule - doesn't the President have a constitutional right to invoke Executive Privilege?

One could argue that the President is not acting above the law because it in fact IS the law!

This 'president' is indeed not a king and not above the law.  

'Did I already mention that she was appointed by Obama?'

So what?

This article will be locked down at 11AM EST

So?

So?

No crying

Why would I cry?

That wasn't directed at you. You asked a question and I pointed out the reason why I gave a specific time.

You replied directly to me, so yes, it was directed to me.  

You asked the question, thus the reply. It was not directed at you. As far as I know, you don't complain about when I close my articles/seeds. Others do.

 A federal judge ruled that former White House Counsel Don McGahn cannot claim absolute immunity from testifying in impeachment hearings (AFP Photo/SAUL LOEB)

Washington (AFP) - A US appeals court judge ruled Monday that President Donald Trump's top aides must comply with subpoenas issued by the impeachment investigation against him.

In a case involving former White House counsel Don McGahn, who was subpoenaed in May by the House Judiciary Committee, judge Ketanji Jackson ruled that administration officials cannot claim absolute immunity from testifying based on their closeness to the US leader.

While Jackson ruled specifically on McGahn's case, she said it had broad application to all current and former presidential aides.

"Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote in her decision.

"No one, not even the head of the Executive branch, is above the law."

She said Congress has the power to subpoena any of the president's advisors, whether they are involved in domestic policies or sensitive national security issues.

"It goes without saying that the law applies to former White House Counsel Don McGahn, just as it does to other current and former senior-level White House officials," she wrote.

- No 'absolute immunity' -

That ruling could open a path for the House Intelligence Committee -- which is building a case for impeachment charges against Trump -- to force testimony from three top witnesses: former national security advisor John Bolton, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

All are believed to have direct knowledge of Trump's alleged demand that Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky open investigations into Trump's Democratic rivals in exchange for a high profile summit and much-needed military aid.

"To those witnesses who hide behind fallacious claims of absolute immunity, this ruling shows again how meritless their position remains," intelligence committee chairman Adam Schiff said in a statement.

The ruling could also give fresh life to the stalled impeachment case in the Judiciary Committee, which has tried to develop charges against Trump for obstructing the Russian collusion investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Mueller's final report in April outlined 10 acts of alleged obstruction by the president.

"Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller's investigation," Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said in a statement.

"The administration's claim that officials can claim 'absolute immunity' from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today."

But testimony won't happen right away, as the Justice Department plans to appeal Jackson's decision, said department spokesperson Kerri Kupec.

That could take the case to the Supreme Court, and in the meantime, the department could seek a court stay to prevent McGahn or others from speaking before the two committees.

But you replied directly to me BOTH times.  

But testimony won't happen right away, as the Justice Department plans to appeal Jackson's decision, said department spokesperson Kerri Kupec.

Yup

But you replied directly to me BOTH times.

I did. I answered your question.

So you were wrong.  

Nope

Yes, as usual.  

There is no 'absolute immunity' anywhere in the Constitution.  There IS the power to hold the executive branch in check in the Constitution.  Stop complaining about the Constitution and start asking yourself how you will feel when Warren or Bernie or down the road AOC are in power and the gop are powerless to do jack.  No more Benghazi's, no more 'but her emails', and once AGAIN republicans will complain about the very things they started and set in motion.   Now why would Trumpers expect and desire absolute power, where did that idea even come from, its definitely not American.  That's right.  It's a Russian value.  Putin has been blowing in someones ear again and its getting passed on.

  There IS the power to hold the executive branch in check in the Constitution. 

Yes there IS!  It's called the impeachment process, and the Founders intentionally made it difficult to accomplish, and expected it to be bi-partisan.

In Trump's case, the bi-partisan support is not there and that is why this whole silly clown show will fail.

It is was never designed to overturn the will of the people. Remember, the executive is co-equal branch of government alongside the legislative and judiciary.

Yes there IS!  It's called the impeachment process, and the Founders intentionally made it difficult to accomplish, and expected it to be bi-partisan.

So based on your standard, instead of the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's Muslim ban, we should have Impeached him back in 2017. 

In Trump's case, the bi-partisan support is not there and that is why this whole silly clown show will fail.

Nope, Trump will be the third to be impeached by the House in US history. 

It is was never designed to overturn the will of the people.

You know, the funny thing is that when the founders debated the Impeachment clause they never mentioned the 'will of the people'. NOT ONCE. 

Remember, the executive is co-equal branch of government alongside the legislative and judiciary.

Therein lies the rub, Trump doesn't recognize that he is co-equal to ANYONE or ANYTHING. 

Nope, Trump will be the third to be impeached by the House in US history. 

And all three will have failed because they were PARTISAN undertakings in the House.  The one case that never got to impeachment WOULD have gone on to a conviction was the case of Richard Nixon - and it would have been successful because it had bipartisan support. Nixon knew he had little support in the US Senate and resigned before the House could impeach him.

What surprises me is trump hasn't used the "Executive privilege card "  yet like when Obama did when Holder was called  to testify about the fast and furious operation and refused to testify.....

Ummm, the 'absolute immunity' claim is based solely on Executive privilege. Sheesh. 

Ummm, the 'absolute immunity' claim is based solely on Executive privilege. Sheesh. 

AGREED!!!

Don McGahn?  He left the White House in August of 2018, what does he have to do with this impeachment inquiry or have to add to the testimony involving the inappropriate phone call to the Ukrainian president in July 2019? 

McGahn testified for Mueller - is the House trying to renew the Mueller probe by demanding McGahn testify now?  Either the House has the evidence needed to impeach the president or they don't .. if the Mueller probe is to be renewed by bringing McGahn before the committee to testify .. the president should be able to exercise his executive privilege to block said testimony .. ta da absolute testimonial immunity..  : )

Impeachment is a political process, since hearsay is being used in testimony .. alleged over hearing of a phone call can be testified about - why not just read McGahn's testimony already given into the record?   - this whole process is a joke the phone call is not an impeachable offense - so find a way to slide unrelated testimony through the back door..?  - Remember Mueller did not recommend any actions against the president be taken while in office....

...

"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings. This means they do not have subjects bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."  (Page 115 of 120).

Ooo damn'dit .. here all this time I thought Obama was king.  I heard from a guy that overheard a phone call regarding Obama's subjects having to take a blood oath .... HA!

Hey Vic .. I must be missing something .. none of this makes sense to me.  McGahn was subpoenaed for something not relating to this impeachment inquiry - it should be a moot point, it is a matter of he said, he said..

Peace

[Deleted]

I'll warn you once - Don't make it personal and don't insult anyone here.

[deleted]

Don McGahn took notes.  This 'president' is in deep shit.  

The Bolton Subpoena

The Executive Branch has had the temerity to submit this claim of absolute immunity to judicial scrutiny and evaluation only twice.  In Comm. of the Judiciary v. Miers , 558 F.Supp.2d 53 (DDC 2008), the court rejected it outright, declaring it "unprecedented" and "without any support in the case law." [The government did not appeal that ruling, fearing, perhaps, that an appeals court decision would affirm the obviously correct result of the district court and they'd have to throw out all those OLC memos …]

And yesterday, Judge Jackson of the DC district court again rejected the OLC position in a comprehensive, 118-page opinion upholding the congressional subpoena issued to former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify at the hearings surrounding the Mueller investigation:

OLC's long-held view that senior-level presidential aides have absolute testimonial immunity is neither precedential nor persuasive … There is no principled basis for concluding that senior-level presidential aides should have absolute testimonial immunity….

To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist. Indeed, absolute testimonial immunity for senior-level White House aides appears to be a fiction that has been fastidiously maintained over time through the force of sheer repetition in OLC opinions , and through accommodations that have permitted its proponents to avoid having the proposition tested in the crucible of litigation. And because the contention that a President's top advisors cannot be subjected to compulsory congressional process simply has no basis in the law , it does not matter whether such immunity would theoretically be available to only a handful of presidential aides due to the sensitivity of their positions, or to the entire Executive branch. Nor does it make any difference whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters, or work solely on domestic issues….

And, of course, if present frequent occupants of the West Wing or Situation Room must find time to appear for testimony as a matter of law when Congress issues a subpoena, then any such immunity most certainly stops short of covering individuals who only purport to be cloaked with this authority because, at some point in the past, they once were in the President's employ….

The United States of America has a government of laws and not of men. The Constitution and federal law set the boundaries of what is acceptable conduct, and for this reason, as explained above, when there is a dispute between the Legislature and the Executive branch over what the law requires about the circumstances under which government officials must act, the Judiciary has the authority, and the responsibility, to decide the issue….

As far as the duty to appear is concerned, this Court holds that Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process—no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years—even if the President expressly directs such officials' non-compliance. This result is unavoidable as a matter of basic constitutional law, as the Miers court recognized more than a decade ago.

Today, this Court adds that this conclusion is inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law . That is to say, however busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth . Nor is the power of the Executive unfairly or improperly diminished when the Judiciary mandates adherence to the law and thus refuses to recognize a veto-like discretionary power of the President to cancel his subordinates' legal obligations.

[By the way, the judgment in this case should not be confused with the judgments in several other on-going cases where the President has raided even more outrageous immunity claims, arguing not only that he is absolutely immune from a state criminal investigation [see " The Fifth Avenue Immunity "], but that his immunity extends to his accountants and tax preparers. Those, too, have been summarily, and properly rejected by the courts.]

cases where the President has raided even more outrageous immunity claims,

It is up to the courts to decide if the immunity claims are outrageous. Judge Jackson cites Comm. of the Judiciary v. Miers and others in making her decision. Her decision may not be the most important. As for the President - he at least has the right to invoke Executive Privilege and judges like Jackson have a solemn duty to make decisions based on the law