(12-05-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on Fast and Furious.
Don't help the Lad with his homework. How will he ever learn?
I think I am finding how much easier it is to be an ideologue in the first number of years out of schooling.
Past issues flow of the feathers of younger ducklings far easier when they dont have a seasoned patina of history on that coat.
So many times I have wanted to use examples of Ted Kennedy, McGovern, and even Carter in discussions here --- only to realize that the only ones who might get the point being made in the history are ones that might already follow that same basic thoughts.
(12-05-2019 03:47 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on Fast and Furious.
Don't help the Lad with his homework. How will he ever learn?
What a beautiful response to a question being posed.
(12-05-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.
I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.
I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.
Which ones in particular?
To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.
If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.
Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?
But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.
So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?
Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?
Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?
Perhaps you should actually answer my first question to you instead of the litany of 'what ifs' that follow, mind you.
And, yes, this ignorant dumfk actually believes that a privilege should enjoy the presumption of that as such. Kind of makes sense when one understands what the hell the privilege in this case (and privilege in related situations) is meant to protect. Common sense.
Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on or handing over documents related to discussions on Fast and Furious. I was disappointed because with that issue I do believe Federal laws were broken at the highest level; but me stammering 'but but but' and 'what if what if what if' doesnt change the level of proof needed to overcome that.
So I will assume from your pell mell dash, that you are unaware or dont care about the idea of executive privilege. Or how it relates to the actual supbpoenas, nor how the subpoeanas related directly to the issue of co-equal branches of government. Kind of bedrock stuff one should be aware of before one stammers on with rhetorical complains about the subject.
And, as implied directly preceding, that presumption for executive privilege (as with almost all privileges) can be defeated. Too bad that takes a little extra work. But that stands in contradistinction to your rhetorical stand-alone whine question, doesnt it?
Short answer to that rather long winded response - I understand the idea of executive privilege and was asking how absolute you felt it was.
My understanding is it has its limits and is not absolute.
(12-05-2019 04:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.
Which ones in particular?
To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.
If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.
Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?
But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.
So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?
Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?
Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?
Perhaps you should actually answer my first question to you instead of the litany of 'what ifs' that follow, mind you.
And, yes, this ignorant dumfk actually believes that a privilege should enjoy the presumption of that as such. Kind of makes sense when one understands what the hell the privilege in this case (and privilege in related situations) is meant to protect. Common sense.
Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on or handing over documents related to discussions on Fast and Furious. I was disappointed because with that issue I do believe Federal laws were broken at the highest level; but me stammering 'but but but' and 'what if what if what if' doesnt change the level of proof needed to overcome that.
So I will assume from your pell mell dash, that you are unaware or dont care about the idea of executive privilege. Or how it relates to the actual supbpoenas, nor how the subpoeanas related directly to the issue of co-equal branches of government. Kind of bedrock stuff one should be aware of before one stammers on with rhetorical complains about the subject.
And, as implied directly preceding, that presumption for executive privilege (as with almost all privileges) can be defeated. Too bad that takes a little extra work. But that stands in contradistinction to your rhetorical stand-alone whine question, doesnt it?
Short answer to that rather long winded response - I understand the idea of executive privilege and was asking how absolute you felt it was.
My understanding is it has its limits and is not absolute.
Long winded because you exhibited absolutely zero indication of knowing that it had application in your first rhetorical screed with zero fing indication that was in play, son.
You still havent clued in to the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government tangent there.
If you noted I answered *your* fing shotgun stream of questions with one post, but why let that get in the way of snide ass response. Good for you.... Good grief. Ask twenty fing questions then get snotty with an answer to those fing twenty questions. That is one way to approach it....
Not especially. Just calling out a snotty response for what it was, and kind of stupid in light of the shotgun list of questions tossed out. I guess you missed that salient point.
(12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?
Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.
Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.
(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.
Dude, I work for the Department of Justice. I would have to be insane or stupid to start spouting legal commentary on these issues. I'm happy to share personal opinions, though not always happy to engage with people on their opinions in the current toxic environment. But legal opinions or commentary ...
NO THANK YOU!!!
edit - also, I haven't researched separation of powers issues to compliance with congressional subpoenas to even formulate any kind of legal opinion or commentary. I can promise that whatever my opinion, it would apply equally to whomever was in control of congress and/or the white house.
(12-05-2019 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?
Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.
Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.
(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.
Dude, I work for the Department of Justice. I would have to be insane or stupid to start spouting legal commentary on these issues. I'm happy to share personal opinions, though not always happy to engage with people on their opinions in the current toxic environment. But legal opinions or commentary ... NO THANK YOU!!!
Sorry, I didn't realize I was putting you on the spot.
I agree it is a toxic environment. I think we have the Democrats in congress to thank for that.
Schiff, Nadler, Tlaib, Omar, AOC, Swawell,and so forth.
(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.
Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.
I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.
I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.
Which ones in particular?
To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.
If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.
Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?
But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.
So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?
Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?
Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?
I am sure there are limits. I wonder what they are in a sham proceeding. I guess we could find out by going to the courts, but the leaders in the kangaroo court are in too big a hurry, basing their choices on political concerns rather than justice. They just need to get this farce done before Iowa.
(12-05-2019 06:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I didn't realize I was putting you on the spot.
I agree it is a toxic environment. I think we have the Democrats in congress to thank for that.
Schiff, Nadler, Tlaib, Omar, AOC, and so forth.
No blame for Mitch "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" McConnell? Zero blame? My prediction is that you believe McConnell was justified because of some earlier action by some Democrat. But I say everyone is responsible for their own actions (including Democrats). Someone else being an a$$hat doesn't excuse anyone else being an a$$hat.
Talib, Omar, and AOC are reps who were sworn in 11 months ago. I'm not sure how they are responsible for creating a toxic environment that has been building for decades. Also, they are virtually powerless backbench reps, so they have much less control over the tone and toxicity than party leadership on both sides. But blaming them is like blaming Robbie Picazo (Rice's current QB coach) for the past 4-5 decades of general ineptitude by Rice Football.
(12-05-2019 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?
Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.
Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.
(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.
Dude, I work for the Department of Justice. I would have to be insane or stupid to start spouting legal commentary on these issues. I'm happy to share personal opinions, though not always happy to engage with people on their opinions in the current toxic environment. But legal opinions or commentary ... NO THANK YOU!!!
edit - also, I haven't researched separation of powers issues to compliance with congressional subpoenas to even formulate any kind of legal opinion or commentary. I can promise that whatever my opinion, it would apply equally to whomever was in control of congress and/or the white house.
+1, and kudos on consistency.
I will be absolutely honest that there are little to no legal opinions on the subject of congressional subpoenas to Executive Branch personnel.
And in all honesty I misidentified the specific concept -- it is not separation of powers, but the co-equal branches doctrine that is pertinent here. It is front and center of disputes of this sort.
It is not as cut and dried as lad's first missive was on 'how dare people ignore Congressional subpoenas', nor as cut and dried as the 'well if a President is guilty of...' type predicates that went to the front and center of his response to the pushback.
When you take the lad's questions literally, when you examine them and if the answer was in the affirmative, one would quickly conclude that the presumption of privilege did not even enter into his thought process; almost like his assumption in his first question that the people who refused the subpoena might even be have a tangible claim of privilege while doing so.
(12-05-2019 06:26 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 06:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry, I didn't realize I was putting you on the spot.
I agree it is a toxic environment. I think we have the Democrats in congress to thank for that.
Schiff, Nadler, Tlaib, Omar, AOC, and so forth.
No blame for Mitch "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" McConnell? Zero blame?
That is an absolutely valid political goal. And, no, I dont fault McConnell for expressing that goal. Much as I dont fault any Democrat who has or expresses the goal of making Trump a one-term President.
But the toxicity above and beyond a political goal has run amok. We have now entered the realm of executives invoking intelligence and law enforcement actions on political rivals, mind you. I mean, Nixon was ripped apart for that type of action, but barely a yawn for the present.
As for the McConnell statement, should it be de rigueur for the opposition to never acknowledge a basic truth of the political system, i.e. the goal is always to hobble the opposition somewhere, somehow?
During Baby Bush one heard repeatedly from the Democrats of how good it would be to make Shrub a one-termer. I'm sorry, but McConnell stating what has been an opposition goal from Carter, to Reagan, to Papa Bush, to Clinton, to Shrub, to St. Barack doesnt even make it to the yawn meter here. This is the example of 'harsh toxicity'? Give me a break.....
Quote:My prediction is that you believe McConnell was justified
Goal scored.
Quote: because of some earlier action by some Democrat.
Goal taken away.
Seriously, lad continuously harps on the absolute evil of the McConnell statement. Seriously? That is 'toxic'?
As to the Schiff release of phone records, this is a real rich look at the press and a showcase of the hypocrisy rampant:
Trump: the media is fake news
Press: THE DEATH OF DEMOCRACY IS UPON US
Schiff: Let me show you a release of a US journalist's *private* phone records, obtained by subpoena without his knowledge.
Press: <Crickets>
Yep, no bias at all......
(12-05-2019 05:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not especially. Just calling out a snotty response for what it was, and kind of stupid in light of the shotgun list of questions tossed out. I guess you missed that salient point.
You’re actually calling my question, which was about the limit of executive privilege snotty?
What was snotty about the hypothetical I posed?
(12-05-2019 06:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?
Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.
Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.
(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.
Dude, I work for the Department of Justice. I would have to be insane or stupid to start spouting legal commentary on these issues. I'm happy to share personal opinions, though not always happy to engage with people on their opinions in the current toxic environment. But legal opinions or commentary ... NO THANK YOU!!!
edit - also, I haven't researched separation of powers issues to compliance with congressional subpoenas to even formulate any kind of legal opinion or commentary. I can promise that whatever my opinion, it would apply equally to whomever was in control of congress and/or the white house.
+1, and kudos on consistency.
I will be absolutely honest that there are little to no legal opinions on the subject of congressional subpoenas to Executive Branch personnel.
And in all honesty I misidentified the specific concept -- it is not separation of powers, but the co-equal branches doctrine that is pertinent here. It is front and center of disputes of this sort.
It is not as cut and dried as lad's first missive was on 'how dare people ignore Congressional subpoenas', nor as cut and dried as the 'well if a President is guilty of...' type predicates that went to the front and center of his response to the pushback.
When you take the lad's questions literally, when you examine them and if the answer was in the affirmative, one would quickly conclude that the presumption of privilege did not even enter into his thought process; almost like his assumption in his first question that the people who refused the subpoena might even be have a tangible claim of privilege while doing so.
Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation.
I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.
(12-05-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation. I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.
Executive privilege is a legitimate concept that exists for several reasons. One, the branches are established a co-equal, so one does not necessarily have to acquiesce to another. Two, a president necessarily has to have conversations with members of his administration that must be considered confidential. Executive privilege is necessary to protect the confidentiality. By the way, conversations with foreign leaders take place under a presumption of confidentiality, because those leaders must sometimes speak frankly.
Executive privilege is not unlimited. But congress does not define the limits, the courts do. The proper procedure for congress, when executive privilege is asserted regarding something they want to get, is to go to the Supreme Court for a decision. Until congress gets a court order, it is legal to ignore the subpoenas. For some reason, they have chosen not to do that, but simply to piss and moan. I can think of a reason, can you?
(12-05-2019 07:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 05:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Not especially. Just calling out a snotty response for what it was, and kind of stupid in light of the shotgun list of questions tossed out. I guess you missed that salient point.
You’re actually calling my question, which was about the limit of executive privilege snotty?
What was snotty about the hypothetical I posed?
It wasnt the hypothetical(s), lad. Im calling your response to my answering them a 'long winded' answer. Apparently you forgot it was in response to your buckshot load of questions.
So if intentional -- snotty. If not -- just a tad ignorant about what post mine responded to. Capiche?
(12-05-2019 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation. I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.
Executive privilege is a legitimate concept that exists for several reasons. One, the branches are established a co-equal, so one does not necessarily have to acquiesce to another. Two, a president necessarily has to have conversations with members of his administration that must be considered confidential. Executive privilege is necessary to protect the confidentiality. By the way, conversations with foreign leaders take place under a presumption of confidentiality, because those leaders must sometimes speak frankly.
Executive privilege is not unlimited. But congress does not define the limits, the courts do. The proper procedure for congress, when executive privilege is asserted regarding something they want to get, is to go to the Supreme Court for a decision. Until congress gets a court order, it is legal to ignore the subpoenas. For some reason, they have chosen not to do that, but simply to piss and moan. I can think of a reason, can you?
Appreciate the response. To be clear, I do know that executive privilege exists and is a legitimate concept - despite what Tanq has been saying I think...
So basically the precedent set in Nixon’s case is not enough to influence this issue, and further judicial action is required to decide if this instance is legal?
(12-05-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 06:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 06:07 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?
Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.
Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.
(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.
I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.
Dude, I work for the Department of Justice. I would have to be insane or stupid to start spouting legal commentary on these issues. I'm happy to share personal opinions, though not always happy to engage with people on their opinions in the current toxic environment. But legal opinions or commentary ... NO THANK YOU!!!
edit - also, I haven't researched separation of powers issues to compliance with congressional subpoenas to even formulate any kind of legal opinion or commentary. I can promise that whatever my opinion, it would apply equally to whomever was in control of congress and/or the white house.
+1, and kudos on consistency.
I will be absolutely honest that there are little to no legal opinions on the subject of congressional subpoenas to Executive Branch personnel.
And in all honesty I misidentified the specific concept -- it is not separation of powers, but the co-equal branches doctrine that is pertinent here. It is front and center of disputes of this sort.
It is not as cut and dried as lad's first missive was on 'how dare people ignore Congressional subpoenas', nor as cut and dried as the 'well if a President is guilty of...' type predicates that went to the front and center of his response to the pushback.
When you take the lad's questions literally, when you examine them and if the answer was in the affirmative, one would quickly conclude that the presumption of privilege did not even enter into his thought process; almost like his assumption in his first question that the people who refused the subpoena might even be have a tangible claim of privilege while doing so.
Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation.
I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.
The current situation is that the subpoenas are being ignored. The privilege has been asserted, and the presumption of validity should follow, as would be the case in every other privilege. If the issuing authority has an argument with that, take it to court. And prove to the judge under the prevailing standard of evidence that piercing the privilege is justified.
As it stands currently, the executive has every right to assert that privilege. Any sitting president would do the same in any circumstance -- and they have. And they should. Until a judge says otherwise, it is perfectly legal. It would only be illegal if/when a judge says otherwise, and most likely until any final appeal of that ruling has gone against the executive.
So it actually is a clear cut right at this point. And it is the burden of the 'piercer' to show otherwise.
So there really isnt any moralistic dance about them being 'legally ignored' or not. There is only an 'illegally ignored' when the last judge in the rodeo tells you that there must be a compliance, and it is still ignored after that. Not even Nixon crossed that line.
(12-05-2019 08:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 08:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-05-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Frankly, you extended that assumption to how I view the current situation. I was asking to understand if you felt there was a limit to executive privilege or if you thought it was absolute. Based on your response I was going to then see where the current situation fell and why you felt the subpoena deniers were able to legitimately use executive privilege in this scenario.
I think you far too frequently assign someone a position they haven’t taken.
I asked OO about the subpoena ignorers because it isn’t, on the surface, a clear cut right or wrong. I was legitimately interested in his thoughts on them, yet he responded to a question to me.
I don’t know enough about executive privilege to make a firm stance on whether they are legally ignoring these subpoena as or not - I just know that they are ignoring the subpoenas.
Executive privilege is a legitimate concept that exists for several reasons. One, the branches are established a co-equal, so one does not necessarily have to acquiesce to another. Two, a president necessarily has to have conversations with members of his administration that must be considered confidential. Executive privilege is necessary to protect the confidentiality. By the way, conversations with foreign leaders take place under a presumption of confidentiality, because those leaders must sometimes speak frankly.
Executive privilege is not unlimited. But congress does not define the limits, the courts do. The proper procedure for congress, when executive privilege is asserted regarding something they want to get, is to go to the Supreme Court for a decision. Until congress gets a court order, it is legal to ignore the subpoenas. For some reason, they have chosen not to do that, but simply to piss and moan. I can think of a reason, can you?
Appreciate the response. To be clear, I do know that executive privilege exists and is a legitimate concept - despite what Tanq has been saying I think...
So basically the precedent set in Nixon’s case is not enough to influence this issue, and further judicial action is required to decide if this instance is legal?
The assertion of privilege is de facto legal. What is required is a judicial ruling that an exception exists to pierce that de facto legal exercise of privilege.
And, to be clear, it is not absolute. But even if Trump and henchmen were discussing robbing a bank, the presumption is that the assertion is valid. And even after an adverse finding that an exception exists, the former exercise of the privilege is still de facto legal, but the caveat is that the conversation is deemed to fall into an exception to the privilege. That does not make the initial assertion 'illegal', though. (sorry about the aggressive trigger word....)
Kind of a very nuanced point. But one that got a very good grade on final exam many moons ago.