(12-19-2019 12:26 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-19-2019 11:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  As to the former, what is it when nominee Clinton asks her committee to ask for lawyers to ask a 'security firm' to ask Russian spooks for 'things to politically damage Trump during the election?' How many cutouts makes it triple prime copacetic for you to the extent that your example doesnt coincide in an obvious outcome campaign finance violation for the Clinton campaign/Perkins/Fusion/Russian spooks trail?

This isn't my area of specialty, but my sense is that asking a foreign government directly is not the same as going through 2 or 3 layers of american companies. They might be the same if the candidate is actually directing the specific ultimate action (go to foreign nationals to get info). But if they are just trying to "get dirt" and then those intermediary companies take actions without specific direction, there could be a legal difference. I'm just not sure. And yeah, it might seem like a bit of kabuki theater or slight of hand to a non-attorney, but attorneys should understand the distinction.

If it is 'information', I am actually of the school that there is zero campaign finance issue with any layers of cutout, including zero.

I dont think one can readily square the 1st Amendment with a penalty (potential incarceration, in fact) for transmittal of information.

And, I think that it would be at best problematic to meet the 'thing of value' prong even if the above issue could be squared.

Quote:

(12-19-2019 11:07 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And in follow up, the 2nd count of the impeachment is actually grotesque in nature, given the stance that zero judicial orders exist *anywhere* that are the predicate driver in making non-disclosure an issue.

If a court of final standing issues an order for disclosure, and *anyone* refuses (including Orange Hair), heck yeah the 2nd count is not just viable, it is practically mandated.

But count 2 is a frgging cartoon as it stands at the present. Lends an air of 'everything *and* the kitchen sink' to the issue.

We just have different takes on this. I don't think the executive should be able to block numerous and significant witnesses from testifying under oath. Executive privilige is often overused and the legislative branch needs to be taking back some power to make the branches co-equal. So I actually think the obstruction of congress part of it is more important. If you cut off the investigation then you can hide any wrongdoing. If there isn't impeachable wrongdoing, then no need to hide it. Again, laws need to be passed to govern impeachment in the future. Maybe set up a system so the judiciary can quickly review executive privilege claims when Congress is trying to use its oversight or impeachment powers. Jump directly to the circuit court with a 5 judge panel and decisions on the briefs only.

I would agree with the bolded. But count 2 is, in the present case, a count based on the *temerity* to assert privilege. That is not a good thing.

An equivalent case could be as such, which might make it ring closer to home:

An opponent subpoeanas {insert item or testimony here} in which you have a reasonable reason of being viewed as protected under the client attorney privilege.

Maybe even a 5% chance of being found so (a low hit item, so to speak).

In all honesty, there is no way the {item or testimony} finds itself in the hands of the party opponent before a judge tells me so. Not a chance in hades.

Now, once found to be outside the privilege, and it is a last appeal, or the matter is chosen not to be appealed, then absolutely the {testimony or item} should (and must) be turned over. But I think everyone would find it absolutely abhorrent in nature to punish the privilege holder for exercising the privilege.

If the item has been deigned not within the privilege, then by all means punitive measures are allowable and prudent. But before? Nope, in my view absolutely not.

This is count 2 in a nutshell.

Clearly not an attorney, but I think lots of voters think as I do....

I think the President is not meaningfully different from anyone else in terms of their right to privacy, due process etc etc etc. If him exerting privilege (there is also spousal privilege etc) means someone doesn't want to vote for him, fine... but implying guilt based on him using 'whatever' defense that anyone else would use if accused of a crime (and felt that the jury was stacked against him) would use is just un-American.

We shouldn't convict people of crimes because they choose to aggressively defend themselves using every 'trick' at their disposal and even thinking up some new ones. The whole 'if you're not guilty you have no worries' simply isn't true. Sure, you can sleep at night knowing that, but you MIGHT be sleeping in jail.

I also don't think the house impeachment is an actual trial. It's more like my understanding of an indictment or a grand jury. SUre, the accused can and may defend themselves, especially on certain issues... but they don't have to. They can choose to wait until the trial.

You knew you could ask questions,didn't you Donald?
Hey Stan, you're in a Democratic controlled House. You're a Republican. You beat Hillary. There is NO WAY this is not going to trial.

Would I be okay with Warren asking China or France or Germany for things to politically damage Trump during the election?

a) We're not in an election period
b) the dirt isn't on Biden, but on his son.
but that aside....

If China or France or Germany were so corrupt that we had just had to put Executive level PERSONAL pressure on their governments to end corruption
AND if Trump's son had (while Trump was in office) been somewhat oddly (and VERY lucratively) named to the board of a very large company in that very corrupt country....
AND if Warren did so on a monitored phone line (as opposed to the infamous 'I'll have more flexibility after the election' whisper accidentally caught on tape)

No, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Let me answer a different, but more pertinent question...
Democrats haven't been able to tie Trump to Russian interference in our elections, right? If Ivanka had been named to the board of Lukoil right after the election.... and then Putin been replaced by someone who ran against such corruption... I would EXPECT Warren to ask the new President of Russia to investigate that

Wouldn't you?

Is it POSSIBLE that this sort of thing can be abused? Absolutely.... BUT
a) I'd expect most such conversations, if they are attempts to abuse, would be held in private and not on a monitored line.
b) while people can disagree about whether Hunter's situation is a smoking gun or just a 'bad look', I don't think anyone with half a brain just thinks there is no possibility of corruption there. The request is not just a random 'find me some dirt' request.

Just viewed the McConnell speech. This absolutely drives home the point on Count 2:

Quote:They tried to cover their own partisan impatience by pretending the routine occurrence of exerting [sic] Constitutional privilege is itself, itself, a second impeachable offense.

The following is something that Adam Schiff literally said in October, here's what he said 'Any action that forces us to litigate, or consider litigation will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice'. Thats Adam Schiff.

Here is what the Chairman effectively said, and what one of his committee members restated just this week: if the President asserts his Constitutional rights is that much more evidence he's guilty.

So we have reached the point that a simple exercising of a Constitutional power and prerogative is a basis for an impeachment. Bravo!

On the point of count 2, I am reminded how Texas Democrats also tried to have an exercise of a clearly delegated Executive power by then Governor Perry deigned a felony.

I dont think much more can be said how grotesque Count 2 is at this juncture. I find it absolutely astounding in its scope.

Again, had a court ordered such subpoena as upheld, and that final order was ignored, I would be very much on board with Count 2. The fact that Count 2 treats the simple exercise of that privilege as an impeachable offense without regard to any sort of outcome in the courts as simply disgusting.

(12-19-2019 04:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The request is not just a random 'find me some dirt' request.

Bingo!. The lefties try to to characterize it as a find me anything request, but it was clearly pointed at specific and likely dirt. And that dirt will come out if Biden is the nominee.

I wonder how Hunter's request to NOT release his tax returns is going.

Schrodinger's Congress:

Is an impeachment an impeachment if it is never delivered to the Senate?

-----------------------------

Or, funnily, The House Democrats have put forth with all consternation a charge of obstruction.

What do they do? They’re going to apparently..... obstruct the Senate to try to make it happen.

As Yoda might say: Irony rich is in that one.

Words of wisdom on the status of the impeachment vote:

Good grief

Somebody who gets it

“If you turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton, and emails all mixed together. But Americans around the country know different,”

"Americans don’t trust the media networks to tell them the truth.”

Man, is that ever the truth. I like Yang as the best of a bad lot, and like Bloomberg second. Does that mean I like billionaires? I don't like Steyer. Yall sure have a lot of billionaires.

Saw this headline:

"Democrats spar over how to combat Trump, a roaring economy and impeachment"

How to combat a roaring economy? The economy is the thing to be reined in?

just supports my previous statements, there would be much rejoicing at the DNC if the economy was to crater. No worries about the people who would be hurt.

Edit: But instead, the Dow, the S&P, and the Nasdaq are all at record highs. Imagine the anguish at the DNC.

(12-19-2019 03:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And in follow up, the 2nd count of the impeachment is actually grotesque in nature, given the stance that zero judicial orders exist *anywhere* that are the predicate driver in making non-disclosure an issue.

If a court of final standing issues an order for disclosure, and *anyone* refuses (including Orange Hair), heck yeah the 2nd count is not just viable, it is practically mandated.

But count 2 is a frgging cartoon as it stands at the present. Lends an air of 'everything *and* the kitchen sink' to the issue.

mrbig Wrote:We just have different takes on this. I don't think the executive should be able to block numerous and significant witnesses from testifying under oath. Executive privilige is often overused and the legislative branch needs to be taking back some power to make the branches co-equal. So I actually think the obstruction of congress part of it is more important. If you cut off the investigation then you can hide any wrongdoing. If there isn't impeachable wrongdoing, then no need to hide it. Again, laws need to be passed to govern impeachment in the future. Maybe set up a system so the judiciary can quickly review executive privilege claims when Congress is trying to use its oversight or impeachment powers. Jump directly to the circuit court with a 5 judge panel and decisions on the briefs only.

I would agree with the bolded. But count 2 is, in the present case, a count based on the *temerity* to assert privilege. That is not a good thing.

An equivalent case could be as such, which might make it ring closer to home:

An opponent subpoeanas {insert item or testimony here} in which you have a reasonable reason of being viewed as protected under the client attorney privilege.

Maybe even a 5% chance of being found so (a low hit item, so to speak).

In all honesty, there is no way the {item or testimony} finds itself in the hands of the party opponent before a judge tells me so. Not a chance in hades.

Now, once found to be outside the privilege, and it is a last appeal, or the matter is chosen not to be appealed, then absolutely the {testimony or item} should (and must) be turned over. But I think everyone would find it absolutely abhorrent in nature to punish the privilege holder for exercising the privilege.

If the item has been deigned not within the privilege, then by all means punitive measures are allowable and prudent. But before? Nope, in my view absolutely not.

This is count 2 in a nutshell.

(12-19-2019 04:32 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Clearly not an attorney, but I think lots of voters think as I do....

I think the President is not meaningfully different from anyone else in terms of their right to privacy, due process etc etc etc. If him exerting privilege (there is also spousal privilege etc) means someone doesn't want to vote for him, fine... but implying guilt based on him using 'whatever' defense that anyone else would use if accused of a crime (and felt that the jury was stacked against him) would use is just un-American.

We shouldn't convict people of crimes because they choose to aggressively defend themselves using every 'trick' at their disposal and even thinking up some new ones. The whole 'if you're not guilty you have no worries' simply isn't true. Sure, you can sleep at night knowing that, but you MIGHT be sleeping in jail.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you both. The problem with the administration's use is that they are using it in a blanket matter. The proper way to use executive privilege (or really most privileges) is to testify (or turn over most of the documents) and only assert the privilege as to specific items. You can't just not show up at all to the hearing or not turn over any documents. It makes a nice sound bite, but that is now how the privilege works.

Same with spousal privilege. It doesn't mean the spouse doesn't testify, it just means they don't have to offer testimony against their spouse. So they still testify, but they can refuse to answer specific questions. Same thing again with attorney-client. Not all communications between an attorney and client are privileged. An attorney called to testify would still need to show up and answer questions that did not fall within the privilege.

So not producing any docs and telling all the witnesses not to show up is at least a good faith reason for #2 in my opinion. Certainly enough to survive the grand jury / indictment phase before the House, even if it isn't enough to convict at trial in front of the Senate.

That said, I agree with tanqtonic that it was a mistake to not issue subpoenas. The House would have been in a better position if they issued subpoenas.

(12-20-2019 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somebody who gets it

“If you turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton, and emails all mixed together. But Americans around the country know different,”

"Americans don’t trust the media networks to tell them the truth.”

Man, is that ever the truth. I like Yang as the best of a bad lot, and like Bloomberg second. Does that mean I like billionaires? I don't like Steyer. Yall sure have a lot of billionaires.

Do you agree with Yang on economic indicators?

https://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/11...28677?s=21

(12-20-2019 05:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 10:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Somebody who gets it

“If you turn on cable network news today, you would think he’s president because of some combination of Russia, racism, Facebook, Hillary Clinton, and emails all mixed together. But Americans around the country know different,”

"Americans don’t trust the media networks to tell them the truth.”

Man, is that ever the truth. I like Yang as the best of a bad lot, and like Bloomberg second. Does that mean I like billionaires? I don't like Steyer. Yall sure have a lot of billionaires.

Do you agree with Yang on economic indicators?

https://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/11...28677?s=21

No. I think the stock markets are indicators of general economic health and expectations for the future. I don't think you have to own stock to enjoy the benefits of a robust market indicating a robust economy.

For example, lots of nonstockowning tradesmen will be making a a lot of money building houses that developers will be building for buyers who have benefited from the robust economy and are ready to move up.

Trying to limit the benefits indicated by a rising market ONLY to those who own stock is a short-sighted and silly way to define the market. Might as well assume everybody on Wall Street looks like the Monopoly guy.

Another way to look at it is that you do not have to own a house to benefit from from a robust housing market. I know of five people who will benefit thusly - my sons and grandsons. Especially my grandson the plumber.

(12-20-2019 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Same with spousal privilege. It doesn't mean the spouse doesn't testify, it just means they don't have to offer testimony against their spouse. So they still testify, but they can refuse to answer specific questions. Same thing again with attorney-client. Not all communications between an attorney and client are privileged. An attorney called to testify would still need to show up and answer questions that did not fall within the privilege.

What one should do, is show up and assert privilege in a blanket manner. When pressed, let a judge tell me as to what I may or may not testify to. To do any less is malpractice.

Quote:So not producing any docs and telling all the witnesses not to show up is at least a good faith reason for #2 in my opinion. Certainly enough to survive the grand jury / indictment phase before the House, even if it isn't enough to convict at trial in front of the Senate.

And I disagree with that, because with executive privilege, that privilege carries yet another layer that you dont address. That privilege carries an attendant immunity provision to stop what you put forward dead in its tracks. Again, the procedure is to assert the attendant immunity, then let a court tell you if it applies or not. And then, when testifying, make the court tell you what is within and falls outside any privilege.

None of these paths were proceeded down by Congress. Not a question to a court about the scope of immunity -- if even one exists, or, if one exists, is it blanket or qualified. And even if that were done, there was zero testimony that a privilege was asserted. Only when the privilege is asserted does Congress have the imperative to ask a court of law whether the privilege applies.

In short, no court was ever asked about privilege, nor was any court even asked to adjudicate if the attendant immunity applies.

Count 2 says, in paraphrase, the application of any privilege or attendant immunity is a basis for impeachment.

I will grant you the Congress may have a viable reason to unraveling those balls of yarn; but to throw up their hands, assert that the mere querying is paramount to any executive privilege or attendant immunity, then refuse to even press the issue to a judicial determination is simply utter crap.

Quote:That said, I agree with tanqtonic that it was a mistake to not issue subpoenas. The House would have been in a better position if they issued subpoenas.

They should have issued, then had a judicial interpretation of the action that backed it. The Executive has every constitutional right to assert not just privilege, but to assert the attendant immunity. The interpretation that the assertion of that is baldly impeachable, without any judicial backing that it is improper, nor any following blocking, is amazingly bereft of substance.

I mean, in the case of Nixon, they ran it to the Supreme Court that upheld the subpoena. And, even Nixon actually complied.

(12-20-2019 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Same with spousal privilege. It doesn't mean the spouse doesn't testify, it just means they don't have to offer testimony against their spouse. So they still testify, but they can refuse to answer specific questions. Same thing again with attorney-client. Not all communications between an attorney and client are privileged. An attorney called to testify would still need to show up and answer questions that did not fall within the privilege.

What one should do, is show up and assert privilege in a blanket manner. When pressed, let a judge tell me as to what I may or may not testify to. To do any less is malpractice.

That certainly was the approach for many years.

Since the December 2015 amendments to the F.R.C.P., Federal courts have clamped down a bit on blanket discovery demands (e.g. FRCP 26(b)(1)) and objections (e.g. FRCP 34(b)(2)). But I can't say personally how much the latter has specifically affected privilege assertions.

Big, you probably have the most recent experience of any of us -- what have you seen?

(12-20-2019 04:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you both. The problem with the administration's use is that they are using it in a blanket matter. The proper way to use executive privilege (or really most privileges) is to testify (or turn over most of the documents) and only assert the privilege as to specific items. You can't just not show up at all to the hearing or not turn over any documents. It makes a nice sound bite, but that is now how the privilege works.

Sounds to me like a legal argument. Obviously the Trump administration disagrees.

Lawyers fairly frequently challenge things that 'others' think are obvious.

Quote:[Same with spousal privilege. It doesn't mean the spouse doesn't testify, it just means they don't have to offer testimony against their spouse. So they still testify, but they can refuse to answer specific questions. Same thing again with attorney-client. Not all communications between an attorney and client are privileged. An attorney called to testify would still need to show up and answer questions that did not fall within the privilege.

So not producing any docs and telling all the witnesses not to show up is at least a good faith reason for #2 in my opinion. Certainly enough to survive the grand jury / indictment phase before the House, even if it isn't enough to convict at trial in front of the Senate.

That said, I agree with tanqtonic that it was a mistake to not issue subpoenas. The House would have been in a better position if they issued subpoenas.

You're an attorney and I'm not...

It seems obvious that your attorney might find something 'within privilege' that my attorney would not.
I mean, if there weren't differences of opinions on what is legal and what is not, we wouldn't need you guys... and certainly not the scotus

But you're talking about a trial, and this wasn't a trial. It was a hearing. It was more like a grand jury/indictment phase as you said... but it isn't even really that.

As I said, take away the political biases and I think most people in this country would agree that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and the defendant doesn't have to testify. If almost literally, the biggest crime you've uncovered is the failure to participate in the investigation of the lack of a crime... they're almost ADMITTING its a witch hunt.... which makes point 2 a distinction without a difference.

What I find silly is that Pelosi charged Trump with obstruction for failing to appear, and I'm sure Trump would say he didn't because he knows he couldn't get a fair 'trial', which is precisely what Pelosi is now arguing for herself... that she won't present the case to the Senate because she can't get a fair trial

Were not the Democrats saying that it urgent to impeach Trump to keep him from “doing it again”? Were those just lies, since there seems to be no urgency now in presenting the Articles to the the Senate.

Of course they have every right to worry. There is a real chance that the Republicans in the Senate will be unfair to them the same way they were unfair to the Republican Representatives in the House. Seems it is unfair only when the other guys do it.

Pelosi is clearly obstructing Justice.

She want's the specter of impeachment to hang over Trump (and the ability to accuse Republicans of bias) without giving Trump the right to a trial (and the probability of an acquittal).

Seriously....
How is this NOT party before country and an obstruction of Justice?

Democratic Double Standard

Interesting post regarding fiscal spending under Trump:

Quote: Let’s Make a Deal

Federal government fiscal policy worked as a drag on economic growth for about half of Barack Obama's presidency. Republican lawmakers enacted $889 billion in net spending cuts during the final six years of his administration, according to the Manhattan Institute. Under President Trump, tax cuts and spending increases have helped goose growth during all but the first quarter of 2017. That doesn't look set to change. Democrats and Republicans on Monday released a nearly $1.4 trillion budget agreement. The spending deal lasts through the rest of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2020. It permanently repeals a number of health-care-related taxes and raises discretionary federal spending by about $50 billion compared with last fiscal year, Andrew Duehren and Richard Rubin report.

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2019/12/...ow-growth/

Government spending is up, along with the deficit. Something tells me we won’t hear about the horrors of that until Dems take over the presidency...

(12-21-2019 03:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Interesting post regarding fiscal spending under Trump:

Quote:
Let’s Make a Deal
Federal government fiscal policy worked as a drag on economic growth for about half of Barack Obama's presidency. Republican lawmakers enacted $889 billion in net spending cuts during the final six years of his administration, according to the Manhattan Institute. Under President Trump, tax cuts and spending increases have helped goose growth during all but the first quarter of 2017. That doesn't look set to change. Democrats and Republicans on Monday released a nearly $1.4 trillion budget agreement. The spending deal lasts through the rest of the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2020. It permanently repeals a number of health-care-related taxes and raises discretionary federal spending by about $50 billion compared with last fiscal year, Andrew Duehren and Richard Rubin report.

https://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2019/12/...ow-growth/
Government spending is up, along with the deficit. Something tells me we won’t hear about the horrors of that until Dems take over the presidency...

You'll hear it from me. In fact, I'm working on a peer-reviewed paper that I hope to publish in the spring to address the issue.

But don't act like the deficit is all Trump. If you look at the CBO budget and economic projections as of January 2017 (prepared before Trump took office) the deficit was expected to explode under policies that Trump had nothing to do with. The Trump policies may have added about 20% to the deficit, but roughly 75-80% of it was due to policies that Obama left in effect at the end of his administration. Once again, Obama is the master of illusion, able to claim that he reduced the deficit (he really didn't) when in fact he left a time bomb behind.

We can balance the budget with a 15% consumption tax, raising the FICA rate to 15% (7.5%/7.5%), lowering or eliminating corporate and personal income taxes, and provide universal health care using the Bismarck model and a universal basic income using Milton Friedman's negative income tax or the Boortz-Linder predate/prefund.

The stock market started its rise the day after Trump’s election. Clearly, investors anticipating a pro business atmosphere.

11-9-16 +256.95, (+1.40%)
11-10-16 +218.19, (+1.17%)

IF a Democrat Is elected in 2020, I wonder how far and how fast it will drop.

I hope we never find out.