(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.