(12-24-2019 12:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I don't care whether judges can perform weddings or not. But what is the rationale behind this veto? Is he afraid Trump judges will refuse to perform weddings for minorities?

Under this law, they're 'refusing' to perform weddings for anyone. I don't see any description under which 'more' is somehow worse. Even if all they did was perform them for Baptists, that would still reduce the backlog of Baptists at the JOP office and increase the access for everyone else there.

(12-26-2019 11:23 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sounds to me like a legal argument. Obviously the Trump administration disagrees.

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

But it isn't a sound legal argument. None of the privileges I have ever dealt with (including deliberative process, which is under the gambit of different privileges unique to the executive branch) let you turn over nothing or stop the witness from appearing. The witness appears and answers non-privileged questions. Like their name, job title, description of duties, etc. And there are certainly non-privileged substantive questions that they can answer as well. Same thing with documents. Its pretty rare that the entire document is privileged, and even if it is, you typically produce a privilege log that has a brief description of the document and assertion of privilege. The privilege itself is real, but the way the privileged is being employed is ridiculous.

So you've never once seen someone present a blanket denial, have lawyers present their arguments for an against, and the judge decide what is and isn't okay to produce and exclude?

Maybe I'm just not being clear...

Whether Trump wins the argument or not is for a judge to determine. I'm not doing that and not remotely qualified to do so. I am merely defending his right to present whatever defense, however ridiculous it might sound, that anyone else has.

Quote:

(12-20-2019 08:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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

I read stuff like this and I need to force myself to take a few deep breaths and remember that I genuinely like the people that I am interacting with.

First (burden of proof) - I agree the burden of proof rests with the prosecution (in this case most of the Democrats + Amash). But that burden is much lower at the impeachment stage (House) than the conviction stage (Senate). If you want to use criminal prosecutions as an analogy, the grand jury burden of proof is "probable cause" while the trial jury burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt". Probable cause is pretty easy, beyond a reasonable doubt is quite difficult. So the only burden of proof that has applied so far is very low (using the analogy).

Second (defendant testify) - only Trump is getting impeached. So the idea that Trump doesn't have to testify is correct ... but doesn't have anything to do with Mulvaney, Bolton, or Perry testifying.

Third (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) - this is the one that really drives me crazy. Let's use another analogy. Let's say you have probable cause that that a crime was committed, possibly murder. There is a lot of evidence that John went to Sara's house and a lot of evidence that he never came out. Sara was the only one home when John went over there, but her house cleaner Ronald has been there a few times since John disappeared. There is a lot of evidence and good reason that John really didn't plan or want to stay at Sara's house for very long. But John has disappeared and it has been 3 weeks now and John's family is worried about him. All the evidence is at Sara's house. Sara refuses to talk to police. Sara refuses to open her door to allow a search. Sara refuses to allow police on her property to look in her backyard for fresh graves. Sara refuses to allow searches of her email or text messages. Sara tells Ronald not to testify or speak to the police, so he doesn't. Now the obvious flaw in the example is that Sara is just Sara, not POTUS, and obviously the crime is different. But Sara is certainly obstructing justice (which is similar to obstruction of Congress when Congress is the investigator). So no, no one is "admitting its a witch hunt". And if it is a witch hunt, Trump is a witch and the witch hunt is actually legitimate. But that is probably not what he (or you) mean.

Only listing them to be clear about what I'm responding to and not meaning to come off poorly....

First - Of course, which is IMO part of why Trump didn't participate. I once used the line from My Cousin Vinnie... 'There is NO WAY this isn't going to trial' in order to justify not seriously challenging the prosecutions case. He sees this as a witch hunt with a pre-determined outcome and has declined to participate in the preliminary event. Executive privilege is a real thing, and while you may be 100% correct and it does not apply here, that's a determination for a judge to make. If you were the judge, you'd say no and that's fine... but I don't see that there is a judge here. Instead, the act of using privilege (which is his right to claim, even if it is later determined that it isn't applicable) ITSELF is being used as justification for the impeachment.

Second - I'm pretty sure that privilege applies beyond the accused. It certainly does with spousal privilege so I don't know why it would't with executive privilege

Third - you don't simply charge Sara with obstruction. You go to a judge and get a court order, which she has the right to present a challenge to in the court as well. You leave all of that out. When you charge someone with bribery and then when you require their cooperation in order to get more than 1/2 the jury to agree, and without that you forget about that and charge them with 'failing to cooperate', That's IMO admitting that you didn't have a case to begin with. You are free to disagree, but I don't think most would.

Using the grand jury analogy, that's like using the fact that you claimed spousal privilege to keep your spouse from testifying against before the grand jury, and the prosecution charged you with obstruction of justice for that. Again, I'm not an attorney... I'm telling you how lots of people see this. They see that Trump has the right to as aggressive a defense as he wants to put on, making every claim of privilege or any other attempt to thwart the prosecution that anyone else would have... and that it's up to the prosecution to overcome those claims... not to make the claims the crime.

Quote:

(12-21-2019 01:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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?

Read 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and explain to me how the elements for obstruction are met by Pelosi's decision to temporarily delay handing off the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Explain to me how your analysis changes if she hands them over after 10 days as opposed to 25 days as opposed to 50 days. Why and how does the difference in timing change your analysis under the relevant federal statutes?

Your link didn't work for me, but it doesn't matter as my comment was more of a headline than a claim of fact. That said.....

If Trump is obstructing Justice by refusing to cooperate with what he sees as an unfair and unjust prosecution in the house, then how is Pelosi not obstructing justice by refusing to cooperate with what she sees as an unfair and unjust defense in the Senate? This isn't a legal question, it's a political one. Justice swings both ways... it's not just about the prosecution. She is denying Trump his day in court.... for what seems to be PURELY political purposes.

It's like a woman killing her abusive husband and a grand jury voting to indict, but the prosecutor declining to pursue because they feel the judge would be sympathetic to the woman... which is fine... but THEN, using the indictment (without a trial where she MIGHT clear her name) to have the woman's kids taken away by CPS.

I fully understand that there is no obligation to prosecute, but she's claiming almost the same thing that Trump is. Unfair process so declining to proceed/participate. Politically, that's a pretty poor argument, even if it IS legally justifiable.

I'm not qualified to render a legal opinion and I'm not saying you wouldn't win your argument... I'm telling you that most people (without a dog in the fight) don't have a problem with people aggressively defending themselves. They see the system as having an advantage when it comes to processes.