(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

Fair enough. I just wish more Judges would sanction attorneys for making patently ridiculous arguments. If the arguments are not ridiculous, certainly they should make them. If the arguments are ridiculous, then attorneys should be sanctioned for making them. tanq is suggesting that my personal experiences with other privilege assertions doesn't really apply to what is going on here. He may be correct and I'll admit that I haven't delved into the legal research (or even dipped a toe into it). If tanq is correct, you can ignore a healthy portion of what I wrote (oops).

(12-26-2019 02:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  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.

I guess the bolded part is what bothers me. If you use legal terms like "obstruction of justice" then you are making a legal argument, not a political one. So if you wrote the same idea but didn't use legal terminology, it wouldn't bother me. But when you use legal terms, it sounds like you are getting ready to chant "lock her up" which makes zero sense to me in this context. Just like "conspiracy" is a legal argument while "collusion" is a political argument.

As to the rhetorical question I asked you, I don't really have a problem with Pelosi sitting on the articles for a few weeks, especially over the holidays. If the Senate passes their rules for the impeachment trial, then I think anything longer that that would go against what the founders would have intended. I am strongly opposed to the idea of her sitting on it just so it hangs over Trumps head, even if I don't like whatever rules the Senate might agree to.