Office of the President (POTUS)
Congress
United States Senate
Supreme Court
Responses: 6
4
4
0
SN Greg Wright
I agree Master Chief. But SCOTUS telling them that the President CAN ignore their subpeonas takes the wind right out of that one quite incontrovertibly. What a shit show.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think it is pretty much indisputable that bringing in the Judicial Branch to settle disputes between the Legislative and Executive branched is squarely Constitutional.
However, that is not the issue. The issue was Trump telling people under subpoena not to testify. The Executive Branch should have sought redress with the courts, as the members were under lawful subpoena. Not for Congress to go to the courts to compel enforcement of the subpoena and get a de facto no due to the necessity of timeliness and the certainty of multiple appeals drawing this out for months.
It is a tactic, and legitimate, but I think Congress has a valid gripe about this. Not an impeachment-level one, but a gripe.
However, that is not the issue. The issue was Trump telling people under subpoena not to testify. The Executive Branch should have sought redress with the courts, as the members were under lawful subpoena. Not for Congress to go to the courts to compel enforcement of the subpoena and get a de facto no due to the necessity of timeliness and the certainty of multiple appeals drawing this out for months.
It is a tactic, and legitimate, but I think Congress has a valid gripe about this. Not an impeachment-level one, but a gripe.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Sure do.
But the outcome will be different, because unlike OJ, this is not an impartial jury.
But the outcome will be different, because unlike OJ, this is not an impartial jury.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
1SG (Join to see) - correct, and many GOP senators have already stated that they will violate their oath.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - c'mon counselor. You can do better than that.
Then again, I suspect that when this is all over, it won't be the last time we hear about impeachment jibber-jabber. These guys have been fixed on that goal since November 2016.
Then again, I suspect that when this is all over, it won't be the last time we hear about impeachment jibber-jabber. These guys have been fixed on that goal since November 2016.
(0)
(0)
Jennifer Lee (Doerflinger) Hill
1SG (Join to see) I personally believe the verdict was more about avoiding riots in L.A. & unbelievable idiocy in the handling of evidence by the police. Whether or not the man was guilty? I believe he was, but they would have acquitted him on mishandling & trying to plant evidence, definitely. That an acquittal removed a possible burning portions of LA was just a bonus.
Keystones cops. & before anyone jumps on me... I know police in many different forces & admire many. However, one must acknowledge the fact that they aren't perfect. Mistakes happen, but planting evidence is beyond the Pale.
Keystones cops. & before anyone jumps on me... I know police in many different forces & admire many. However, one must acknowledge the fact that they aren't perfect. Mistakes happen, but planting evidence is beyond the Pale.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
What a load of bullshit. You've got a Trump echo chamber.
That's not what happens when the Court grants cert.
That's not what happens when the Court grants cert.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
MAJ Bryan Zeski - That's because SCOTUS never said that the President can ignore congressional subpoenas.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
Cpl Jeff N. - Congress can also arrest and try the individuals for direct contempt, and then sentence them to a jail term. They don't have to go to the courts.
(0)
(0)
Patricia Overmeyer
SN Greg Wright - Ok, I just looked on the SCOTUS website and I cannot find an opinion which has been handed down in the three cases (consolidated it appears for one hearing). The only thing which I find is that SCOTUS has granted certiorari to hear the case. Which means that we will get an opinion probably in late May to early June next year. If an opinion had actually been handed down, it would be on the SCOTUS website. It would also be on several other law websites. None of them are showing any opinion.
So can you tell me exactly where you are getting the SCOTUS opinion that SCOTUS just hammered the Democrats for not bringing in the judiciary? I don't hear anything but Dershowitz' opinion, not the actual SCOTUS opinion.
So can you tell me exactly where you are getting the SCOTUS opinion that SCOTUS just hammered the Democrats for not bringing in the judiciary? I don't hear anything but Dershowitz' opinion, not the actual SCOTUS opinion.
(1)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SN Greg Wright - now you have two lawyers telling you the same thing, that this is just more from the Hannity shit show (although Patricia is much more diplomatic than I) that is there opinion, and that it is not the opinion of SCOTUS. It may be in the future, but it's nowhere near there yet.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google