The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

I can't make any sense of that question. I doubt you can either.

Let me rephrase the question then:
Can congress appeal the Presidents constitutional rights?
Pardons, veto specifically....

What constitutional right do you imagine he's ignored? You know, considering your demonstrated, complete lack of constitutional understanding.

The constitutional right of congress to information regarding the conduct and actions of the President when the president is subject to impeachment proceedings.

Is Trump seeking to appeal the constitutional rights of Congress?

I'm not surprised you've never heard of a perjury trap, where the smallest inconsistency in answering on the spot can be construed into intentional lying, especially by partisans out for blood.

Smallest inconsistency, like for instance the definition of "is" or "Was" perhaps? ( re: Clinton's impeachment)

So the POTUS can appeal against his own incapacity to tell the truth?
and force others to lie for him as long as they do not have to testify under oath....

An example of lying for Trump:
Pompeo's recent statements about the reasons for the assassination of Sulemani are a classic ....fudge and cover up...IMO ( and the world knows it)

Why would Congress have to file an appeal against Trumps refusal to comply with constitutional requirements?
Trump appears to be attempting to amend the constitution and remove the constitutional obligation he has to inform Congress about his actions under oath ( which I might add he always is: re: oath of office)

 

[Vociferous]

Let me rephrase the question then:
Can congress appeal the Presidents constitutional rights?
Pardons, veto specifically....

That's exactly what you already said. I have the feeling you are garbling some terms you don't understand.
Maybe "repeal" or "amend" instead of "appeal"? I don't know.
Only supermajorities in both houses of congress can override a veto. And repealing any part of the Constitution requires supermajorities in both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

The constitutional right of congress to information regarding the conduct and actions of the President when the president is subject to impeachment proceedings.

Is Trump seeking to appeal the constitutional rights of Congress?

Congress has no Constitutional right to demand anything from another co-equal branch of government without a court ruling. Their right is to get a court ruling to enforce their request. House Democrat decided to forego that, making "obstruction of Congress" their own fault.

Smallest inconsistency, like for instance the definition of "is" or "Was" perhaps? ( re: Clinton's impeachment)

No, that was just a bald faced lie. As much as he tried, there are no alternative meanings to the word "is".

So the POTUS can appeal against his own incapacity to tell the truth?
and force others to lie for him as long as they do not have to testify under oath....

An example of lying for Trump:
Pompeo's recent statements about the reasons for the assassination of Sulemani are a classic ....fudge and cover up...IMO ( and the world knows it)

Your demonstrably uninformed opinion doesn't make it a lie.

Why would Congress have to file an appeal against Trumps refusal to comply with constitutional requirements?
Trump appears to be attempting to amend the constitution and remove the constitutional obligation he has to inform Congress about his actions under oath ( which I might add he always is: re: oath of office)

After I have repeatedly told you about the separation of powers, I can only conclude that you are either willfully or chronically ignorant.

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's exactly what you already said. I have the feeling you are garbling some terms you don't understand.
Maybe "repeal" or "amend" instead of "appeal"? I don't know.
Only supermajorities in both houses of congress can override a veto. And repealing any part of the Constitution requires supermajorities in both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

Congress has no Constitutional right to demand anything from another co-equal branch of government without a court ruling. Their right is to get a court ruling to enforce their request. House Democrat decided to forego that, making "obstruction of Congress" their own fault.

No, that was just a bald faced lie. As much as he tried, there are no alternative meanings to the word "is".

Your demonstrably uninformed opinion doesn't make it a lie.

After I have repeatedly told you about the separation of powers, I can only conclude that you are either willfully or chronically ignorant.

ok... I get it... the court is the highest power in the USA constitution.

 

[Vociferous]

ok... I get it... the court is the highest power in the USA constitution.

Nope, you're still just as clueless. The Legislature makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Now over time, Congress has ceded some of its power to the Executive, bureaucratic agencies, and at times the Judiciary. But if Congress doesn't like what the Judiciary does and they have the votes, they can always just change the laws. And the Judiciary will rule as they see fit on existing laws. So there's just not many reasons for any branches but the Executive and Legislative to come into direct conflict, leaving the Judiciary as the mediator. Not more powerful, just in the role of mediator.

 

[iceaura]

I'm not surprised you've never heard of a perjury trap, where the smallest inconsistency in answering on the spot can be construed into intentional lying, especially by partisans out for blood.

In Trump's case any public appearance in which he formally promises to tell the truth would function as a "perjury trap" (otherwise known as "testimony under oath") - as would the existing record of his public speeches and witnessed phone conversations, if admitted as evidence. That's because he lies all the time, regardless of circumstances.

The Senate trial would of course be a scene of Republican partisans out for whitewash, not blood - even the Supreme Court justice presiding has a long record of involvement in Republican politics. But that partisan (Republican) favoritism and partisan (Republican) corruption of justice would not be enough to protect this President from his own mouth.

The problem the Republican controlled Senate faces is not the bloodlust of the powerless and divided Democratic minority, but the difficulty of whitewashing the obvious and flagrant behavior of this President, coupled with this President's inability to speak truthfully (or even coherently) when questioned.

None of that applies to the other eyewitnesses, of course - even Giuliani appears capable of avoiding perjury if the stakes are high enough, or at least pleading the Fifth.

The House only had to file suit against officials not complying,

They chose not to. Prosecutors quite often adopt tactics other than those the perps would prefer.

That doesn't make Trump's attempted obstructions of justice and other high crimes or misdemeanors go away - they are in the public record, and would of course come out under oath in the Senate trial. So McConnell's job is to prevent an actual trial from taking place - all truthful witnesses, all verified evidence, threaten Trump and the Republicans Trump has cowed or blackmailed. People of the Lie do not want to get into situations in which lying has consequences.

Congress has no Constitutional right to demand anything from another co-equal branch of government without a court ruling. Their right is to get a court ruling to enforce their request.

A subpoena is not a "request", but a demand.
Congress has been granted the power of impeachment and trial by the Constitution - including the right to compel witnesses, and demand the production of documents.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nope, you're still just as clueless. The Legislature makes the laws, the Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws. Now over time, Congress has ceded some of its power to the Executive, bureaucratic agencies, and at times the Judiciary. But if Congress doesn't like what the Judiciary does and they have the votes, they can always just change the laws. And the Judiciary will rule as they see fit on existing laws. So there's just not many reasons for any branches but the Executive and Legislative to come into direct conflict, leaving the Judiciary as the mediator. Not more powerful, just in the role of mediator.

There is nothing to mediate...
Congress seeks testimony to discover the truth about Trumps activities and is blocked from doing so.
Thus he has obstructed Congress.
There is no judgement to make other than reaffirming the already clear and unfetted constitutional obligations of the Executive administration to provide that testimony.

What grounds for appeal are/were the Exec Administration using for obstructing Congress?
A silly perjury trap is not grounds surely?

 

[Quantum Quack]

That's exactly what you already said. I have the feeling you are garbling some terms you don't understand.
Maybe "repeal" or "amend" instead of "appeal"? I don't know.
Only supermajorities in both houses of congress can override a veto. And repealing any part of the Constitution requires supermajorities in both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

No, in context please....
According to you an appeal could be lodged in the courts against any veto or pardon the president may offer. Thus side stepping the need for a supermajority in congress. Which seems awfully daft... but hey we are talking about the Republican party ....

Just like they are doing with the Congress's right to demand testimony under oath from Gov officials.

 

[Vociferous]

The House only had to file suit against officials not complying,

They chose not to. Prosecutors quite often adopt tactics other than those the perps would prefer.

The House functions as investigator during an impeachment inquiry, so failing to even interview people they claim were central witnesses is a dereliction of duty. Prosecutors can only form their tactics with what the investigators provide them. Not, as the House Dems would have it, by trying to force the trial to investigate what the investigators were too impatient to.

That doesn't make Trump's attempted obstructions of justice and other high crimes or misdemeanors go away ...

As long as you persist in being completely ignorant of reality, it's worthless to engage with your repeated, and repeatedly corrected, nonsense.

A subpoena is not a "request", but a demand.
Congress has been granted the power of impeachment and trial by the Constitution - including the right to compel witnesses, and demand the production of documents.

Again, you're just speaking from ignorance. Congress has no power, itself, to enforce it's subpoenas. That force of law only comes from the judiciary, especially where conflicts between co-equal branches of government occur.

There is nothing to mediate...
Congress seeks testimony to discover the truth about Trumps activities and is blocked from doing so.
Thus he has obstructed Congress.
There is no judgement to make other than reaffirming the already clear and unfetted constitutional obligations of the Executive administration to provide that testimony.

What grounds for appeal are/were the Exec Administration using for obstructing Congress?
A silly perjury trap is not grounds surely?

"Obstructing Congress" is not a crime. There is no "unfettered" Constitutional right of Congress over the Executive, as that would clearly violate the separation of powers.
Again, it's Congress' responsibility to bring legal suit to enforce its own subpoenas, and House Dems just didn't bother to. No appeal required by Trump Admin officials.

You continue to wallow in your own ignorance.

No, in context please....
According to you an appeal could be lodged in the courts against any veto or pardon the president may offer. Thus side stepping the need for a supermajority in congress. Which seems awfully daft... but hey we are talking about the Republican party ....

Just like they are doing with the Congress's right to demand testimony under oath from Gov officials.

No, there is no recourse to override a presidential pardon, and only a supermajority in both houses of congress can override a veto. I never said anything different, so you can once again only blame your own ignorance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

The House functions as investigator during an impeachment inquiry, so failing to even interview people they claim were central witnesses is a dereliction of duty. Prosecutors can only form their tactics with what the investigators provide them. Not, as the House Dems would have it, by trying to force the trial to investigate what the investigators were too impatient to.

As long as you persist in being completely ignorant of reality, it's worthless to engage with your repeated, and repeatedly corrected, nonsense.

Again, you're just speaking from ignorance. Congress has no power, itself, to enforce it's subpoenas. That force of law only comes from the judiciary, especially where conflicts between co-equal branches of government occur.



"Obstructing Congress" is not a crime. There is no "unfettered" Constitutional right of Congress over the Executive, as that would clearly violate the separation of powers.
Again, it's Congress' responsibility to bring legal suit to enforce its own subpoenas, and House Dems just didn't bother to. No appeal required by Trump Admin officials.

You continue to wallow in your own ignorance.


No, there is no recourse to override a presidential pardon, and only a supermajority in both houses of congress can override a veto. I never said anything different, so you can once again only blame your own ignorance.

Will Trump have to publicly testify under oath at the Senate Impeachment trial?

If so I am looking forward to it..Should be a hoot. (remember the USA is on trial not just Trump)​

Are Trump Republican Party supporters prepared to take responsibility for Trumps future impulsive actions as POTUS?

 

[Quantum Quack]

"Obstructing Congress" is not a crime.

never said it was a crime persee.
Administrative tribunals do not use the word crime when disciplining members who refuse to follow established protocol.
3rd time...

What grounds for appeal are/were the Exec Administration using for obstructing Congress?

 

[Vociferous]

Will Trump have to publicly testify under oath at the Senate Impeachment trial?

If so I am looking forward to it..Should be a hoot. (remember the USA is on trial not just Trump)​

Are Trump Republican Party supporters prepared to take responsibility for Trumps future impulsive actions as POTUS?

The Senate will decide who testifies, and even then, they would have to go through the courts, just like the House would have, to compel testimony.
No one but leftists in the US cares what you think of us, as you obviously have no clue.

What, take responsibility for the longest economic growth in US history, record low unemployment, historically low minority unemployment, decreased illegal immigration, etc., etc.? Sure!

3rd time...

What grounds for appeal are/were the Exec Administration using for obstructing Congress?

Asked and answered:

There is no "unfettered" Constitutional right of Congress over the Executive, as that would clearly violate the separation of powers.
Again, it's Congress' responsibility to bring legal suit to enforce its own subpoenas, and House Dems just didn't bother to. No appeal required by Trump Admin officials.

 

[iceaura]

There is no "unfettered" Constitutional right of Congress over the Executive, as that would clearly violate the separation of powers.

The Congress has not only the right, but the duty, to impeach a President who uses their powers of office for personal gain, violates their oath of office, demands or accepts bribes, accepts emoluments from foreign governments, breaks treaties duly signed, commits high crimes while in office, makes personal deals with foreign governments that injure the United States, and so forth.

The Constitution is perfectly clear on that matter.

The House functions as investigator during an impeachment inquiry, so failing to even interview people they claim were central witnesses is a dereliction of duty

They were obstructed in their attempts to do that, by Trump. That's one of the articles of impeachment.

"Obstructing Congress" is not a crime.

When Congress is the official and Constitutionally specified agency of justice, obstructing it is a crime.
It is also a violation of the oath of office taken by the President.

Congress has no power, itself, to enforce it's subpoenas.

In which case it has no responsibility to enforce them. Make up your mind.

 

[Vociferous]

There is no "unfettered" Constitutional right of Congress over the Executive, as that would clearly violate the separation of powers.

The Congress has not only the right, but the duty, to impeach a President who uses their powers of office for personal gain, violates their oath of office, demands or accepts bribes, accepts emoluments from foreign governments, breaks treaties duly signed, commits high crimes while in office, makes personal deals with foreign governments that injure the United States, and so forth.

The Constitution is perfectly clear on that matter.

I would advise you to quit flaunting your ignorance so proudly, but clearly you have no idea. Dunning-Kruger with a vengeance.
Aside from you leaving out the context of me specifically talking about subpoena power, separation of power clearly limits the authority of one co-equal branch over another. Otherwise there can be no checks and balances.

They were obstructed in their attempts to do that, by Trump. That's one of the articles of impeachment.

No, you're just falling for Democrat talking points. "Obstruction of Congress" was their own doing, by simply being too impatient to seek subpoena enforcement through the courts. But we all know your aversion to reality.

When Congress is the official and Constitutionally specified agency of justice, obstructing it is a crime.
It is also a violation of the oath of office taken by the President.

More ignorant and unsupported twaddle.

In which case it has no responsibility to enforce them. Make up your mind.

How many times do I have to tell you the the courts could enforce the Congressional subpoenas?
Never mind, your aversion to reality precludes comprehension.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Aside from you leaving out the context of me specifically talking about subpoena power, separation of power clearly limits the authority of one co-equal branch over another. Otherwise there can be no checks and balances.

Are you saying that Congress has no constitutional right to gather information, testimony and evidence necessary in the performance of those checks and balances that maintains co-equality?
With out a court order?
Your blatant contradictions and circular use of logic are fascinating .... please continue...
If I was able to draw a picture it would resemble a confused ball of string...and certainly not worth attempting to unravel....

No, you're just falling for Democrat talking points. "Obstruction of Congress" was their own doing, by simply being too impatient to seek subpoena enforcement through the courts.

fascinating again...
You are stating yet again that Congress needs approval by a court to validate it's well known and traditional constitutional obligations to secure the information, testimony and evidence needed to carry out it's duties and obligations as a part of the co-equal relationship between branches of Government..

Quite bizarre... the fact that you actually believe this is even more so...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The Senate will decide who testifies, and even then, they would have to go through the courts, just like the House would have, to compel testimony.

So the main defendant, Trump, may not get a chance to defend himself under oath...

Does that make any sense at all?
Do you honestly think the USA people and the world generally are that stupid?

A defendant not appearing in his own trial to give testimony under oath in his own defense.

How many times do I have to tell you the the courts could enforce the Congressional subpoenas?

The mere fact that you suggest that they had to, in itself, proves the obstruction of congress case.
or..
Why do you feel congress needs to ask the courts if it wasn't being obstructed...
If they had to appeal to the courts the obstruction is proven... see?

 

[Vociferous]

Are you saying that Congress has no constitutional right to gather information, testimony and evidence necessary in the performance of those checks and balances that maintains co-equality?
With out a court order?
Your blatant contradictions and circular use of logic are fascinating .... please continue...
If I was able to draw a picture it would resemble a confused ball of string...and certainly not worth attempting to unravel....

fascinating again...
You are stating yet again that Congress needs approval by a court to validate it's well known and traditional constitutional obligations to secure the information, testimony and evidence needed to carry out it's duties and obligations as a part of the co-equal relationship between branches of Government..

Quite bizarre... the fact that you actually believe this is even more so...

Congress has no means to enforce their own subpoenas without the courts. Period. The best they can do on their own is hold someone in contempt, but even that has no consequences without referral to the courts. Their oversight duties do not grant them unfettered authority over another branch of government, and all conflicts between co-equal branches must be settled by the other. Nothing circular, except your repeated ignorance of the exact same points, over and over.

I have no doubt that your comprehension of the matter does resemble "a confused ball of string".

There's no accounting for your utter ignorance of the US Constitution. What's bizarre is your apparent inability to simply do a Google search to educate yourself.

So the main defendant, Trump, may not get a chance to defend himself under oath...

Does that make any sense at all?
Do you honestly think the USA people and the world generally are that stupid?

A defendant not appearing in his own trial to give testimony under oath in his own defense.

The mere fact that you suggest that they had to, in itself, proves the obstruction of congress case.
or..
Why do you feel congress needs to ask the courts if it wasn't being obstructed...
If they had to appeal to the courts the obstruction is proven... see?

I'm sure the Senate would let him testify, if he wanted to, but again, any lawyer would advise anyone to avoid the possibility of a perjury trap, which is why presidents will often only answer questions in writing.

Defendants regular refuse to testify in their own defense, for many reasons. They may not be sympathetic in front of a jury, cross examination could rattle them or expose private info to public scrutiny, etc.. Happens all the time. So not only are you ignorant of the US Constitution, apparently you've also unaware of many court cases and never even watched many court dramas.

Who said Congress wasn't obstructed? I've repeatedly said they obstructed themselves, by not suing to enforce their own subpoenas...and even withdrawing some subpoenas rather than risk going to court. I've said that there was no "obstruction of justice", a statutory crime. Obstruction/contempt of Congress is not a crime. Like Congressional subpoenas, the normal recourse for punishment in contempt/obstruction of Congress is, again, through the courts. Otherwise contempt/obstruction only results in censure, just a reprimand without any further consequences.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I am on a mobile device so i will try my best...

Congress has no means to enforce their own subpoenas without the courts. Period.

You fail to understand the Congress has no need to enforce the subpoenas.
By refusing the subpoenas and instructing others to also refuse, Trump has obstructed Congress. Period.
He is simply guilty of 2nd Article of impeachment.

The best they can do on their own is hold someone in contempt, but even that has no consequences without referral to the courts. Their oversight duties do not grant them unfettered authority over another branch of government, and all conflicts between co-equal branches must be settled by the other. Nothing circular, except your repeated ignorance of the exact same points, over and over.

They have every right to recommend to the Senate by way of lodging articles of impeachment that the President be removed from office just for obstructing congress. They don't even need the article of abuse to make that recommendation.

I have no doubt that your comprehension of the matter does resemble "a confused ball of string".
There's no accounting for your utter ignorance of the US Constitution. What's bizarre is your apparent inability to simply do a Google search to educate yourself.

Yet it is you who keeps repeating no crime has been committed when in fact criminality is not the issue. There is no conviction, punishment or detention involved. The POTUS is immune to criminal charges. ( whilst in office)

His employment contract as POTUS is under review and he is being threatened with dismissal only. Sacking an employee who has failed in his duties is not a criminal issue. It is an administrative issue.
Once he is stood down and/or is no longer POTUS he can and probably will have to deal with any criminal charges brought against him.

I'm sure the Senate would let him testify, if he wanted to, but again, any lawyer would advise anyone to avoid the possibility of a perjury trap, which is why presidents will often only answer questions in writing.

In writing would be even better...but I would wager he probably will not even do that. His lawers will...

Defendants regular refuse to testify in their own defense, for many reasons. They may not be sympathetic in front of a jury, cross examination could rattle them or expose private info to public scrutiny, etc.. Happens all the time. So not only are you ignorant of the US Constitution, apparently you've also unaware of many court cases and never even watched many court dramas.

Who cares about that. If he behaved appropriately in the first place he wouldn't be facing dismissal.

Who said Congress wasn't obstructed? I've repeatedly said they obstructed themselves, by not suing to enforce their own subpoenas...and even withdrawing some subpoenas rather than risk going to court. I've said that there was no "obstruction of justice", a statutory crime. Obstruction/contempt of Congress is not a crime. Like Congressional subpoenas, the normal recourse for punishment in contempt/obstruction of Congress is, again, through the courts. Otherwise contempt/obstruction only results in censure, just a reprimand without any further consequences.

See above.
If your corporate financial controller proved to be incompetent and abused his office what would you tell the other share holders?

That they should appeal to the courts? Or would you just dismiss him and move on?

He has obstructed Congress... fact.
He has abused his office not only by obstructing Congress but by ordering others to obstruct Congresss also. Fact.

The with holding of aid to Ukraine to solicit personal favor has to be tested properly in a proper setting.
I doubt very much that the Senate will provide the proper setting... but we shall see... wont we?

Can you understand that if an empoyee is caught with his hands in till his employemt would be terminated before he goes to jail if convicted... you have administration and legal as separate isssues.
For Trump the criminal issues haven't even started to be brought.

 

[iceaura]

Aside from you leaving out the context of me specifically talking about subpoena power, separation of power clearly limits the authority of one co-equal branch over another. Otherwise there can be no checks and balances.

Of course.
But the Constitution specifically vests justice - enforcement of the law and the oaths of office and so forth against a sitting President - in Congress. Explicitly.

That is one of the most important checks on a President - it ensures that no President is above the law, or above the oath of office they took. Congress enforces statutory law, Constitutional mandates, and fulfillment of the oaths of office, against a sitting President. Obstruction of that Constitutionally vested and oath mandated enforcement is a criminal offense (obstruction of justice), and a violation of the Constitution ( separation of powers, high crime and misdemeanor, etc), and a violation of the oath of office (to uphold the Constitution).

More ignorant and unsupported twaddle.

When even the ignorant and twaddling are correcting your errors so easily and with so little effort, it's time for you to reassess.

How many times do I have to tell you the the courts could enforce the Congressional subpoenas?

Doesn't matter how often you wander off on tangents - Congress has power of impeachment and removal over the President. Its choice of method, means, and process, is bound only by the Constitution. The Constitution does not require Congress to subpoena anybody. It does forbid the President to obstruct an impeachment proceeding (separation of powers, etc.).

As noted: prosecutors often choose tactics and methods other than those the perps would prefer. That's routine.

I'm sure the Senate would let him testify, if he wanted to

Mitch McConnell has stated that the Senate will not allow Trump to testify.
Chief Justice Roberts's opinion on that matter is unknown (he would be within his authority to require McConnell - and every other Senator who has stated their inability to judge impartially, as their oath requires - to recuse himself from the trial.).

 

[Quantum Quack]

That is one of the most important checks on a President - it ensures that no President is above the law, or above the oath of office they took. Congress enforces statutory law, Constitutional mandates, and fulfillment of the oaths of office, against a sitting President. Obstruction of that Constitutionally vested and oath mandated enforcement is a criminal offense (obstruction of justice), and a violation of the Constitution ( separation of powers, high crime and misdemeanor, etc), and a violation of the oath of office (to uphold the Constitution).

Would you say that it is both... Obstruction of Congress and because of such, it is an obstruction of justice as well?

 

[iceaura]

Obstruction of Congress and because of such, it is an obstruction of justice as well?

In an impeachment proceeding they are identical. Congress is the Constitutionally assigned deliverer of justice to a sitting President.