Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximus1 said:
A privilege LOG is required. You can’t hide the documents identification.
Click to expand...
Sure. If the Dems had followed through, Trump would have had to do that and a document list as well.
But they didn’t because they didn’t want to risk losing in court.
 
You haven’t engaged in the process thousands of times so I can understand.
Where is the privilege log for the documents?
 
Last edited:
They didn’t because the action was done clearly in bad faith. First year law students know a privilege log is required.
 
Maximus1 said:
You haven’t engaged in the process thousands of times so I can understand.
Click to expand...
I’m fascinated : does the privilege provider use a crystal ball and ask it “who will be subpoenaed?” By all means enlighten us how one asserts privilege on subpoenas that don’t exist
 
Maximus1 said:
They didn’t because the action was done clearly in bad faith. First year law students know a privilege log is required.
Click to expand...
Let’s see the citation from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure where it says one who plans to assert privilege is required to maintain a “privilege log” when his intent to invoke it is simply stated without anyone actually taking it to court.
Maximus1 said:
They didn’t because the action was done clearly in bad faith
Click to expand...
And what a joke this is. If they thought Trump’s saying he would invoke privilege was “in bad faith” so much the greater reason to challenge him in Court. But no, they didn’t do it. Better to just whine and complain.
 
Last edited:
Why don’t you stop doing whataboutism and quote the Nadler which you asserted gave Trump opportunity to have his attorney participate and call witnesses

Since you can’t back up your ridiculous claim , time to withdraw it
 
Last edited:
Let me answer this way.
The Subpoena of documents first.
Trump simply refused. No privilege log. No assertion of any known privilege.
The witnesses were instructed not to appear. Period!
 
Nadler wrote Trump a letter. It is part of the public record. I cannot force you to read it, locate it, or acknowledge it, but I am certainly asserting it’s existence.
 
Trump prevented witnesses from testifying before Congress. Now you are saying he had no legal basis? Or he asserted no legal basis? Or he asserted a legal basis? Pretty slippery that there is no answer and yet, all of this talk that Trump is protecting privilege.
There is no double secret probation assertion dean Wermer.
In history, maybe the KINGS PEROGATIVE best describes it
 
Last edited:
The Obstruction of Congress has no weight, subpoenas weren’t issued under a trial or proceeding, they were illegitimate. That’s one reason why they didn’t have to comply with them, and why Trump could advise them not to go as well. If they were actually subpoenaed during a trial or ACTUAL proceeding which they weren’t then the issues would be different but still could be challenged in court before having to answer them or with EP. The Dems weren’t going to legitimately issue subpoenas because they didn’t want to go through the courts, and didn’t want to fight EP rules, they wouldn’t stand a chance and knew it.
 
Last edited:
Illegitimate? Based on what?
They subpenaed documents. The Subpoena was ignored
 
Last edited:
There was no formal proceeding when the subpoenas were issued. Read the law on Obstruction of Justice and under what legal grounds a subpoena can or can’t be issued and when one is in violation of answering said subpoena. Obstruction of Justice occurs only “with any civil investigative demand DULY and PROBABLY made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act (TOPN: Antitrust Civil Process Act | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute).” Explained this already. I know the charge is Obstruction of Congress but that’s not even a crime in our criminal codes so not sure what the Dems are trying to do or say here…
 
Last edited:
Who said no formal proceeding? ( As a ground for ignoring)
Who determines this? I say the speaker).
And how I this covered by the anti trust act?
Obstruction of Congress is based upon the Constitution and Congress power of oversight
 
Last edited:
We don’t believe in DEMS DA BREAKS. That is the jailhouse occupants fantasy of all incarcerated.
America demands a fair trial. That’s what matters. Not slickness got away with it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
All conclusions. No foundation. No criminal allegations; all civil regarding defects in administration. But from the NY AG, exaggerating the outcome is not a great surprise.
Click to expand...
Still. corrupt.

But, as Donald J Trump said, “I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and wouldn’t lose any voters”.
 
There was no formal proceeding when issued, that’s clear. Let me ask you what US criminal code says a subpoena must be answered under any circumstance when issued by Congress or else it’s obstruction. Additionally, the Supreme Court has said that Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. “A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said. See how this subjective intent can work here…
 
Never did I say Trump had no legal basis. What I at least intended to communicate was that privilege is asserted as a formal objection in a legal proceeding. But that does not prevent a litigant from saying he will assert it as to some witness whose testimony would be privileged. It never got to formal assertion of the objection because the Dems never went through the procedure to challenge it.

The legal basis he cited was executive privilege. But he didn’t need to formally assert it in court because the Dems abandoned the endeavor.
 
The Constitution does not put Trump in charge of what Congress may or may not see. He cannot decide nothing. Like a King. Or we don’t have a Constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top