I should probably point out that congress's subpoena power is in the constitution while executive privilege is not. In addition, this very topic was broached during the Nixon administration. The court found that Nixon's overly general excuse of protecting privileged executive information and individuals was outweighed by the greater public interest
"The Supreme Court addressed executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox that President Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations he and his colleagues had in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration for breaking into the Watergate complex. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.
The Supreme Court did not reject the claim of privilege out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties" and that "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decisionmaking process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties. The Supreme Court stated: "To read the Article II powers of the president as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of 'a workable government' and gravely impair the role of the courts under Article III." Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence."
Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches
With the new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives sporting an aggressive oversight agenda on national security and foreign policy issues, it’s only a matter of time before a raft of congressional subpoenas are fired off from Capitol Hill. Also only a matter of time is resistance...www.lawfareblog.com
In other words, Trump has to have significant reason to block congressional subpoenas, especially given the gravity of their nature. I have seen no such explanation from Trump. I need to see a per subpoena reason.
1. False https://www.justsecurity.org/67489/trumps-hold-on-ukrainian-military-aid-was-illegal/
2. The fact that you don't realize that the president of the united states (and yourself) calling someone a criminal before they've even had their due process is astounding. Even more so that the only source for biden's purported illegal acts is conspiracy theories and Trump / Trump associates.
3. There are appropriate channels for investigating individuals. Not only did Trump side step those channels, he even went as far as to withhold aid and send his lawyer to act on his behalf. There was signifiacnt communication between individuals in the administration through irregular channels and Ukraine. I can only believe the waterboy BS excuse so many times.
Nope, but keep deflecting from my main point and trying too hard. Your disdain towards people isn't worth my time.
The Ukraine's NEW president, said exactly what was neceddary, to insure he wouldn't run into another road block to getting military aid during the next fiscal year. In other words, should Trump be reelected, failing to stroke his massive ego and obey his wishes, would place his country at the mercy of Putin and Russia.
www.npr.org
I applaud your valiant effort, but it's likely all for naught."Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] "
Executive privilege - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Facts, you can't beat em.
1. When you can't debate the facts, attack the author. "Sam Berger (@SamBerger_DC) is the senior adviser at the Center for American Progress. From 2015 to 2017, Berger served as a senior policy adviser at the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 2010 to 2015, Berger worked at the Office of Management and Budget in various roles, including senior counselor and policy adviser. Berger is a graduate of Swarthmore College and received his J.D. from Yale Law School." Given that he specifically worked in the roles he is commenting on, I'd say he's specifically more qualified then you. Now perhaps you can get on with actually debating on the points instead of attacking credentials.
2."They say this benefited Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who served on Burisma's board of directors – for which he was paid $50,000 a month.
Their assertion is contradicted by former diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time.
Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.
Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.
The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
Read it yourself: The full declassified text of the Trump whistleblower complaint
Critics of Hunter Biden have questioned how he landed such a lucrative role with no experience in Ukraine or the gas industry.
But it's not unusual for Ukrainian companies to bring on high-profile people from the West in an effort to burnish their image and gain influence, Pifer said."
Explainer: Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Trump has claimed Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor in order to benefit his son. Former diplomats say the prosecutor wasn't doing his job.www.usatoday.com
3. "Interviews with current and former officials show how the Trump administration's hold-up of aid to Ukraine was irregular and likely violated U.S. law, and has far-reaching consequences at home and overseas. "
Why The Trump Decision To Delay Aid To Ukraine Is Under Scrutiny
There are lots of reasons U.S. foreign aid can be held up or frozen. There's even a law that governs the issue. But many experts say what happened over the summer with Ukraine is highly irregular.
There has been multiple witnesses testify before congress already they have explicitly stated that trump did not in fact follow regular procedure.
Nothing at all wrong with talking to ukraine. It's only a problem when official channels to do so are not used.
"Mention" is not nearly an aggressive enough verb. "Leverage Ukrainian President by delaying aid to investigate a member of the opposing political party" is more fitting. And no, it's not okay for the president to take it upon himself by going outside of his own country's legal system. You're trying to downplay what Trump's endgame actually was. He wasn't casually mentioning Biden in passing.
"Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] "
Executive privilege - Wikipedia
Facts, you can't beat em.
1. When you can't debate the facts, attack the author. "Sam Berger (@SamBerger_DC) is the senior adviser at the Center for American Progress. From 2015 to 2017, Berger served as a senior policy adviser at the White House Domestic Policy Council. From 2010 to 2015, Berger worked at the Office of Management and Budget in various roles, including senior counselor and policy adviser. Berger is a graduate of Swarthmore College and received his J.D. from Yale Law School." Given that he specifically worked in the roles he is commenting on, I'd say he's specifically more qualified then you. Now perhaps you can get on with actually debating on the points instead of attacking credentials.
2."They say this benefited Biden's son, Hunter Biden, who served on Burisma's board of directors – for which he was paid $50,000 a month.
Their assertion is contradicted by former diplomatic officials who were following the issue at the time.
Burisma Holdings was not under scrutiny at the time Joe Biden called for Shokin's ouster, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, an independent agency set up in 2014 that has worked closely with the FBI.
Shokin's office had investigated Burisma, but the probe focused on a period before Hunter Biden joined the company, according to the anti-corruption bureau.
The investigation dealt with the Ministry of Ecology, which allegedly granted special permits to Burisma between 2010 and 2012, the agency said. Hunter Biden did not join the company until 2014.
Oh, it's Pelosi's fault?
So, I suppose the 2 plus pages of "hooray for Trump" propaganda you've put up doesn't constitute "thread crapping?
The MCA was signed today, try and keep up
Since Trump is only in office by virtue of the electoral college, (need I remind you he lost the popular vote, and very few came to his inauguration), that more than half of American taxpayers don't want a border wall. Or at the very least, it isn't a big priority.
