You sound like one of those people who didn't learn about the 3 branches of government when growing up...
Executive brand doesn't have to listen to Congress. If they want to subpoena anyone from Executive branch, they FIRST have to go to the 3rd branch, for them to determine if those subpoenas are warranted/germane. They have to prove they have a reason for such action, but the Dems never filed or went to the courts... SOLELY because the Democrats knew the Judicial branch would side with their subpoenas, knowing Schiff didn't have anything truthful on trump, just more pseudo-fake-news.
And, the Emoluments clause? That not even a thing here and doesn't apply, and is for when Leaders take bribes, or gifts, etc... (wtf?)
Our Constitution is under attack by California politicians who are trying to overthrow this Country and make it governed by California politics & laws... not the United States Constitution.
Trump is not done with tariffs and Nancy Pelosi won't sign the Mexico/Canada/USA trade agreement, so the economy & jobs here are not remotely to full potential yet.
As such, there is no bad news on the economy, just people with TDS trying to find bad news. Jobs are coming back and millions more on the way. Obama said those days were gone and wasn't trying for American manufacturing, or middle class.
Middle class already got a tax break and more on the way. Obama didn't do that, Trump did.
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."
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.
lulz^
Speaking of brainwashed. I just watch 9 h of hearing's yesterday. I don't get told by anybody what to believe.
- Trump didn't withhold money, he delayed it by 41 Days.
- Trump didn't "deface" anybody, Joe Biden criminal actions are his own, and it perfectly OK for a US Citizen to question Joe Biden activities. (Specially if he is running for President!)
- Finding out the truth, is not "undermining our fundamental democracy". It is the exact opposite and the American Voters need to know (before the election) whether or not Joe Biden is a Criminal.
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.
?
