Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
1. No, it may however be "contempt".
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 03:24 PM
Oct 2019

And repeated refusal to honor subpoena can be grounds for impeachment.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

dem4decades

(11,241 posts)
2. He's been courting rank and file military and police from the start.
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 03:27 PM
Oct 2019

We'll know whether or not we still have a republic soon.

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)
5. Guests on MSM have tried to avoiding calling this a Constitutional Crisis but
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 03:29 PM
Oct 2019

I don't know what else you call it when the Executive branch effectively shuts down the oversight function of the congressional branch and the remedies (so far) have been fruitless or take so long as to be meaningless.

lindysalsagal

(20,440 posts)
6. "I don't have to answer questions because I have a lawyer. My lawyer doesn't have to answer Q's beca
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 03:31 PM
Oct 2019

because of client/presidential privilege."

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
7. Rather annoyingly in this case, that's kinda how the system works ...
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 03:36 PM
Oct 2019

Although if one can show the lawyer is colluding in criminal activity, in theory, that privilege goes out the window. Unfortunately (in this case) it's still on the accusers to prove this is happening ... without the defendant or his/her lawyer having to say jack.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
11. I'm continually reminded of Michael Cohen's
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 04:13 PM
Oct 2019

statement to congress (my paraphrasing), Trump will never step down quietly, or he will never leave.

If anyone remembers the exact quote please share it. It would be good to remember.

On edit

I found it:

“Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power."

 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
12. Fine, if that's the way he wants it, we won't be peaceful about it, but he is going
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 05:07 PM
Oct 2019

one way or another.

Cosmocat

(14,543 posts)
14. I have been telling people that since the night this country was stupid enough to make him POTUS
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 05:35 PM
Oct 2019

nm

Kid Berwyn

(14,644 posts)
13. Absolutely.
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 05:31 PM
Oct 2019

No man, or in the present case, moron, is above the law.

As for the armed forces, they take their oath to the Constitution seriously.

Benedict Donald can cosplay Tony Montana all week at Comicon before the men and women in government service betray the nation or run out of bullets.

Igel

(35,191 posts)
15. And yet, the law isn't the law.
Tue Oct 1, 2019, 05:42 PM
Oct 2019

There are checks and balances in place, and there are laws Congress simply can't pass and make stick.

Each Congress and each President has had the same kind of tussle. Take, for example, the subpoenas against Eric Holder 4-5 years before Obama's 2nd term ended. He was subpoenaed, executive privilege was claimed, and they negotiated. Until the (D) House was inaugurated in early 2019. It took a few months, but Pelosi and Holder managed to come to the mutual agreement that he didn't have to testify. There were numerous cases in which the Obama administration did comply--but often after negotiations, amending the requests, and limiting the scope of the request. Unless you paid attention to the details, all you saw was, "The House requested, and Obama complied."

Few claimed "dictator" and "above the law." Some on the right did say "coverup". The counterclaim was that the (R) were engaging in political dirty tricks, trying to dig to find anything bad they could make stick against Obama.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Disregarding supeonas is ...