home
Discussing Impeachment | 158 comments (158 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Leaving aside (none / 0) (#28)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 05:33:53 PM EST
any so-called "hidden agenda", I don't see anything wrong with writing about the possible legal issues with the use of the subpoena power.  

[ Parent ]
Did you see a discussion of the legal issues? (none / 0) (#49)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:12:06 PM EST
Or did you see a REJECTION of the legal process?

I saw the latter.

The hidden agenda is transparent to me. It should put "hidden" in quotes.  

I have not looked at the hread. Is the reaction NOT "impeachment is the only way?"

I'll apologize to to all if it is not.

[ Parent ]

A question for you (none / 0) (#55)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:18:34 PM EST
Can the president invoke executive privilege to avoid having his underlings testify at an impeachment hearing? I.e. do the same executive privileges exist wrt to impeachment hearings as wrt congressional hearings?

[ Parent ]
A court will decide the issue (none / 0) (#64)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:31:37 PM EST
as it should.

[ Parent ]
But (none / 0) (#71)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:36:54 PM EST
is there any existing law on the subject?

The reason I ask is because one of the planks of the 'impeachnik' platform is that impeachment hearings will bring out all the evidence needed to make Bush look like such a monster that those 17 GOP Senators will have no choice but to vote for removal.

But it seems to me that the WH can stonewall those hearings just as much as they are stonewalling current congressional hearings, as KagroX writes about. So how, then, can impeachment be a remedy for the original stonewalling, especially if the courts rule in Bush's favor, as KagroX cynically suggests they will do?

[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#73)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:37:42 PM EST
There is plenty of law on claims of executive privilege.

[ Parent ]
Are there specific differences (none / 0) (#75)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:39:37 PM EST
between how it works in impeachment hearings versus other congressional hearings? Or is it safe to say that the same rules apply to both, whatever they are?

[ Parent ]
there are no Court cases on that (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:45:15 PM EST
I know that is the common claim

The Congress, Fred Thompson in particualr when he was a Senator, have claimed there is not executive privilege or attorney client privilege that the Congress must recognize period, not just in impeachment settings.

There are claims that impeachment hearings do not permit claims of executive privilege.

These are mere claims. They have never been tested.

Again, as is always the case, we must rely on the Courts or the power of impeachment or removal when it comes to claims of privilege before the Congress, including claims of executive privilege.

[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#84)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:51:59 PM EST
Thanks.

[ Parent ]
I'm writing something on this (5.00 / 1) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:54:22 PM EST
I'll publish it tomorrow with all the details and cites for you.

Honestly, I am going to pin a tail on dkos on this issue.


[ Parent ]

I'm looking forward to it (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by Warren Terrer on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:59:55 PM EST
And I'll be on my best behavior. No profanity.

[ Parent ]
I don't judge the value of someone's writing (none / 0) (#60)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:27:32 PM EST
by the reaction of commenters.  For the first three years I was at dKos I seldom read ANY comments. (I should go back to that policy, come to think of it.)

I also don't think the agenda is hidden - everybody knows he's for impeachment.  That doesn't necessarily negate his analysis of possible pitfalls in the use of the subpoena power and possible ways around problems. Sure, he's looking at a worst-case scenario but it's not like he hasn't posited a solution (and not impeachment).

Discussion of the legal issues?  In comments?  How many legal posts have you written here that have had a discussion of the legal issues in the comments?

[ Parent ]

I am in the process (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:30:59 PM EST
of writing a piece on the subject.

You will find that this discussion in that post is at best disingenuous, more accurately, dishonest.

[ Parent ]

Good (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Maryb2004 on Sat Jul 07, 2007 at 06:38:16 PM EST
I look forward to it. I've been waiting for someone else to write about it.

And we'll see how much legal analysis discussion you get in the comments here (and we won't count me).

But ... don't rush to finish on my account because real life is calling me ... ;)

[ Parent ]

Discussing Impeachment | 158 comments (158 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft