For Trump, Executive Privilege Is Just Another Non-Disclosure Agreement

For all 45 Presidents, Executive Privilege has been a necessary part of the Constitutional separation of powers. It's only about shielding a crime if a crime has been committed. There has been no crime, as all evidence shows, but the left is using their innuendo to pretend that not calling a person is a coverup. They don't get to question everyone about every discussion that was privileged.

More leftist nonsense.

Trump has been a criminal throughout his adult life.

Whether he's convicted in the senate (which will happen if a secret ballot is enacted) he will be convicted in "the court of popular opinion."

Are you opposed to a secret ballot?

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot

As I wrote in the prelude to my Facebook post:

"Why does the rudimentary advisability of a secret ballot strike terror in the hearts of Trump and his cultists?

YOU use a secret ballot and would be outraged if deprived of it.

PS

A Compendium Of Best Pax Posts About Trump's Rampant, Life-Long Criminality
https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-compendium-of-best-pax-posts.html

Besides... if he's convicted "in the court of popular opinion" (which he's not been, but you imagine he has), no one is hurt with an open vote... If the public supports his removal, they will support those that remove him. You defeat your own argument.

It is not a question of "no one being hurt by an open vote."

It's a question of whether truth would be better served by a secret ballot.

Clearly, Democrats will vote the same way in any event.

But you are VERY doubtful Republicans would vote to acquit Malignant Messiah if they could -- by secret ballot -- condemn the criminal-thug-liar-cheat-mobster, thus getting free of Mafia Don's background threats to cause them deadly political harm.

PS A new Fox poll "released Sunday and conducted as the Senate impeachment trial began in earnest, found that 50 percent of Americans think the Senate should vote to convict and remove Trump, while 44 percent believe the upper chamber should not vote to remove the president." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479973-fox-news-poll-half-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-convicted-and

Furthermore, the percentage of Americans who want Trump convicted and removed from office has been rising consistently.

When Bolton testifies, the percentage of the citizenry who want Malignant Messiah removed will spike even higher.

I look forward to your next contortionist justification of America's worst "president" ever.

"Clearly, Democrats will vote the same way in any event."

So unbelievable that that would be a reality with party defections already having occurred and many other instances of discontent.
Conversely you may have the likes of Romney and his ilk vote for removal. However, secret ballot is not an act either side would want to really try as it could backfire or equalise out. Either of those possibilities is too risky and only Dems with a losing situation would have any benefit to push it.

It is moot to suggest that Replublicans for not chosing a secret ballot because an opposition minority party suggests it is a flaw. They hold the cards the MINORITY opposition has nothing.

The wider more complete reality of a secret ballot would be that it would allow those Democrats senators who realise how much time and energy has been wasted to vote with their conscience and the same for Republicans. Therefore any potential benefits would probably not materialise. Ashes in their mouths.
Secret ballots are not about Truth they are only for anonymity look into the origins and reasoning for the Australian Ballot. Truth is best served by people telling the truth, i think you really mean a conscience vote?.

The people who voted for Trump would not and do not want secret ballot because they would like to identify who votes in what direction so they can know whether to vote for them in future. Secret ballot is being pushed around the world by leftist causes on tricky moral subjects like Same sex marriage which they then use lobbying groups and organisations to pressure and intimidate candidates to vote in favorable directions for legislations.

To be clear, I am only advocating a secret ballot in the US Senate impeachment trial.

Notably, Americans have always considered the secrecy of their own individual ballots is sacrosanct.

There are only 3 Democratic senators who might vote to acquit -- Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Doug Jones of Alabama -- and they have been predictably undecided from the beginning of the impeachment process.

In addition to these three, please name "the many other instances of discontent." I say you can't name one. (Nor is it certain that Manchin, Sinema and Jones will all vote to acquit.

On the other hand, Arizona's recently retired Republican Senator "Jeff Flake says 35 (thirty five) Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump if impeachment featured a secret ballot"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-flake-says-35-senate-republicans-would-vote-to-convict-trump-if-impeachment-featured-a-secret-ballot-2019-09-27

If Republican Senator Flake is even remotely close to right -- and even if all 3 Democratic senators defect -- a secret ballot would result in Trump's ouster by a landslide.

To be precise...

If Manchin, Sinema and Jones all vote to acquit, the Democratic caucus still has 44 votes (including two Independents).

Add 23 of Flake's 35 senators to the 44 Democratic caucus votes and Trump is outta here.

Concerning your desire "to identify who votes in which direction" for purposes of future political orientation, that is your desire, but open (non-secret) voting in Senate impeachment trials is not obligated by constitutional law.

I, on the other hand, desire to have senators vote their conscience in this unique circumstance of a Senate impeachment trial.

Therefore, I advocate that senators be liberated to vote their conscience through secret balloting.

"I look forward to your next contortionist justification of America's worst "president" ever."

I've neither defended Obama nor Carter, number 1 and 2 on the worst presidents list. But sadly, both were presidents, without quotations. Same as Trump.

Truth will not be served at all via a secret ballot. It's an open impeachment, open vote. Period. No reason to have a secret ballot at all. None. Except, as clearly stated, you want GOP senators to have a chance to remove him from office, not because of phony imagined crimes, but because they don't like him personally and just want the chance to remove him.

He's been accused publicly of things the evidence shows he did not do. The vote should be public as well. Common sense.

Not sure why you call Trump a Messiah, there is only one of those and Trump is not it. You need some education.

Polls don't matter, only the evidence does and the evidence is clear as it has been for this whole debacle. No crime. No justification to impeach. Acquittal the only correct response to save our country from these leftist loons who hate it so much.

Bottom line... Trump's been better than I expected. Didn't vote for him in 2016, probably won't in 2020 either... but this circus of the left is an stain on America.

You assert there is "No reason to have a secret ballot at all. None. Except, as clearly stated, you want GOP senators to have a chance to remove him from office, not because of phony imagined crimes, but because they don't like him personally and just want the chance to remove him."

If you think 23-26 Republican senators would vote to remove Trump from office "because they don't like him personally and just want the chance to remove him," you have taken leave of your senses.

(Twenty three to twenty six Republican senators would have to vote for Trump's conviction in order to oust Malignant Messiah.)

Nope... no leave of senses. But likewise, no need for secret ballot. If the left is hell bent on destroying our country and Constitution on petty whims as they are, then they can be on record... as well as the GOP traitors to the country who join them.

"It is not a question of "no one being hurt by an open vote.""

Yet that's what you implied when you said GOP would only vote him out if they could do a secret ballot. I demonstrated your ignorance by pointing out that if the public wants him out (which they don't), they an open ballot would not hurt them and they would be free to vote him out openly as well as in secret.

No the clear truth is that no case has been made to remove him from office. None. No evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

But there are those who don't like him, GOP and DNC alike, and would love to remove him WITHOUT CAUSE through the lunacy of a secret ballot.

That's your wet dream...

Who cares about the election?
Who cares about the will of the people?
Who cares about right and wrong?
Who cares about this country?

Not the left, that's for sure.

John Bolton -- one of the "best people" with whom Trump chose to surround himself -- is a widely-respected, dyed-in-the-wool arch-conservative who, from his vantage as an Oval Office insider and eyewitness, says Trump committed at least one crime - the crime of using his office to extort personal political advantage.

Also, your claim that the American public does not want Trump out of office is contradicted by the following FOX NEWS poll:

"The Fox survey, which was released Sunday and conducted as the Senate impeachment trial began in earnest, found that 50 percent of Americans think the Senate should vote to convict and remove Trump, while 44 percent believe the upper chamber should not vote to remove the president." https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479973-fox-news-poll-half-of-americans-say-trump-should-be-convicted-and

And the trendline is for the percentage of "ousters" to rise, while the percentage of "keepers" declines.

These are facts.

I realize facts are a challenging concept for Trump cultists.

But there they are.

Plain as potatoes.

Bolton USED to be widely respected.

No need for secret ballot. This is a senate matter of public record. Votes like most in congress should of course be public. Your hope is that with a secret ballot those who realize Trump is not guilty (as we all do based on the evidence) can still remove him because they don’t like him.

No. No need for secret ballot.

There is no constitutional (or otherwise legally-specified) need for the Senate to vote openly.

"Trump's Impeachment Trial Could Use A Secret Ballot"
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/480294-trumps-impeachment-trial-requires-a-secret-ballot

"Jeff Flake says 35 Senate Republicans would vote to convict Trump if impeachment featured a secret ballot."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeff-flake-says-35-senate-republicans-would-vote-to-convict-trump-if-impeachment-featured-a-secret-ballot-2019-09-27

Conservatives seem to think they only have to "make an argument" to be "right"... not that their arguments need to be factual.

Never said there was a requirement for an open ballot. You can read can't you?

I pointed out the truth that there is clearly NO REASON for a secret ballot. The only right answer is an open ballot.

Rinse and repeat until totally whitewashed.

Correct... you have no right to discover evidence of a possible crime. American law 101. If there is a crime, you investigate it. We have no crime. You don't get to go fishing for a crime (or more accurately, posture innocent actions to "look" like a crime)

John Bolton, the most hawkish, straight-arrow Republican in recent memory, begs to differ.

https://imgflip.com/i/3nknna

He did play that role well didn't he. Turns out he hates the country and the Constitution by playing along with this monkey trial.

"Turns out he hates the country and the Constitution."

My God!

Such presumptuous drivel.

Bolton -- a very highly regarded conservative (at least among conservatives) -- claims he was witness to a crime.

And you're saying "We have no crime" and therefore no right to investigate it.

Apparently you believe a crime only exists if it is proven that a crime happened.

You can't "put the cart before the horse."

It's preposterous! (... literally "putting the front, behind.") https://www.etymonline.com/word/preposterous

There was already enough evidence for probably cause.

But now that we have Bolton's eyewitness, insider testimony, there is probable cause for more than one crime. And God only knows what his ENTIRE book will reveal.

But apparently, you're sticking to your absurd claim that the Senate doesn't need to investigate because there was no crime?!?

It's hard to believe that so many American conservatives have not only been suckered but choose to recite their abuser's ridiculous talking points.

Once probable cause is established, it is The Purpose Of The Trial to determine if there a crime had been committed.

Firm determination whether or not a crime has been committed is NOT a pre-requisite for conducting a trial.

***

But stepping outside your quicksand for a moment...

Just how does John Bolton "hate the country and the Constitution?"

Seriously, please put your rationale in writing.

To quote our illustrious president, you can't just blow smoke from "your wherever."

Evidence!

Not fact-free oratory and rhetoric.

Evidence!

Again, the investigation of truth is not about devising good arguments de novo, ex nihilo.

Investigation of Truth gets down to the nitty-gritty, calling witnesses and examining evidence.

Lol these arguments, much like the GOP Senate itself, want to skip straight to acquittal.

No. What you said is not “American Law 101.”

Impeachment is not perfectly analogous to a routine criminal case. That said, the comparison is instructive.

In criminal law, if a prosecutor thinks there is enough solid evidence of a crime — then they file an indictment, which is analogous to the impeachment articles which were filed here, and if a grand jury sees it the same way, then that starts the criminal process.

The prosecutor doesn’t have to dismiss the charges just because there might be some doubt. The Defendant’s guilt or innocence is determined after a full and fair trial.

And the right to a fair trial is held by both the Defendant *and* the State (also called “the people”). The Defendant’s attorney usually gets more leeway than the prosecutor, but he or she can’t get away with literally anything, or he or she will be sanctioned by the Court.

And compared to a typical criminal trial, the President — with the help of the GOP Senate — has been able to stack the deck much more in his favor in terms of the evidence the “prosecution” has been able to collect. The “executive privilege” simply doesn’t exist for typical defendants charged with a crime.

Exactly.

Right, it’s for the protection of the executive deliberative process and of sensitive national security information, not a total shield against discovery

All Administrations assert executive privilege from time to time, but these disputes typically get resolved through negotiation, and never before in our history have the claims been this wide-ranging or the typical horse-trading process broken down to this extent

Of note, Nixon’s executive privilege claims about the tapes under subpoena were unanimously overruled by the Supreme Court

Trump’s claims of “executive privilege“ are particularly weak in this instance because he gets on Twitter and tweets about the very things and conversations this case is about including totally gratuitous information like selling anti-tank missiles to Ukraine

If broadcasting this information to the entire world via Twitter is not a waiver of executive privilege, then I don’t know what is

More evidence that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and will say or do anything to make himself look good