You’ve lost me. I argue that Trump is anti-immigration and provide a report of concrete examples of his policies showing such. You respond that he’s not anti-ALL immigration, just anti-those people immigration, as if that somehow makes a point. Juan Baez Sanchez is Mexican, the Trump administration refused to follow a court order. Pointing out that Trump might be fine with more rich, white Europeans immigrating to the US does absolutely nothing to counter my example.
I guess I’ll try again. What is your position on this topic? Do you believe that Congress cannot subpoena the Executive Branch? Or is it some set of specific facts in these cases (because it’s actually multiple cases) that makes Congressional subpoenas invalid? What are those facts and how do they distinguish this from other legislative subpoenas. or the
And here’s the heart of my issue with your “debate” tactic. You expect me to do all the work, and you to do nothing other than to attempt to poke holes without any actual citations or anything else. So you get to say “Well, you clearly didn’t do enough legal research” and, in the very next breath say “I’m not going to do any legal research”. It’s certainly a position to take, but I hope you’ll excuse me if I point out the unfairness of it.
I hereby adopt the rationale of the court in this case. I also adopt the rationale of the this brief. There are a multitude of individual issue and cases and, since I’m having trouble pinpointing exactly what you have a problem with because you won’t actually give an opinion on them, I’m not going to unpack them all unilaterally.
So, if you’re actually interested in debating the legalities, we can certainly do that. You can point out the specific parts of my cited items that you disagree with and support your view if you like. But I’m not going to break down the issues in these cases (again, multiple cases) when you have avoided making any statement about your own view and indicated that you have no interest in actually researching it. I’ve done that with UltraVires and tire of being the only person to put forth effort at legal analysis.
Just let me know if you want to do it, and I can try and find some time. But I’m not going to commit to doing all your work for you too.
I see a major problem with the dual arguments,
[ol][li]A should not do X because B should do X instead[/li][li]B should not do X because A should do X instead.[/ol][/li]Each argument relies on a premise that contradicts the other argument’s conclusion. Given such a contradiction, the overall position that espouses both arguments is incoherent.
Now, you can replace argument #2 with:
2. B should not do X because Y.
but the position is still incoherent if Y means “A should do X instead”.
It’s not my fault you used an overbroad, unqualified description of Trump simply being anti-immigration, which in plain English indicates a general opposition to all aspects of immigration, or at least a significant majority of them. So your examples that deal with very limited and narrow aspects of immigration fall way, way short of logically justifying your over-simplistic characterization of Trump. That’s not only my point but it’s absolutely correct.
Because, of course, issues like the border wall and ICE policies deal with illegal immigration. And it seems a bit disingenuous to attribute any of those issues to a general anti-immigration attitude, especially on the part of a person sworn to uphold the laws. As far as a ban on immigration from a handful of countries or ending DACA, once again, those are aspects of immigration that are narrow and limited and whose effects are relatively small on the overall influx of immigrants into the US.
My evidence for this is basic logic and more importantly the lack of a precipitous drop in those immigration numbers under the Trump administration. You know, the thing which might actually lend some actual evidence to your position if it in fact existed. So yes, those rich white Europeans, and as you seem to have forgotten, all those other immigrants from around the world, do quite nicely refute your point. Try not making one beyond the evidence you have to support it next time.
And once again you seem to miss the point completely. This thread was about the general topic of whether Congress can compel the Executive branch through its subpoena power, and the answer to that is unquestionably “maybe” because the answer is highly fact-dependent. What are some examples of those relevant facts?
As others have mentioned, the Congressional power to subpoena is not unlimited. It must be in furtherance of their function, both as one delegated by the people to the Gov’t generally and to the Legislative branch specifically. Also, and again as mentioned by others, there are pretty good arguments to believe that Congress’s subpoena power is not as broad as that of the Judiciary because of those differing Constitutional functions. However, even if the issue is one where Congress’s actions are tied to its legitimate functions then it may still butt into the actions of the other branches performing their own respective functions in that domain and raise Separation of Powers issues even at this stage.
The subpoena itself, even if in furtherance of a legitimate overall Legislative function, is still limited in its subject and scope to those people and things relevant to the inquiry, a very fact-specific determination. Furthermore, if the person or thing that is the subject of the subpoena is part of a co-equal branch, as in the Executive, then Separation of Powers doctrines, in this case Executive Privilege, may well prevent Congress from compelling the appearance of an Executive branch member or submission of documents (or whatever), even if the subpoena is otherwise valid. And this yet again very fact-specific determination goes to the relationship the person or thing has to the Constitutional functions of the Executive.
As far as Congress having a right to sue or a remedy you have the Political Question doctrine, simultaneously a self-imposed, principled restraint on the Judiciary and the ultimate dodge. This limitation and its potential relevance has been pointed out by several courts and if any particular case veers into this domain then Congress would indeed be without a right to sue (at least meaningfully) and certainly a remedy, since the Court will claim no jurisdiction to hear the dispute. And for the Nth time, the answer to that question is very fact-specific.
So that’s pretty much as far as one can go absent any particular hypothetical facts or an actual case. And yet, despite you pointing to no such specific case until your last post, and despite your “legal analysis” up to this point consisting primarily of repeatedly name-dropping Nixon without really addressing its potential limitations or even inapplicability, you seem to believe you have somehow delivered a somehow meaningful legal analysis where I (and UltraVires) have not. That is, unless you believe that Congress can compel the Executive to comply with any subpoena in all circumstances, in which case you are simply making the same type of broad, unsupportable assertion you made with Trump re immigration.
Maybe, you should do some homework of your own. Then you might be where I am and this stuff might be a little clearer to you.
I was actually referring to Hamlet’s example of something like someone claiming to not be present at a homicide, alternatively claiming to have been present but not to have killed the victim, and lastly that they killed the victim but it was self-defense. Those are mutually exclusive arguments made about an objective set of factual events and I agree there’s an air of unseemliness about that even if it’s somehow strategically justifiable in terms of representing a client’s interests.
But language, including legal language, is never objective (barring other definitions of the term) and shouldn’t bear any of the same stigma. There’s nothing wrong with advocating for an interpretation of a term most beneficial to one’s case while simultaneously advocating for a second, less ideal interpretation (or third, etc.) if the Court refuses to buy the first. That happens all the time and in some cases is practically required.
Also, of course some arguments which may seem contradictory might not be. All lawyers and legal scholars know (or should) that any legally relative distinction can mean all the difference in analysis and/or outcome, even if they are otherwise identical. So unless two legal issues, or even sub-issues, match up perfectly as far as relevant facts then there is not really arguing in the alternative occurring. I think your examples seem primarily to fall into this category so I would agree there would be nothing inherently untoward about them and they may even be practically required as part of a duty to one’s client.
I agree, and hate to keep fighting, but I can see a case where even arguing the hypo you posed to a jury is good strategy.
As you know, it is about what the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not what happened. This isn’t a detective novel where the big reveal is shown at the end. All the jury is there to do is determine reasonable doubt.
So first, I could argue that there is no proof that my client was even there. No fingerprints, no DNA. Yeah, they had that one witness who said that a guy who looked like my client was there, but is that beyond a reasonable doubt? I say no.
But let’s say you believe that the witness got a good look and you believe that my client was there. The witness also saw another man there at the time and we do not know what happened after that. Maybe my client was lucky to get out of there without being killed my that man as well? Beyond a reasonable doubt that my guy is guilty? No.
But let’s say that you don’t believe that. Remember the witness heard an argument? And the judge has instructed that you must find the absence of self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Do we know what happened during the argument? Did the deceased pull a gun or knife? We don’t know. Beyond a reasonable doubt? I say no.
You’re allowing the jury to believe some or all of the prosecution’s case while still permitting them to vote not guilty and at the same time pointing out that there are many holes in the case.
Of course if your client testified that he was not there, or if he was he didn’t kill him, but if he did it was self-defense, that would be silly, and it seems as if that is the parallel Hamlet is trying to make here.
You know, I was going to ask why you think that the fact there are immigrants coming from certain, very white, countries means Trump isn’t anti-immigration from Mexico, but I realized I really don’t care. It’s a minor point that has nothing to do with the example I gave. So, by all means, keep beating the “Trump isn’t anti-immgration” drum to your hearts content.
I really don’t get your point. If the entirety of your point is that my “legal analysis” in this thread so far has been minimal, that’s fine. Absolutely correct. I haven’t gotten into the details of the individual cases, I’ve only drawn large scale generalities, and, while I’ve certainly provided a starting point, I have not put forth the effort to really delve deeply into the topic. You sure got me on that.
Funny thing, though. Neither have you. Pot. Kettle. You get the point.
So, I guess I’ll ask, yet again, what your position is and what support you have for it. How would you rule in the McGahn case? Do you think Trump’s argument in the two Mazar’s case is correct? Do you have any actual opinion to offer, or is backhanded insults the best you got?
As I said, if you want to get into the legalities of the cases, we certainly can. So once you put aside your bluster and chest beating, let me know and we can pick one of the cases and get into it.
So do you believe that it is fair to characterize someone who has only voiced an opinion that civilians should not be allowed to own automatic firearms as “anti-gun” in the context of gun rights? Or could that single position be consistent with everything from opposing all civilian gun ownership to favoring civilian gun ownership for all firearms save those capable of automatic fire? In other words, everything from wholly “anti-gun” to actually almost entirely “pro-gun.” See how that is pretty analogous to your claims about Trump being simply anti-immigration?
But more importantly here are some actual statistics:
DHS 2017 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics
(PDF link)
Check out Table 3 on page 12 of the document for example, Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country Of Birth: FY 2008-2017. And here’s an additional link for the FY 2018 version (Table 3. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 2016 to 2018 | Homeland Security). Notice how not only the totals but the breakdown by region stays remarkably consistent across three administrations? And do you notice that the number of “rich white Europeans” consistently make up a small fraction of the overall total by any metric? So how do you reconcile these statistics and the others in the document with your various claims about Trump on this topic?
You know what? Before I get further into…all of this, let’s start with a bit of clarification. What did you mean in post #35 when you stated the following: “Let me be clear. I think not just the law, but the policy behind the law, is pretty darn clear.”?
I think we may be talking past each other because I don’t really see any significant point of disagreement on my part with what you are saying here. It seems fairly analogous to dealing with various legal fictions, they may rub some people the wrong way on some fundamental level (maybe rightly so) but that doesn’t mean they can’t be useful or even necessary.
I meant: "“neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high‐level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” Trump v. Vance
I meant: "“[The President] concedes that he, like every other citizen, is under a legal duty to produce relevant, non‐privileged evidence when called upon to do so.” Nixon v. Sirica, 487 F.2d 700, 713 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
I meant: “The historical record indicates that the Judiciary has long entertained subpoena-enforcement actions concerning
compelled congressional process.” Committee v. McGahn
And, as far as the policy goes, allowing the President to have total immunity from complying with process (as Trump has claimed), would set the Presidency above the other co-equal branches and make legislative and judicial subpoenas useless against the President. There is no precedent for that kind of ruling, and thankfully so.
Again, really? This is getting tiresome. Let’s start with the quote I asked you to clarify:
Hamlet “Let me be clear. I think not just the law, but the policy behind the law, is pretty darn clear.”
(Act 1, Post 35)
How eloquent.
Notice the phrase “the law” you chose to use in that sentence. Does that seem an especially specific descriptor to you? Especially in the context of an actual legal analysis? Once again, as I noted earlier, the topic of the thread was a general one on whether Congress can compel the Executive to comply with its subpoenas. And that’s as far as the discussion had really gotten to that point, without any reference to any particular case or hypothetical.
Now the phrase “the law” can certainly mean a lot of things, everything from a specific statute to an entire body of law. But in a general discussion about an entire area of law, the phrase “the law” is typically synonymous with the relative Jurisprudence I.e. the overall body of law on the topic. So how the hell exactly was I supposed to glean from your vague use here of “the law” that you were referring to “the Executive having no absolute immunity from subpoenas”? We can even go back and look at previous posts for any context.
In post #31 you asked **UltraVires ** the following:
Can the President simply refuse to comply with Congressional subpoenas? Can a Court no longer require the President to turn over evidence (remember the 8-0 ruling in US v. Nixon?)
Neither of these questions is at all even remotely the same question as “Does the President enjoy an absolute immunity or privilege against all Congressional subpoenas?” Of course they don’t. Which is exactly why I’ve never claimed any different. And sure, that was one of the issues (and holdings) in Nixon but it wasn’t the only one or the only potentially relevant one to the thread topic was it? So, just like your question to me, how the hell is someone supposed to divine you’re referring specifically to the holding that the President has no absolute immunity/privilege to Congress’s subpoena power when you simply mention the case name without further comment save the 8-0 vote?
The simple answer to the first question is: Yes, of course the President can simply refuse to comply with Congressional Subpoenas. That is the literal answer and at that point it is up to Congress to ask the Courts to enforce the subpoenas if it wishes. And once it is before the Court the President could literally defy its ruling as well, as mentioned by **UltraVires **. But from a less extreme and legal standpoint the President could also win the case on numerous grounds and that would certainly afford the President the choice to not comply. And since one of those grounds could be that the Court could find the issue as nonjusticiable and a Political Question that provides at least a partial answer to your second question. In such a instance, yes, a Court cannot compel the President to turn over evidence because it lacks jurisdiction.
So let’s recap: the legal answer to both of your above questions and the overall thread topic of whether Congress can compel a President to comply with its subpoenas is - maybe, it depends. And you could have responded civilly to a simple request for clarification but instead you chose to continue to be condescending and combative. Which is bad enough in and of itself, but so much more so when the real issue is apparently repeated communication and comprehension failures on your part.
You seem to have a major issue with the difference between a message board and an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. You continue to try to make hay over the fact that I’m only touching the generalities and not breaking down the multitude of cases into individual parts and explaining them, in detail to you. And that’s all you do. You offer no cites. No caselaw. Nothing. Just a bunch of dressed up whining because I’m not willing to write you a hornbook about the Historical and Legal Use of Legislative and Judicial Subpoenas and their Enforceability against the Executive Branch.
What I said numerous posts ago still stands true: “So you get to say “Well, you clearly didn’t do enough legal research” and, in the very next breath say “I’m not going to do any legal research”. It’s certainly a position to take, but I hope you’ll excuse me if I point out the unfairness of it.”
So, for now the 4th or 5th time, I will ask: Do you have an actual position (other than the blindingly obvious “it’s difficult”) on ANY of the arguments made in ANY of the relevant cases I’ve provided? Do you agree with Trump when he, in Trump v Vance, “argues that he is absolutely immune from all stages of state criminal process while in office, including pre‐indictment investigation, and that the Mazars subpoena cannot be enforced in furtherance of any investigation into his activities.” Do you think that the Court in McGahn was wrong when it said: " In this regard, the Miers case persuasively determined that the Judiciary Committee had Article III standing to file a subpoena-enforcement lawsuit seeking to vindicate its investigatory interests when a former White House Counsel refused to appear for testimony as directed." Do you think the court in Mazars was wrong in concluding: “that the public record reveals legitimate legislative pursuits, not an impermissible law-enforcement purpose, behind the Committee’s subpoena.” Do you have an actual position you wish to defend? Or are you just trying to make me do all the work for you, and, when I don’t, you pretend I’m somehow not meeting your idiotic standard.
I don’t agree with what you have written, but I am relatively confident that the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the President should be immune from compulsory state criminal process while in office. Precedent touches on federal courts, not state courts.
I think the President should be immune from compulsory state criminal process while in office, because the alternative would be to subject a President to the whims of prosecutors in every state he has a personal relationship with - “if you don’t take X position, we’re going to sue the hell out of you and you won’t be able to do your job”. States cannot have such a stranglehold on the national executive, it is a violation of federalism. I don’t think states should be able to direct judicial process against the President at all. There was a paragraph in Clinton v. Jones where they quashed this argument when it was raised then wrt separation of powers - basically, the Court said federal civil judicial process based on unofficial conduct would never engulf the presidency. The Court was quickly proven wrong back then and I think they are definitely wrong now.
The flipside is that all limitation periods for suits against the President should be tolled during his time in office. So, I think the states can investigate him, but they can’t make him do anything like comply with a subpoena or show up in court until he is out of office.
And here we are with more condescension and belligerence all while completely missing the point. With a shit ton of irony thrown in to boot. Are you really going to accuse me of turning this message board into an amicus brief when, as you say, I’ve offered no cites but also haven’t requested any as well? When, unlike you, I have actually limited my comments to the general principles/doctrines and potential issues, just like the OP and everyone else in this thread except you? You were the one who demanded answers to your poorly worded questions and accused others of dodging them. ** You** are now the one asking for my opinions on specific cases and the only person to bring up specific cases in the thread. And, somehow, I’m the one trying to turn this into an amicus brief. What the fuck, man?
Let’s go over this again, in an easy to follow format:
The OP posted a general question basically about whether Congress can compel the Executive to comply with one of its subpoenas.
After some general discussion you apparently attempted to make the point that the President is not absolutely immune from such suits/does not enjoy absolute Executive Privilege. Except you chose to phrase your questions piss-poorly by making no mention whatsoever of either legal doctrine and simply referencing Nixon as if it should be sufficiently clear that you were referring to that specific holding. And your once again piss-poor phrasing implied that you believed that the answer to the OP, again the general question of whether Congress can compel Executive compliance with its subpoenas through the Courts, was an unqualified yes.
My answer to the OP has always been “maybe - it depends” because: A) a Court may find a Congressional subpoena an invalid use of its Legislative authority based on its purpose or its subject and that is a very fact-specific analysis, B) an otherwise valid subpoena can still be overcome by a sufficient showing of Executive Privilege and that is a very fact-specific analysis as well, C) the precedential value of * Nixon*, one of the few cases even potentially analogous, is questionable with regards to the OP because the Court may use a different legal analysis on virtually every issue due to the differing nature of the Legislature versus the Judiciary; plus the Court itself doubted its precedential value, presumably due once again to the fact-specific nature of these issues, and D) anytime the Court is asked to resolve a dispute between the other two branches there is a real possibility that the Court will decline to intervene if it finds the dispute to be a Political Question and nonjusticiable. An analysis that is, you guessed it, very fact-specific.
So do you dispute that all of the above is correct? If so, then I will gladly provide cites and you are free to offer counter-cites. But do you see how the above is a general overview and that I declined to be more specific exactly because no one (until you) brought up any specific case or hypothetical and the relevant facts are incredibly important? The above has always been my position and the only position I’ve actually taken in this thread. And I’ll gladly defend it if you ever bother to take issue with any particular part. So far as I can tell, you have yet to do so.
So based on all of the above I (politely) indicated that your seeming certainty on what I assumed was an answer to the actual question posed in the thread, and not an answer to the question in your head of whether the President’s immunity to suit/EP was absolute, was at best an oversimplification. Unless you somehow believe that the President’s lack of an absolute immunity to suit/EP is indeed the answer to the question posed by the OP. So are you really contending that, based solely on those narrow holdings in Nixon, that the answer to the OP is that Congress can always compel Executive compliance with its subpoenas? If not, how again exactly is your answer different from what I outlined above?
See I never asked you for anything, not a single cite and certainly not to do my homework, my research, or anything resembling writing a fucking hornbook, treatise, or anything fucking else. I’m thoroughly familiar with everything I outlined above and I’d be glad to go into more specific detail or provide cites if you point out exactly what you disagree with. The research I was referring to was a way of saying that a more exhaustive answer to the OP’s question would involve so many possible permutations of facts and legal issues (including potentially novel or unique ones) that it would put it beyond the scope of a message board. You know, declining to do the very thing you are accusing me of doing.
So with that in mind, I’m going to beg your indulgence as far as getting to the homework you’ve assigned me. Especially since it’s beyond the scope of the OP and my opinions on the cases will be in no way inconsistent with what I’ve said above. So what point are you trying to make with your assignment exactly?
** UltraVires ** I came across this journal article a little while back and while it concerns Judicial Estoppel it uses the inconsistent arguments of law versus arguments of fact distinction I believe we’re both referring to.
You aren’t turning it into an amicus brief. You just want me to. You consistency insist that my responses are too vague, too general, and when I do specify one particular point in one particular case, you throw a hissy fit saying I’m being too specific and missing the big picture. You only want to bitch about a response and offer little other than that. Which is why I’ve asked now 6 times for your opinion on the specifics of these cases, only to have you simply repeat, over and over, how bad a job I’m doing. That’s, apparently, the schtick you’re dead set on running into the ground.
No shit. Great point. One I never contested, and is basically true for every legal question ever asked. It’s even covered, in great detail, in almost all of the cases I’ve cited in this thread.
Of course, an amazing response like that would beg for follow up questions, which, again, I’ve asked over and over and you’ve never responded.
I don’t think this is the original post at all. The original post asks,
United States v Nixon is extremely relevant in that the Supreme Court ruled that the President had to turn over documents to the federal district court. The cited case directly contradicts jebert’s premise that the executive branch could (constitutionally) ignore orders from the judicial branch.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided the extent of the President’s immunity from any and all state actions. There is currently pending, on appeal in New York, a ruling that denied President Trump’s motion to dismiss (based on Presidential immunity) a civil action pending against him for conduct taken before his Presidency. Initial ruling here. We’ll see how the NY Appellate Court handles it. I don’t find the difference between a federal civil case (Jones v. Clinton) and a state level civil case, to be of any real difference. It’s not like a federal civil case will somehow be less intrusive than a state level case. YMMV, of course.
An issue I have with this is that, in the Vance case at least, Trump doesn’t have to do anything at all. It’s a subpoena to Mazars, his accounting firm. As the court said: “The subpoena seeks only the President’s private tax returns and financial information relating to the businesses he owns in his capacity as a private citizen. These documents do not implicate, in any way, the performance of his official duties.”
I think there is a perfectly valid discussion to be had over the exact extent of presidential immunity against State actions. It would be absurd, to me, to allow any State to arrest the President or to be able to lock him up for contempt. But I also believe that the Presidency doesn’t foreclose all possibility of investigation either.
How was the Court “proven wrong”? Clinton was able to continue to do his job as President while defending the lawsuit. The fact he committed perjury during it was his, and his alone, decision. A decision made, not as a President or implicating any Presidential powers, but as Bill Clinton
I, and I think the founders, don’t like the idea of a President above the law to such an extent that not only can’t he be prosecuted, you can’t even investigate him or anyone else around him. And I’m not sure whatever difference exists between filing a case in federal court or in state court is relevant to the determination of his abilities to do his job.
And, finally, I find the idea that somehow having some of your thousands of federal workers have to comply with a subpoena inhibits Trump from being President, is amusing. I chuckle at the idea of him preparing a legal brief for himself or him bucking under the strain it must take for him to sign his name on a release of tax records.
I’ll admit that’s my summary of the OP. But that’s because the literal answer is of course the President can choose to comply or not with a Congressional subpoena or a Court order. Who’s going to stop them? Again, if the President chooses to defy a Congressional subpoena then it is up to Congress whether to pursue a remedy in the Courts. At that point, the Court may either rule in favor of the President, in favor of Congress, or decline to decide. If the President prevails or no final decision is rendered then they can simply continue to choose to defy the subpoena or not as they wish. If the President loses then they can still choose to comply or not. Buy if they choose not to, then at that point we have a Constitutional Crisis and again, who is going to stop them?
As far as your second point, I agree completely. Sorry you got left hanging, but I’m not sure anyone else would endorse that aspect of the OP.
Again, you are completely mischaracterizing my participation in this thread. And also yet again, I never asked you for anything except clarification of your own statement in plain English and your answer to the general question posed by the OP. If you were simply trying to make the point that the President is not immune to suit and that EP is not absolute ala Nixon then why didn’t you just state that very thing? I don’t think anyone could legitimately disagree with that and I’m certain that would be the holdings in * Nixon * that would be adopted by a future Court.
The only criticism I engaged in was questioning your apparent answer to the OP based on my misinterpreting your vague use of “the law…being clear.” Oh, and throwing the condescending and confrontational language you initiated back at you. And still you accuse me of making you jump through imaginary hoops and throwing a “hissy fit.” Not your finest moment.
Except of course that it is more than “basically true” about these particular legal issues as compared to the vast majority of others. Or do you think that all of the Courts who bother to highlight the specific importance of this fact are somehow making the same error you think I am making? And, of course, such questions are beyond the scope of the OP and I’ve never taken any such position that would require me to defend it by reconciling it with those specific cases. It’s almost like you’re trying to make me jump through hoops and do work on a message board worthy of an amicus brief. Sound familiar?
That’s kinda my point. You haven’t taken a position. You certainly have spent a lot of the time and verbiage trying to mock me, though. If you spent half, hell, even 10% of that time actually debating the issue, we might get somewhere. But you have your priorities, and they certainly aren’t debating the limits, if any, of presidential immunity to legislative and judicial subpoenas.
If you change your mind and want to actually debate these issues, let me know. I’ve provided you a few cases to start us out. Feel free to pick out some or all of the individual issues in those (or any) cases. Or just continue to beat your dead horses. Your call.