[Big Steve-3]

Perhaps you should stop faking it. You are really, really bad at it.

There are limits to Executive Privilege, even more so in an impeachment. It's settled law.

Please cite the related case law which settled it.

[late]

Please cite the related case law which settled it.

Already did, it's the Watergate case, and if you go looking for it, you will also find the ancillary stuff.

Time to do your homework.

[Big Steve-3]

Already did, it's the Watergate case, and if you go looking for it, you will also find the ancillary stuff.

Time to do your homework.

No, when you cite case law you actually refer to a case by its name; "People vs. Jones", etc. You have to speak to the charges that were tried and who stood trial. Saying "the Watergate case" is far too broad a reference and is pretty meaningless.

I'll simply accept that you're unable to do that.

[late]

No, when you cite case law you actually refer to a case by its name; "People vs. Jones", etc. You have to speak to the charges that were tried and who stood trial. Saying "the Watergate case" is far too broad a reference and is pretty meaningless.

I'll simply accept that you're unable to do that.

You're being passive/aggressive. It's what children do.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're too lazy to take a couple minutes to find out.

[Big Steve-3]

You're being passive/aggressive. It's what children do.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're too lazy to take a couple minutes to find out.

Again, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

You can't cite the case law because you don't know what it is.

Why do liberals like you opt for tap dancing when you don't know something when simple honesty will suffice?

[late]

Again, I know exactly what I'm talking about.

You proven that wrong many times now.

So tell us what case it was, and more importantly, what the reasoning of the judge was, and the other legal aspects pertaining to Executive Privilege.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Indy
Please provide the case law that says that the President has the executive privilege to ignore congressional subpoenas.

[Big Steve-3]

@Indy
Please provide the case law that says that the President has the executive privilege to ignore congressional subpoenas.

There is no case law. Just as there's no case law which provides the right to free speech.

The Constitution does that.

[Pants-of-dog]

There is no case law. Just as there's no case law which provides the right to free speech.

The Constitution does that.

Fine.

Quote the part of the constitution that says that the POTUS is allowed to ignore congressional subpoenas because of executive privilege.

[Big Steve-3]

Fine.

Quote the part of the constitution that says that the POTUS is allowed to ignore congressional subpoenas because of executive privilege.

I would, but I need to go use the restroom.

Chances are good that I'll be bored with you upon my return.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would, but I need to go use the restroom.

Chances are good that I'll be bored with you upon my return.

If you are not interested in debate, this site is not for you.

So, we agree that Trump is deliberately trying to circumvent the system of checks and balances used to keep the USA from turning into a dictatorship.

You have agreed to that, and have now embraced the argument that the President has a right to do that.

And you have no support for your claim that the POTUS is allowed to do so.

[Big Steve-3]

If you are not interested in debate, this site is not for you.

Last I checked, you do not make up the whole of this site.

I am quite interested in debate.

Just not with you.

[Pants-of-dog]

Last I checked, you do not make up the whole of this site.

I am quite interested in debate.

Just not with you.

I am not here to discuss you.

Now, if you cannot provide a quote from the Constitution, as you claim, then it is probable that the Constitution does not actually say that the POTUS gets to ignore checks and balances.

[Big Steve-3]

I am not here to discuss you.

You claimed I was not interested in debate.

That is factually incorrect. I 'm just not interested in debate with you because you're boring and predictable. I'll spend my time conversing with others.

Now, if you cannot provide a quote from the Constitution, as you claim, then it is probable that the Constitution does not actually say that the POTUS gets to ignore checks and balances.

Super.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Indy

So, the Constitution does not saynthat Trump gets to ignore congressional subpoenas.

And Nadler was correct.

[Big Steve-3]

And Nadler was correct.

No, he's not. He's wrong.

Again.

Donald Trump is not a dictator. That very idea is ridiculous.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Indy

You have not supported your claims.

In that respect, you are correct that you are not debating with me. Instead, you are simply making unsupported claims.

[Big Steve-3]

...you are correct that you are not debating with me.

You have a keen eye for the obvious.

[Pants-of-dog]

To summarise the debate so far:

Trump has deliberately ignored congressional subpoenas.

Congressional subpoenas are part of congressional oversight, which is part of the system of checks and balances.

By ignoring them, Trump is deliberately trying to circumvent the system of checks and balances that protect US democracy.

Some people have agreed with this, but also claim that Trump is allowed to do so.