Why didn’t the Democrats try to lawfully get the judicial branch to resolve executive privilege

There is a separation of powers. Obviously, it isn't relevant in cases of Presidential impeachment, or there would be no impeachment clause. Witnesses appearing before Congress in an impeachment inquiry would not lose there 5th amendment rights or their claim of "executive privilege." Courts have held, however, that there is no such thing as a blanket immunity from testifying based on executive privilege and that it may be exercised used only by a Presidential claim regarding a specific question.

 

As the electorate itself becomes more numerous and diverse, polarization between the House and Senate may increase, with the House impeachment power becoming more akin to a parliamentary "vote of no confidence." But, we aren't there yet and there is plenty of reason to move ahead with this one. At least far more than with Clinton.

 

If he's compelled by a judge.
WTF country do you live in?

 

I live in the United States. No...Congress also has subpoena powers, if they also have the sufficient votes.

 

Problem. There were no claims of executive privilege.

The nonsense that was claimed was tossed by the court and is currently on appeal. We’re roughly six plus months into that process.

 

And?

 

So you agree, this is a legal process.
Thanks!

 

A judge issues a subpoena to you. You have until Thursday at noon to comply. You ignore it. Thursday rolls around and promptly at 12:01 the judge issues a warrant for your arrest and sends a car to pick you up, in chains, and a truck to haul in the evidence. Do you now say "But he can' t do that without an order from a superior court. Why didn't he lawfully get an order from a higher court?" Do you think that will keep you from the ride downtown wearing shiny bracelets on each wrist and chained together?
There is no question at all that Congress has the power to subpoena witnesses and documents. As I said before, they only go to the courts to use their enforcement arm because if they sent their Sgt at Arms as prescribed by law they' d also have to arrange detention facilities that conform to federal prison regulations. It' s not worth if for the rare occasion that someone chooses to defy them. They do not go to the courts for validation, that's the right of the defendant just as it would be if he appealed to a higher court, the lower court doesn't say "Let me check with the higher court and get back to you."

 

Now that the courts have ruled that witnesses have to testify even if the president tells them not to any witnesses called by the Senate will think twice about doing jail time for Trump.

What bothers me most is everything on the right is about keeping Trump, never denying what he did was wrong, just preventing his ouster. No witnesses, but those that do come forward attacked personally, not their testimony. No documents that could exonerate Trump have come forward but the ones that perhaps could and secreted away.
Reagan committed treason with the Iran-Contra affair. He escaped because he co-operated with the investigations and when his complicity was exposed he admitted that if he had he hadn't meant to and apologized. Everyone smiled, shook hand's and went down to Barney' s for a beer.

 

It’s always relevant.

 

That's called compelling the witness.

 

Come again?

 

Democrats only believe in executive privilege if there is a democrat president.

 

McGahn. Trump lost round one soundly and was seriously rebuked for claiming "absolute immunity" as there is no such thing. On appeal their defense is that it's a moot point because Trump has already been impeached, yeah like that's going to fly. I'd be very much surprised if the Supreme Court takes this up since when the appeals court rules as it was decided 9-0 against Nixon. Everyone declining to testify has to know they risk a lot, not just their jobs.

 

The House may just have to give the Sgt at Arms his own little jail to house these miscreants.

 

Maybe you should say one specific court ruled in one specific case, and the case went to the appellate level, so as to sound informed and honest

 

You'll need a court first.
Oh yeah, remember that little thing about 4th amendment rights? You'll have to give those too.

Doh! I knew there was a reason you were avoiding that.

 

McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927), was a case heard before the Supreme Court, decided January 17, 1927. It was a challenge to Mally Daugherty's contempt conviction and arrest, which happened when he failed to appear before a Senate committee investigating the failure of his brother, Attorney General Harry Daugherty, to investigate the perpetrators of the Teapot Dome Scandal. The Court upheld his conviction.[1]

In the case, the Supreme Court held for the first time that under the Constitution, Congress has the power to compel witnesses to appear and provide testimony.[1]

 

You want more?
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court. Issued on July 24, 1974, the decision was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, when there was an ongoing impeachment process against Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.

 

Here's some light reading with historical references to help you understand.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31836.pdf

 

The House Judiciary Committee, still fighting in court for former White House counsel Don McGahn’s testimony, suggested Monday that it was considering articles of impeachment in addition to those adopted by the House last Wednesday.

The suggestion came in a court filing requested by the appeals court considering the McGahn lawsuit. The appeals court sought briefing on how the House impeachment proceedings last week affected the case.

The impeachment articles the House voted on earlier this month focused on President Trump’s Ukraine conduct, rather than his obstructive behavior towards special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/house-judiciary-mcgahn-filing-impeachment-articles

 

Read the Constitution.

 

You keep leaving out the fourth amendment rights of the defendant, ...Doh!

 

Please make your case the 4th Amendment applies to this matter. (hint, it doesn't)

 

Only if you want to compel him under punitive threat, the topic of the conversation you jumped into.