Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just one pesky issue with this - the Constitution and precedence associated shows this does not apply to the President (or courts). One committee of the legislative branch cannot compel the head of another equal branch to provide information or testimony. Precedence established by George Washington and later is such that the President can determine what to disclose to Congress on requests under executive privilege. Two of 3 branches - Legislative (Senate and House), Executive (President and Cabinet) and Judicial (Supreme and lower courts) must agree to compel the 3rd to provide info. Without the courts there is no contempt of congress - Nadler argued as much during Clinton impeachment.
A congressional committee cannot by itself compel any member of the executive branch to provide information. The Dems in congress took a short cut that violates precedence in the name of expedience. If congressional committee could just subpoena anybody and anything in the Executive Branch, they could essentially override any executive branch action - not the intent of the framers of the US Constitution.
You're making it up as you go, & seem to be following White House Counsel Pat Cipollone's misguided lead. An impeachment inquiry is analogous to a grand jury:
Quote:
A federal judge on Friday gave a legal endorsement to the House Democrats' impeachment probe into President Donald Trump and ordered the Justice Department to release grand jury information redacted from special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.
Judge says impeachment inquiry is legal and justifies disclosing grand jury material
The piece above links to Chief Judge Beryl Howell's 74 page ruling.
"In a lengthy opinion, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the US District Court in Washington, DC, said the House clearly is conducting an impeachment inquiry.
"(A)n impeachment trial is an exercise of judicial power," Howell wrote. "Contrary to (the Justice Department's) position -- and as historical practice, the Federalist Papers, the text of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent all make clear -- impeachment trials are judicial in nature and constitute judicial proceedings."
The White House's stubbornness in their many & various refusals to participate was remarkably short-sighted.
There's plenty of evidence of what Trump did, the republicans defense was pretty lacking. They couldn't even answer the question regarding a president using his office for political gain with a foreign power. This is partisan alright, republicans have no interest in holding Trump accountable.
Their defense included no constitutional arguments nor legal ones, it was more like an expanded series of tweets.
Essentially it was this President's assertion that he will continue to refuse to "Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” & his continued refusal to "faithfully execute the Office of President". Instead, his words & actions continue to proclaim that he is above the law.
It's a betrayal of the trust of the American people.
"Once the scream for impeachment was raised", even BEFORE he was inaugurated!
Even if this were true, why then did they not launch any valid, legitimate, Constitutional, legal arguments in his defense, once their 'worst nightmare' came to fruition?
Even if this were true, why then did they not launch any valid, legitimate, Constitutional, legal arguments in his defense, once their 'worst nightmare' came to fruition?
There have yet to be any "valid, legitimate, Constitutional, legal" allegations that have been proven, thus there's no need for any real defense.
If someone were to claim that you were a 10,000 year old vampire from Mars, what would you go with for legal arguments in your defense? Would you even bother or would you just say "that's ridiculous" and "I question your sanity" to your accuser? Given similar caliber of accusations in terms of legitimacy, that's pretty much what the President has gone with for the most part.
Even if this were true, why then did they not launch any valid, legitimate, Constitutional, legal arguments in his defense, once their 'worst nightmare' came to fruition?
Trump released the Call Transcript. Horowitz report made Mueller unconstitutional from the get go.
Trump goes on a Twitter tantrum after Democrats announce 2 articles of impeachment against him
Quote:
President Donald Trump on Tuesday ripped into House Democrats in a series of tweets less than an hour after they announced articles of impeachment against him.
Their defense included no constitutional arguments nor legal ones, it was more like an expanded series of tweets.
Essentially it was this President's assertion that he will continue to refuse to "Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” & his continued refusal to "faithfully execute the Office of President". Instead, his words & actions continue to proclaim that he is above the law.
It's a betrayal of the trust of the American people.
When something is provided to "defend" over, then get back with us....
I'm mad because we lost the 2016 election is not constitutional nor legal....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
