Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Democrats have put their heads together and decided to impeach the President, without a v**e, on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Abuse of power may be easier to make a case for, his 25 July telecom can be twisted to prove their point. But, does it, by itself, meet the Constitutional standard to remove him from office. As for obstruction of Congress...that will be a tougher case to prove. Yes he did say he would not participate in the House trial. But, is that obstruction? Remember, he has executive privileges that allows him latitude in what and when information that is sensitive to be released. Hard for the House to get around.

Lonewolf

Refusing to answer supinas and telling others to do the same is obstruction as is withholding requested documents from congress!
Character assassination against witness as they testified. More obstruction!
Executive privileges does not protect him from criminal acts.

Liberty Tree

Democrats practice guilt by accusation and not by proof.

bahmer

Very good Pennylynn we will have to wait and see what nonsense the democrats come up with next. I have stopped watching the impeachment hearings from the democrats as they are all lies anyway. Besides there is not one democrat that I would ever v**e for anyway.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

The republicans were grilling the democrats over the release of phone records and, of course, the i***ts couldn't even say who did it or what they actually released.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

DOJ had an opinion, they said the subpoenas are "invalid" if Democrats would not allow witness attorneys to be present during questioning. “As a result, the depositions seek testimony from executive branch employees concerning matters potentially protected by executive privilege. Consistent with our prior advice, we conclude that the congressional committees participating in the impeachment investigation authorized by the resolution may not validly require executive branch witnesses to appear without the assistance of agency counsel in connection with such depositions,” Cipollone added. Meantime, House Democrats “could address this separation of powers problem by allowing agency counsel to assist the employee during the deposition,” Steven Engel, assistant attorney general with the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, stated in the letter.

“Should the committee not do so, however, a subpoena purporting to require a witness to appear without such assistance would be invalid and not subject to civil or criminal enforcement.”

If character assignation is a high crime, I propose that Schiff and his "witnesses" are equally guilty. Impeach one, you would need to impeach all. Case in point, Schiff's made up content of the 25 July telecom. Keep in ,mind, the law states that character assignation is the 'exaggeration or manipulation of facts to present an untrue picture of the targeted person, double speak, spreading of rumors, innuendo or deliberate misinformation.' Should he be removed from his position? Having an opinion that a person is inept is not character assignation nor is calling a biased "trial a witch hunt." But, the manipulation of facts is character assignation.

.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Very well explained!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you. it is kind of you to respond!

PeterS

These are just the articles of impeachment, not the impeachment correct? And given the fact that the Senate won't find him guilty no matter what the charges are, do the articles really matter?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Not necessary when coming from the Executive Branch. All presidents invoke privilege at one time or another. There were no criminal acts proven. Just opinion. He will not be removed from office.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Nope. And they might not even impeach since it looks so paltry and weak. And now, we have them subpoenaing phone records of other members of congress and reporters; seeking out to match them up and leak them to the press.

PeterS

It was Barr who refused to appoint an independent counsel which forced the House to do what a Jaworski or Starr had done in the past--investigate the actions of the president. Thus for DoJ to say subpoenas are invalid would be the definition of obstruction of justice by DoJ. After all, it was the DoJ who forced the House to hold depositions and investigate potential wrongdoing by the President. So for DoJ to predicate what is legal and illegal when they are the ones who set up the House for the actions they are taking means that they are participating in covering up the president's behavior.

And as always, it was a pleasure taking apart your argument--or I should say, giving me the opportunity to show what the AG was really up to. Barr is proof that Trump is the most corrupt president that we ever had and I just want to thank you for demonstrating so clearly just how corrupt they are...

PeterS

If Nancy didn't have the v**e she wouldn't have brought up the articles for impeachment. Trump is going to be impeached. What won't happen is for the Senate to find him guilty--and you and I both know is that there is nothing Trump could do for that to ever happen...
As for 'matching the up and leaking them to the press' I have no clue what you are talking about...

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

bahmer

Wow he was scared to answer that question that's for sure.