The Defense Rests: GOP Leaders Reportedly Considering Not Calling a Single Witness

When do you expect Barr to announce an investigation against Horowitz given that he reached a conclusion that the investigation was justified and legal, that Trump was not spied upon, and that there was no political bias which unduly influenced the investigation?

 

No I'm afraid not.

Congress has a remedy to oversight of an equal branch of government/executive privilege, and that is the courts.

Did Congress go through the courts or would that just take too long in their quest for impeachment?

This is basic civics for God's sake.

 

Of course not.

What power do you think he abused, out of curiosity.

 

That would have been the smart thing to do here. If nothing else this whole escapade shows Trump to be a hamfisting buffoon. I've stated before if Trump had been cooperating w/ the investigation then I'd be strongly opposed to Impeachment- a house sanction would be enough.

 

Against Horowitz? For what? For giving Barr a report that he requested and that will be used to criminally indict members of the Obama Administration and his FBI?

Barr specifically stated Trump and his campaign and Administration were spied on. IG report states it as well as it outlines all the errors, omissions and activity (like doctored emails) that were used to spy on Trump's campaign and members of the campaign.

 

Congress is not finished with the process. The court will be directly involved in the second part, with Chief Justice Roberts in attendance for the proceedings. He will be able to immediately rule on all subpoenas and procedures.

 

Oh I see, they'll go ahead and impeach first and later follow the Constitutional process.

 

"Even if Trump had explicit and undeniable proof that Hunter Biden was guilty of a felony, then the proper course of action is still to relay that information to a domestic investigative agency and let them start an investigation and to let them make the request of a foreign government if they decide that such a request is necessary."

A distinction without a difference.

Trump is the top law enforcement officer. It's not valid to argue that Trump can direct a subordinate to investigate a US person's foreign activities, which by necessity would involve the assistance of another country, yet he cannot request that assistance himself.

There's no effective difference and so, it would not forstall the Democrats' false charges.

 

I also imagine the SCOTUS will take up the McGahn appeal and rule once and for all Congressional subpoena's cannot be ignored and you must show. What you do then can still be debated (Exec Priv to individual questions and documents, 5th amendment etc), but you have to appear..

 

There is literally nothing the senate can do, that can impede an impeachment besides blow up the building before the impeachment report and articles get sent to the Senate. Once the articles arrive on the senate side, the President is formally impeached.

 

I would disagree with your statement in bold all day long... He HIRES the top law enforcement officer (subject to approval), but the President is not that...

 

I disagree, a degree of separation and overall cooperation would make all the difference for reasonable people.

 

Except the part where the Executive branch isn't required to cooperate with Congress as a separate and equal branch of government.....until the courts rule otherwise.

Ask the administration that ran the Fast and Furious gun walking scandal.

 

Yes they've been very reasonable doctoring FISA warrants and trying to impeach Trump from the day he was sworn in.

 

Your replaced a very important phrase with a very different one. rahl used the phrase 'relay the information'( I would use the verb phrase ' to refer the complaint' but you turned it into 'direct a subordinate' There is a monumental difference between referring a complaint to a domestic agency who's job it is to make a decision about whether it credibly warrants an investigation, and actually making that decision in the White House and ordering one in a situation where there is conflict of interest.

I think you can understand when your boss is asking you to make a decision and when your boss is telling you what that decision ought to be and to get moving!. Trump did far more than either of those when he decided to suggest to a foreign power what its decision HAD BETTER BE, if it wanted a meeting with him, and the release of those funds.

That is an impeachable offense, and it becomes an absolute duty to impeach when the abuse of office involves undermining a future election with his own job on the line!

They would not have to take this vote, if he abused the powers of his office to make money or get his son -in law out of trouble with the IRS. But he is still trying to get foreign powers involved in his election, and Rudy is literally still over there now.

 

No they are not. But if they don't they can be impeached. And here we are.

 

And when the Senate disposes of this garbage, he will be formally acquitted.

 

Still impeached.

 

By biased actors who talked about it from Day 1. By the time Durham has finished the entire 'resistance' movement will be discredited.

All you're doing is firing up Trump's base, who don't take kindly to being disenfranchised.

 

Exactly.

This argument is ridiculous, since the authority and power of the subordinate extends FROM the POTUS.

 

No, they cannot. Exercising of executive privilege in and of itself cannot, and has never been, obstruction.

Only the 3rd branch of government can make that determination.

 

If you want to talk about that do so, but don't quote me on it. Nothing I said has anything to do with what you said. Unless you think reasonable people doctor documents?

 

Roughly 30% of the population will always want to impeach the President at some point in their tenure. Democrats gained the ability to launch impeachment in 2018 with a record setting margin of victory specifically because voters wanted to hold trump accountable. And yet, as recently as mid-September, almost no one believed that Trump would be impeached.

And then, Trump ****ed up. So now it is a virtual (90% or higher probability) certainty that he will be impeached in his first term. He will be the first President in US history to reach that "achievement."

Enjoy.

 

Since it seems the house is impeaching and one of the articles is obstruction it does look like Presidents will be uncooperative at the risk of impeachment.

 

Yes, I am totally sure that the NEXT investigation will make all your dreams come true.