Giggles. The house had the ability to compel any witness that could be compelled under the law. They failed to do so despite having every avenue to do so available. Incompetent retards
Right. But since the Constitution, you know that old yellow paper thingie that Bonespurs took a ****ing oath to comply with, grants the House the "sole power" to impeach, it means that its demands for witnesses and documentary evidence is the law; the House isn't obligated to sprint off to court when a lawless prick refuses to honor that power. That, per se, is obstruction of Congress. He's the ONLY president to pull that stunt, and it's illegal. Point to your "source" for the nonsensical and fairytale argument that you keep making. PS--the only "incompetent retard" is orange and is sitting on his brains in the WH.
Didn't Trump intimidate certain witnesses? Even with Bolton he tried to say it was a matter of national security that he not testify.
Not sure how to answer. Its been fair, its not been impartial. Im very happy to see jury nullification alive and well even in the most publicized event in the judiciary (even if it may not technically the judiciary). No code of laws is perfect, which is why at the end of the day its left to reasonable Americans to decide. Reason (and thus, imo, fairness) prevailed. I don't think there was anything impartial about it though.
Nothing he was never called and I never heard Schiff trying to call him. In the Clinton trial they had video taped depositions of 3 witnesses (against the wishes of the Democrats and Clinton's lawyers), in the Trump trial they had 13.
It's not for the Senate to fix the impeachment case the Democrats brought it is for them to judge it based on the evidence on which he was impeached.
Yes it is their job to put together the case for impeachment and impeach if it so warrants. If you want to claim they didn't have enough evidence to do so go ahead.
It's not the job of the jury to put the prosecutions case together. The House had the ability and the power to subpoena anyone they wanted.
Mostly because the House never really made more than a half-assed attempt to get him to testify. And also because Trump fired him(rightfully so, because he's a psycho warhawk, and the leftists used to despise him for his psycho warhawkedness up until very recently when they suddenly developed a deep and heartfelt love for him for some strange reason), and Bolton would've told a bunch of lies in order to A) Get revenge on Trump for firing him, and for public humiliating him(he deserved every bit of it), and B) To sell more copies of his soon-to-be-released book. Team Trump had no interest in hearing the testimony of a scorned and bitter man. Would you call on a person who had a grudge against you, and a book to sell, to give testimony against you?
The separation of powers is why the impeachment went as it did. The House Democrats called 18 witnesses, and their testimony was accepted into the trial record. If their case was sound as they claim, why did they need more witnesses, and why didn't they call them during the impeachment investigation? Pelosi played a game she knew she would lose. She lost. Get over it Move on.
Congress has a very limited ability to respond to a claim of executive privilege in response to a subpoena; its most effective course of action is to take the claim of EP to court. The house chose to do not this. There's nothing obstructive, or illegal, about an assertion of executive privilege - an assertion Presidents have made since George Washington - especially when said assertion is not overruled by the court.
First, he claimed absolute immunity, which doesn’t even exist. Second, you don’t assert executive privilege by ordering witnesses to refuse to show up. Not everything under the sun is covered by privilege. This issue has been addressed dozens of times here, so it’s puzzling that this bogus claim is still being made.
Whatever term he used, and in whatever manner it is delivered, it is a claim of executive privilege. As the entirety of the executive branch falls under the executive, and thus, his privilege, you certainly can. True - -and since the Democrats chose to not take the issue to court, we'll never know if the court would overrule his claim of EP. Until such a decision by the court, the claim of EP legally stands. Because people such as yourself choose to be wrong.
1. "Absolute immunity" is not the "same" as "executive privilege". If you don't understand what "absolute" or "immunity" means, you should look the words up in your dictionary. 2. "Absolute immunity" does not exist. Would you like to read a court decision addressing this phantom argument? You should. It would be enlightening for you. 3. "Executive privilege" does not exist in the form that Bonespurs claimed that it does. It is not a carte blanche objection for all documents requested and all witnesses from whom testimony is sought. The way it is addressed--in the real world, and not in the fantasyland that trumpers live in--is on a question by question basis. That is to state that you ****ing appear and object to certain questions, not refuse to appear altogether. Would you like to read the McGahn case which addresses the bogus Bonespurs' assertion in this respect? 4. The House was not obligated to bring the matter to court. It has the "sole power" to impeach, and is not obligated to do that in response to illegal objections which have zero support in the law. When a "presuhdint" does such things, he is per se guilty of obstruction of Congress. That's how it works when you apply the law, and not the pretend law used by Bonespurs. 5. Uh, no. And illegal assertion of EP and absolute immunity doesn't magically render it "legal" if you don't go to court when you don't have to. That's simply more circular arguments from someone who has no idea about the law. Congrats. 6. I'm dead on right, and you have no idea what you're rambling on about. Please do some research, my friend.
The effect of both claims is the same - a claim of executive privilege. If the Democrats had taken Trump's claim of executive privilege to court, and the court agreed with you, you'd have a point. They didn't, and as such, your opinion means nothing. They are if the want to get past Trump's claim of executive privilege, as they have no other recourse to enforce their subpoenas. And, of course, the power of Congress to issue subpoenas - and the power of the President to claim EP - has nothing to do with, and is not affected by, the power to impeach - thus, your continued reference to the House's sole power to impeach has no meaning. -The court did not rule the subpoenas to be legal - The court did not rule the President's claim of EP invalid - Trump did not refuse to answer a subpoena after a court compelled him to do so Thus, the house impeached Trump for the legal exercise of executive privilege. You cannot provide one iota of fact that demonstrates your claims to be true.
I've been practicing law for over 30 years. You? Not so much. But you did watch Faux Snooze last night. My claims are all correct. Please do some research and come back when you're feeling chastened.
Given your failure to understand even the most basic tenets of congressional subpoenas and executive privilege, demonstrated, in wholesale, above, no one has any reason to believe this. You cannot provide one iota of fact that demonstrates your claims to be true.
*LOL* I've already proven them. Why? Because I am reciting existing law to you. You? You're repeating the baseless claims made in Dotard's whacko fantasyland. Would you enjoy reading some recent court decisions on point?
You cannot provide one iota of fact that demonstrates your claims to be true. Hint : This is your opportunity to cite an iota of fact that demonstrates your claims to be true. But you won't. Because you can't.
I already have, my uninformed comrade. Would you enjoy reading a federal court decision which mocks the arguments you and your orange hero have made?