Good point. The person that you are responding to does not seem to be aware of certain accepted details.
That is not obstruction. It is what presidents have done before him for eons. He made a claim for executive privilege. It is now up to the courts to determine how valid those executive privilege claims are and to what extent they shall be applied. The House is abusing its powers by ignoring our legal system and trying to bully its will on the executive branch of government. This is a clear example of abuse of power.
Seems to be the current methodology of argument... If one thing is in dispute, everything that person did the entire day is now in dispute... That's not the way it works...
I think that Trump's current "defense" narrative is a combination the Fantasies of RW Conspiracy Blogs coupled with Outright Denial of Accepted Facts.
You obviously have not read the phone call transcript.... The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has.... https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-conte...hSRY8q_jYWM8QnMoiHmmzGMCJSuEk2VcHUCG1rx8FiApY
Top Ukrainian official: Sondland did not link aid to investigation of Bidens... https://thehill.com/policy/internat...icial-sondland-did-not-explicitly-link-aid-to
It doesn't work that way. If you tell the absolute truth, if someone recalls something different than you then these vultures will add another count to their fake impeachment list.
Yes, it does work that way. BTW, Sondland "amended" his testimony after others testified. What does that tell you?
There were witnesses who testified that said there was no pressure, demand, QPQ or bribe. How come you don't care about those witnesses?
There's no such thing as a blanket "executive privilege". You know how you address those claims? You assert them through counsel after you comply with the subpoena to appear. You'd know these very basic truths if you had bothered to inform yourself before posting. The House has the Constitutional right and obligation to use subpoenas to get witnesses to appear. Why is that so puzzling to you?
It's all hogwash anyway.. the Senate aka the better house of Congress has the final say. And they will actually be fair about it. When is Schiff going to jail for abuse of power in illegally obtaining phone records of his fellow congressmen? Schiff is a proven scumbag. Not gonna say what that says about people who approve of him, that should be apparent.
Why do I have to do the work for you? If you would stop listening to the fake news CNN and MSNBC, then you might learn something. Morrison, Volker undercut claims of 'quid pro quo,' 'bribery' and 'cover-up' in pivotal day of testimony https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex...tify-in-second-round-of-impeachment-testimony
I said this... You responded with this... I proved you wrong by posting this... And then you respond with this weak comment. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong?
Let's see, which of the following 2 things in bold put that in distinct doubt?? "Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and did not tell me exactly, about the relation between the [military] assistance and the investigations," Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told reporters, according to Interfax-Ukraine.
We shall see. DT has stated he would like them to testify during the Senate process. The House seems like they've badly bungled the whole process on their side, it should be a bi-partisan effort for what should be very serious proceedings. They seem intent on presenting a scenario instead of seeking truth wherever it may lead and working with those with whom they may not agree.
