This is why the facts, no matter how you twist them, will not exonerate Trump

If Trump believes he is innocent and his GOP enablers believe this as well, then why not tell the president to let the witnesses testify and provide the necessary documents to Congress? He should have nothing to worry about. All the witnesses would prove his innocence and then Congress would stop the impeachment. As far as complaining about the rules the majority party has when it comes to matters like this, you can thank the republican party for that. They re-wrote them in 2015 in the pointless Benghazi trial where Hillary had the balls to show to answer questions for 11 hours. They made the rules, the majority party is just following their lead.

 

The courts clearly have a power to determine if the executive branch has the power to defy a congressional subpoena, they took up the issue in United States v. Nixon.

Congress issued subpoenas, Nixon refused, and they settled it in the courts. Sure, the courts ruled in Nixon's case he had to obey the subpoena and turn over documents, but they went to the courts.

Here, congress won't let Trump resolve it in the courts. If the courts demand Trump obeys the subpoena and he defies the courts, then it is clearly an impeachable offense, but democrats won't let the courts make a ruling before impeaching, because they know the courts will find that this is political and there is no legitimate legislative purpose.

 

An OP about "facts" that have zero facts. Oh the Irony!

Sure, sure impeachment is the power of the House and this particular House has just diminished the meaning of impeachment.

I would have to say Republicans first weakened the meaning of impeachment by using it on Bill Clinton for lying about a BJ. I guess it is the democrat's turn to further weaken impeachment by using it on Trump for completely fictitious reasons.

Pretty soon the rule of law will be a complete joke.

 

Now the real facts : Democrats have been trying to impeach 63 million Americans for 3 years now Trump is just in the way.

The Democrats are not after Trump but the ones who voted for him .

 

Spot on!

The Russians only wish they could hijack our elections half as much as the communists in congress.

 

Unless they reminisce as to the day the rule of law died in the US as the country approached the last stage of democracy.
https://www.al.com/opinion/2016/08/eight_stages_of_democracy.html

 

BOTTOM LINE: it sounds like you are already prepping for him being exonerated and are now going with the "he's guilty anyway" mentality. Let me know how that works out for you. If anything, this BS got him MORE support. I'd like to thank ALL democrats for this precious gift.

 

You appear to be very confused about what constitute facts. Opinions are not facts and that is all the democrats have presented as evidence.

 

Yes. Two esteemed attorneys who Nadler assigned the job of interrogating eachother after changing hats from witnesses affirmed that, based on their 10 years' experience, the way you determine whether suspects are guilty is if they purposely don't break the law. These clowns should be disbarred.

 

Simple. Trump didn't commit any crimes and their vote will confirm that.

 

The reason facts won't exonerate Trump is because this has never been about facts or Ukraine. This is about the 2016 election and expected loss in 2020. As the leader of the Democratic Party, Al Green said Impeachment is their 2020 campaign since they can't win at the ballot box. By 2024, there will be 7 conservative justices and 2 liberals on the court. That is at the core of the attack on the country.

The only fact we have to know is contained here:

 

Political court. You didn't know that?

 

When Trump refused to cooperate with the Impeachment. And, instead instructed his staff not to participate. Are you denying that that's a fact?

 

No! 1- Executive privilege does not exempt anybody from appearing to testify 2- Trump did not claim executive privilege. 3- In any case, executive privilege only applies to communication with the President while he's in office, and not to anything else.

Try again....

 

So you want MORE people to offer MORE hearsay and personal opinion..

 

And the court decides the dispute but the dem clown show is in such a hurry they are not even waiting until January for a case to be settled.

 

From where did you obtain this definition?

 

Yes. But I'm concerned that our country might still be in big trouble with the simple fact that Republicans exonerate Trump. Because ... who knows... 10, 20, 30 years from now, a new President, who may be even be a Democrat, decides to ignore all oversight and perpetuate themselves in power by cheating... and they can point to the Trump presidency and say "see? there is precedent. Trump did it, and he was acquitted".

Democrats did their part. They impeached! So nobody in the future can say "see? there is precedent. Trump did it, and he wasn't even impeached." But now it's up to Republicans what our country will become from this moment on. And they're not looking like they're assuming their responsibility too seriously. They have far more faith in the honesty of future Democratic Presidents than I do.

 

Yes, it does.

Two recent disputes between Congress and the executive branch relate directly to the application of executive privilege in the congressional oversight context. In 2007, an investigation into the removal of nine United States Attorneys drew formal claims of privilege by President George W. Bush. Those privilege claims were successfully challenged in a civil suit brought by the House Judiciary Committee, in which a federal district court held that senior presidential advisers do not enjoy absolute immunity from compelled testimony or production of documents pursuant to a congressional subpoena. In 2012, President Obama invoked executive privilege in response to a subpoena from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that sought information from the Attorney General relating to the Department of Justice’s response to the committee’s investigation into Operation Fast and Furious. Similar to the U.S. Attorneys controversy, a civil suit was filed to compel the executive branch to comply with the committee subpoena. That case is currently pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R42670.pdf

He is not required to claim this right; he already has this right.

I don't know why you are counting. Are you interested in enumerating the number of ways you can be wrong in a single post?

In 1962, the President directed the Secretary of Defense not to supply the names of individuals who wrote or edited speeches in response to a request by a Senate subcommittee investigating military Cold War education and speech review policies. The chairman of the subcommittee acquiesced to the assertion. The President also directed his military adviser, General Maxwell Taylor, to refuse to testify before a congressional committee examining the Bay of Pigs affair.

See Archibald Cox, Executive Privilege, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1383, 1395-1405 (1979). See generally Mark J. Rozell

 

Trials are not what make people criminals. Crimes are what make people criminal.

Yes. Trump is guilty!

Wrong.

But he does not enjoy presumption of innocence either.

 

Wrong! Impeachment is the legal response. Read the Constitution

 

He can pursue whatever the hell he wants. But the Constitution is clear as far as where the sole power of impeachment lies. Hint: i'ts not the courts.

 

And it was decided that it doesn't.

Nobody is asking Trump to obey... anything. He is being expected not to obstruct.

In any case... looks like it's clear to you that he did obstruct congress.

 

Try reading for a change.

Do you deny that Trump has obstructed Congress? Yes or no?

 

Hint: He still possesses the right to all legal means of defense. Golly you guys are desperate.