I agree, and I can’t understand it. It’s cliche to talk about “drinking lib tears”, but that does seem to be a big part of it for the rabid wing of the faithful.
I disrespected Bill Clinton, for well-documented reasons, and I never voted for him. I agreed with some of Bush’s policies, opposed others, but I didn’t disrespect him. Obama, as a man, I respect greatly. He’s a high achiever who could have written his own ticket on Wall St, and chose a path of public service. He has, by all accounts, a still-thriving marriage and children to be proud of (and no, I’m not implicating Tiffany or Barron in this comparison). He’s clearly a man with a faith that informs his actions. I didn’t like all his policies, but he’s a stand-up guy.
Love his policies or hate them: Trump is, by any measure, a dirtbag. Somehow, for many of his supporters, that’s a feature not a bug.
Trump is asking the Courts to decide whether a subpoena is valid or not? I thought he was obstructing Congress and they were going to add that to his impeachment. You mean going through the Constitutional and historic judicial review process is impeachable?
Of course he’s within his rights to challenge a subpeona. I’d wager he’s far more concerned about hiding his shady business dealings than protecting the institution of the Presidency, but… sure.
If the only metric to be applied to all of these conflicts surrounding Trump is “What’s legal, and what isn’t?” - can you cite the specific laws or Congressional rules that the Democrats are breaking in this “impeachment hoax”?
That is not the standard that Congress is using against Trump, so it makes no sense that should be the standard used against Congress.
But if “obstruction” is defined by Congress as using your Constitutional rights, don’t you think we have a problem with Congress?
“That is not the standard that Congress is using against Trump, so it makes no sense that should be the standard used against Congress.”
I agree, the standard being used against Trump is a political one (as defined by the Constitution), not a legal one. But I’ve heard no Republican, here or elsewhere, point out specifically how that standard is being applied in contravention of the Constitution OR the law.
“But if “obstruction” is defined by Congress as using your Constitutional rights, don’t you think we have a problem with Congress?”
IMHO, taking legal steps to quash a subpoena you consider unjust (or even one you just don’t like) is not obstruction. Declaring that you will provide no documents, period, subpoena or no, now or in the future? Declaring that no witness will cooperate with a lawful Congressional inquiry (again, you haven’t provided a shred of evidence that it isn’t)? Yeahh… that’s kinda obstruction.
Obama invoked privilege in one instance. We could argue that instance on the merits. Trump is making a blanket claim that privilege applies to every document, every staff member, non-staff members and interactions before he was President or even a candidate.
The notion that Obama’s claim is comparable to Trump’s does not hold up.
For a call of this magnitude Associate Justice Ginsberg will refer the request to the 9 SCOTUS Justices to make the call. She won’t do this one by herself.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
Congress is empowered to decide if #2 constitutes abuse-of-power and obstruction as it pertains the impeachment only. Whether such orders constitute a criminal offense is a different issue and can still separately be determined by the courts.
.
.
.
.WW, PHS
