Syrian Hmong

[*bfine32*]

(10-10-2019, 02:54 PM)Dill Wrote: Not about Trump's "testimony." He is refusing to honor subpoenas and forbidding all exec employees' testimony.  That is cut and dried.

Voting for impeachment has nothing to do with the process at the moment, or Trump's obstruction. 

And yes, that is trashing the Constitution. He used his official state power for private gain, and is now using it to deflect legitimate, constitutional oversight in the form of an investigation into his abuse of office.  

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/appeals-court-rules-house-trump-142133028.html

As I said maybe not cut and dry. In this instance the courts rule Trump must abide by a subpoena, but there was decent:

Quote:In a 2-1 ruling, the appeals court batted away Trump's legal claims.


"Contrary to the President's arguments, the Committee possesses authority under both the House Rules and the Constitution to issue the subpoena, and Mazars must comply," Judge David Tatel wrote, joined by Judge Patricia Millett. Tatel was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Millett is an appointee of President Barack Obama.

Trump appointee Neomi Rao wrote in dissent that the committee should have asked for the records under the House's impeachment power, not its legislative authority.

"The Constitution and our historical practice draw a consistent line between the legislative and judicial powers of Congress. The majority crosses this boundary for the first time by upholding this subpoena investigating the illegal conduct of the President under the legislative power," Rao wrote

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the ruling; as Federal Law is not my forte, but I will say how these opinions (and others) fell alone party lines such lead everyone to chuckle when they look at the blindfold on Lady Justice..