I said no such thingNo you already said anything not identical to impeachment (Obama) is off topic
ELet’s try to follow forum rules
Can you find a Consotutional lawyer who writes this kind of stuff. If so, please provide a link.False. Lots Constitutional scholars who disagree with this notion you are trying to put forward. The Constitution is clear treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors - which amount to those crimes similar of treason, bribery.
The founders talked clearly about abuse of the public trust and of the office. It is just the sort of miscondict that Trump involved himself in that they feared.It doesn’t say no crimes are impeachable or one can be impeached on subjective intent
Illuminate it.Do they? Or do they attempt to manipulate it?
You could if you had a clientele that wanted that - Otherwise you are not long for the business.You can structure a poll to get it to say just about anything you want it to.
What I posted, in fact, was the House brief on impeachment that fully answers the questions that you specifically asked. It is appropriate@dvdjs has taken many opportunities to provide a distortion of the truth to me. I simply do not agree with the leftist version of distorted “truth”.
You might like to read the House report. Or the repose to Trump’s lawyers brief. Trump’s in effect took actions to put himself and his administration fully outside of the reach of Congress. It want’s a matter of contesting a subpoena or claiming privilege here or there. These arguments are smoke.Subpoenas get challenge daily for many different reasons in courts.
Start with Dershowitz.Can you find a Consotutional lawyer who writes this kind of stuff. If so, please provide a link.
Yes in reference to treason, bribery, and like high crimes and misdemeanors. They were very specific. They didn’t say no crimes are impeachable.The founders talked clearly about abuse of the public trust and of the office. It is just the sort of miscondict that Trump involved himself in that they feared.
You might want to read what they said yourself. The arguments on the subpoenas are exactly because they were illegitimate and not issued during formal proceedings as well as the right to EP and privileged confidential information.You might like to read the House report. Or the repose to Trump’s lawyers brief. Trump’s in effect took actions to put himself and his administration fully outside of the reach of Congress. It want’s a matter of contesting a subpoena or claiming privilege here or there. These arguments are smoke.
He is known as a defense lawyer. Has he taught Constitutional law at Harvard?Start with Dershowitz.
The defense lawyers made some arguments that were soundly rebutted as specious by the house managers. That rebuttal is linked in the thread.The arguments on the subpoenas are exactly because they were illegitimate
Dershowitz is a constitutional law scholar. That’s not something just any defense lawyer is, you understand that don’t you?He is known as a defense lawyer. Has he taught Constitutional law at Harvard?
I realize that he has made a defense lawyer’s argument about the issues of “high crime and misdemeanor”, but that is what defense lawyers do. In particular, if you cannot argue the facts, argue the law. So let’s start with someone who is not a defense lawyer on the case, but a real Constitutional law expert, then please provide a link to the argument so that its cogency can be assessed.
The law as well what the high court has said is clear on subpoenas, and obstruction of justice in regard to actual legitimate subpoenas.The defense lawyers made some arguments that were soundly rebutted as specious by the house managers. That rebuttal is linked in the thread.
I read it , I don’t think you didNadler wrote Trump a letter.
Completely incoherent.The Subpoena of documents first.Trump simply refused.
New evidentiary standard!!more overwhelming.