Yes, since the President ordered them not to appear, they cannot be charged criminally. That is in the constitution. They are protected from criminal charges for not appearing, even if what the president did was unconstitutional, illegal.
I don’t think they did. Even if they could, he could take the 5th. The subpoenas to members of the executive were orders to appear.
So, I guess you could say “‘executive privilege’ includes the legality of denying subpoenas from congress concerning impeachment."
No, that is not the truth. Trump does not have that executive privilege, but the legal consequence for him denying subpoenas is not the arresting the people he barred from appearing.OneSheep:
So, I guess you could say “‘executive privilege’ includes the legality of denying subpoenas from congress concerning impeachment."
Which still doesn’t put him in a subordinate position to Congress, which is what you asserted.
Could very well be true but Trump has demonstrated no US agreement is permanent or even trustworthy. That’s hardly what I would consider an accomplishment.
Of course no agreement is permanent, that’s always been the way.
When the president violates the constitution, Congress may impeach him. This makes his action and position “subordinate” to the will of congress in cases of impeachment. We can disagree on that use of the word “subordinate”.
I wish it would be enough. In Trump’s opinion he can do whatever he wants, and Congress has no power. The sad thing is that his supporters agree with this disastrous opinion.
www.latimes.com
Again, it’s hard to prove a negative. But I’m sure that won’t stop you from your repeated denials.
On July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Nixon was obligated to turn over the Nixon tapes that were subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee , so clearly the President does have to comply some times.
Nobody is asking you to prove a negative, but you have not produced, nor has the whole Dem party produced, any actual facts showing Trump did anything wrong as regards the Ukraine phone conversation which supposedly triggered this impeachment business. Lots of speculation, yes. But no facts.
No. In the Nixon case, the subpoena was not issued by the House Judiciary Committee, but by the U.S. District Court. Even then, there were some qualifiers to it.
They could impeach him for passing gas and fanning it in your direction. Impeachment has always boiled down to a popularity vote.
Maybe we disagree on what’s important and what’s trivial? I think acting the way Trump does on the world stage is a huge problem.
The farmers losing their farms or getting those socialistic farm subsidies probably don’t think things are going swimmingly.
I never said it was unconstitutional for the House to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Dems just haven’t.
You are certainly welcome to your theory or opinion and that is all it is. It is not7_Sorrows:
Zelensky is brand new to politics and needs to polish his image with his people of a strong leader. If he admitted to feeling pressured by the US to do their bidding, it would make him appear weak. Then there is this: Zelensky knows he needs aid from Trump to hold off the Russians who are currently attacking his nation. If he came out against Trump, he may worry about future interruptions in that aid which might spell disaster for Ukraine, and even more likely for himself politically. He is walking a tightrope on these questions put to him by reporters. Further, he is not testifying under oath and has no particular reason to tell all he knows. And if you look at the exact wording of his responses and their context, you will see that he is leaving himself some wiggle room on this “no pressure” response.
In summary, Zelensky’s answers are non-committal and cannot be taken as any kind of “proof” that a bribe was not offered by Trump.
How did President Trump violate the Constitution?Guinness:
When the president violates the constitution, Congress may impeach him. This makes his action and position “subordinate” to the will of congress in cases of impeachment. We can disagree on that use of the word “subordinate”.
Note: Ronald Reagan violated an act of congress concerning central Central America. He ended up having to answer for it, he could not simply do whatever he wanted. His undercutting of congress’ wishes was outed, reprimanded, and discontinued.
Bottom line: no one is above the law.
'nuff said?