By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Imagine withholding all the evidence and then saying prove it. 

2). That's a minor technicality and using it as your entire defense is foolish.

3). You don't need to take it to court.  Congress has the sole power of impeachment and in the US vs Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege does not have priority over an impeachment proceeding.

1. In a fair investigation or trial lets say someone allegedly assaulted someone but if the person that was allegedly assaulted says that they were not you have no case. You're innocent til proven guilty and if the Ukraine government is saying they had no idea aid was witholded you can't prove a quid pro quo.

2. Thats proper procedure and them not doing it comes across as rushed.

3. Oh okay if that's the case then I do see the case for impeachment under obstruction of justice.

1). That doesn't absolve someone of the crime though.  And why hold back thousands of documents and prevent the entire executive branch from testifying if you aren't guilty?

2). I'll have to look further into what they should have done.

3). And just for the record, the House did ask the courts about the subpoenas.  They said it's not our jurisdiction.

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."