So, remember all those Republicans arguing that impeachment was premature because the Democrats should have waited for the Courts to rule?
And remember others of us arguing that Congress has sole power of impeachment and oversight, and that it wasn't a matter for Courts?
And remember others of us arguing that Congress has sole power of impeachment and oversight, and that it wasn't a matter for Courts?
Robert Ray, one of Trump's impeachment attorneys, argued that a subpoena isn't valid until a court says it is valid.
Robert Ray was wrong (duh)
This means the GOP Senators were wrong (duh).
Robert Ray was wrong (duh)
This means the GOP Senators were wrong (duh).
It means that they knew their arguments were baloney
(I revised out a different word that starts with "b")
Congress's subpoenas were valid.
Congressional Republicans shirked their duty (duh)
(I revised out a different word that starts with "b")
Congress's subpoenas were valid.
Congressional Republicans shirked their duty (duh)
NO this doesn't mean McGahn can defy subpoenas.
It means that the remedy for Trump's obstruction was impeachment.
GOP argued that the Democrats should have exhausted all means before beginning impeachment proceedings.
WRONG 🛎️🛎️🛎️
They were stalling and kicking up dust.
It means that the remedy for Trump's obstruction was impeachment.
GOP argued that the Democrats should have exhausted all means before beginning impeachment proceedings.
WRONG 🛎️🛎️🛎️
They were stalling and kicking up dust.
Congress has the sole power of impeachment.
If courts get to decide, Congress doesn't have the sole power, the court's do.
(I doubt this is taught in civics classes. It's actually constitutional law)
If courts get to decide, Congress doesn't have the sole power, the court's do.
(I doubt this is taught in civics classes. It's actually constitutional law)
Here's where the court explains that it has no jurisdiction (authority).
The court does not reach a decision on the underlying merits. The court doesn't say that the subpoena is invalid.
It says this is between the Executive and Legislative branches.
The court does not reach a decision on the underlying merits. The court doesn't say that the subpoena is invalid.
It says this is between the Executive and Legislative branches.
Precisely ⤵️
Members of the executive branch are refusing to comply with Congress's attempts to investigate whether impeachment and removal was warranted.
The Constitution offers a solution. Impeach and remove.
Members of the executive branch are refusing to comply with Congress's attempts to investigate whether impeachment and removal was warranted.
The Constitution offers a solution. Impeach and remove.
It comes down to this: The problem is only party a lawbreaking justice-obstructing president.
The bigger problem is that the Congressional Republicans are shielding a lawbreaking justice-obstructing president.
The bigger problem is that the Congressional Republicans are shielding a lawbreaking justice-obstructing president.
If this is true⤵️ it's because the Republicans in Congress are refusing to take action.
We really DON'T want the courts to set themselves up as the arbiter of all things.
Otherwise, pack the courts and you can do anything. No balance of power.
We really DON'T want the courts to set themselves up as the arbiter of all things.
Otherwise, pack the courts and you can do anything. No balance of power.
I've seen some very misleading headlines. To give headline writers a break, this is complicated stuff.
What makes it more complicated is that the GOP are deliberately muddying the waters, arguing in bad faith.
Remember Schiff talking about how the White House . . .
What makes it more complicated is that the GOP are deliberately muddying the waters, arguing in bad faith.
Remember Schiff talking about how the White House . . .
. . . was arguing in court that the courts didn't have authority to decide, and arguing in the impeachment trial that the courts did have authority.
If people are confused it's because a major political party wants everyone confused.
If people are confused it's because a major political party wants everyone confused.
Overbroad. It says if the Congress is shielding the president, it means the president can't be removed via the impeachment and removal provision.
I wrote quickly sorry.
The court listed a few ways Congress can exert power over the executive branch: The appropriations clause (cut off funding) censure, appointment power.
These are difficult, though, with a major party shielding the president. . .
The court listed a few ways Congress can exert power over the executive branch: The appropriations clause (cut off funding) censure, appointment power.
These are difficult, though, with a major party shielding the president. . .
