Articles of impeachment against Trump should be many

[Gooseberrymesa]

One article that should not be in dispute is the obstruction articles. No President has the authority to tell ANYONE to defy a subpoena issued by Congress. Executive privilege does NOT allow justification for doing so, regardless OF WHAT President Trump promulgates.

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

After the long and thorough, and, of course, incredibly expensive Mueller investigation, Democrats were left distraught over a lack of any crime to justify going forward with impeachment. In the wake of the Mueller report, they’ve since promised new investigations in the hopes of finding some cri...

pjmedia.com

 

[Dayton3]

Everything from Abuse of power to undermining this country's military discipline.....and many more in between.
Give the GOP Senate and the voters a barrage of reasons why Trump should be removed from office ASAP!

Thoughts?

None that you wouldn't find insulting.

 

[Devil505]

None that you wouldn't find insulting.

Oh.....go for it.

 

[Dayton3]

Why would "undermining military discipline" be remotely an impeachable offense? The president is the commander in chief. The military is largely his to do with as he sees fit unless overruled by congress.

 

[Leaf Aricsun]

Impeachment? What impeachment?

 

[Singularity]

One article that should not be in dispute is the obstruction articles. No President has the authority to tell ANYONE to defy a subpoena issued by Congress. Executive privilege does NOT allow justification for doing so, regardless OF WHAT President Trump promulgates.

Yeah that's really well outside the constitutional order. Witnesses should be required to show up and assert privilege in response to each question asked, if they so desire.

Can currently serving executive branch officials be ordered to do that, assert privilege? Grayer area, I think. They still have to show up, even while that is resolved.

Simply not showing up is obviously illegal, and orders to that effect are plainly unconstitutional. The president doesn't tell Congress what its business is.

 

[Ian Jeffrey]

Witnesses should be required to show up and assert privilege in response to each question asked, if they so desire.

Correct. That is how privilege works. "Executive privilege" is not a blanket justification for withholding any unfavorable information.

Can currently serving executive branch officials be ordered to do that, assert privilege?

I would think so, since the privilege is the president's to assert, whether he shows up in person. That said, the witness could probably refuse without legal repercussion.

The president doesn't tell Congress what its business is.

An assertion routinely denied by Trump supporters.