Can someone tell me why President Trump should be thrown out of office

www.whitehouse.gov...

I. The Articles Fail Because They Do Not Identify Any Impeachable Offense.
A. House Democrats’ Theory of “Abuse of Power” Is Not an Impeachable
Offense.

B. House Democrats’ Theory of “Obstruction of Congress” Is Not an
Impeachable Offense.

..!. .!..

a reply to: shooterbrody

I don't think the majority of the American People would be upset if McConnell simply stands up and announces that there is no basis for impeachment and that what has been presented is illegal, unconstitutional, and nothing but 100% partisan political theater. Thus, the Articles are pronounced null and void....no impeachment...no trial. Have a good day. Dismissed.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump didn't assert executive privilege

prove it

Both President Trump and Attorney General Barr are now openly ordering federal employees to ignore congressional subpoenas and simply not show up — without any assertion of a valid legal privilege

www.nytimes.com...

Executive privilege isn't asserted by defying or ignoring subpoenas. It's exerted by answering with a refusal to comply due to executive privilege. Then a judge decides whether or not the material falls under exectutive privilege.

Please show me where the Trump administration did that?

The Trump administration's claim that White House aides don't have to comply with congressional subpoenas is “a fiction” that “simply has no basis in the law,” the judge ruled.

www.vanityfair.com...

With the Don McGahn subpoena, which was ignored, the House took McGahn and the Trump administration to court, where they first pleaded "absolute immunity".

Absolute immunity goes much further than executive privilege. The idea of executive privilege is that the executive branch should be able to withhold information on specific confidential communications. In practice, that means senior White House advisers could appear to testify, and could then hold back certain information they deem privileged.

In contrast, the claim of absolute immunity is that some senior White House staff who work directly with the president cannot be subjected to subpoena at all. If Congress calls, the answer is no. The subject of the subpoena doesn’t matter; that’s what puts the “absolute” in absolute immunity.

www.bloomberg.com...

It's one thing to assert executive privilege over certain information. It's quite another to order staffers to defy and ignore all subpoenas issued by The House.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC News asked Pelosi on Jan 12 2020:

"Why not wait for the courts to rule?" Stephanopoulos asked.

How long do the courts take?" Pelosi said. "We have confidence in our case."

Source

She admits that they refused to follow the court process based on mere assumptions.

The subpeonas were never officially enforced as of Jan 12, 2020. Trump wasn't obstructing, he was simply following the legal process set forth by the House Resolution in June 11 2019.

Why is this so difficult for the Dems to understand when they are the ones who created the process?

A subpeona can ONLY be enforced via the courts. All subpeonas until that time are simply House requests and NOT enforced.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Executive privilege isn't asserted by defying or ignoring subpoenas. It's exerted by answering with a refusal to comply due to executive privilege. Then a judge decides whether or not the material falls under exectutive privilege.

Please show me where the Trump administration did that?

It actually didn't matter because the House did not pursue the full course to force the subpoenas using the courts. Trump didn't need to claim executive privilege because it never reached that point to do so. The house could have filed a lawsuit in federal district court and then if the court sided with the House THEN the President could have claimed executive privilege which it would all go back to the court and maybe the Supreme Court for a ruling. It never reached a point of criminal contempt statute nor anything dealing with obstruction in an impeachment...

a reply to: Xtrozero

It amazes me that so many cannot comprehend that each subpeona is issued for a specific investigation. They are not blanket subpeonas for general broad issues that have a lifetime warranty.

Like a police search warrant, they have to be court enforced and have a specific purpose provided.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Trump made a blanket statement, and this is what the Democrats are arguing, that all House subpoenas should be defied, ignored. He didn't address any of them individually, or claim executive privilege per the subpoenas' requests. As Nadler complained, when they ignore a subpoena, there is no executive privilege question to ask the courts to address.

Early on, just after the Mueller report came out, The House subpoenaed Don McGahn regarding his testimony in the report. It was ignored, so the House took McGahn to court. Trump's White House counsel, for the first time argued that no one associated with the Trump administration is subject to House subpoenas because they all enjoy "absolute immunity".

Twice the courts ruled against that defense and ordered McGahn to comply. SCOTUS will hear the case and decide whether or not a president's administration can unilaterally, across the board, enjoy "absolute immunity".

There really is no need for the House to do this over and over, with each subpoena that Trump 's admin ignores.

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Sookiechacha

ABC News asked Pelosi on Jan 12 2020:

"Why not wait for the courts to rule?" Stephanopoulos asked.

How long do the courts take?" Pelosi said. "We have confidence in our case."

Source

She admits that they refused to follow the court process based on mere assumptions.

The subpeonas were never officially enforced as of Jan 12, 2020. Trump wasn't obstructing, he was simply following the legal process set forth by the House Resolution in June 11 2019.

Why is this so difficult for the Dems to understand when they are the ones who created the process?

A subpeona can ONLY be enforced via the courts. All subpeonas until that time are simply House requests and NOT enforced.

They have 2 court rulings on their side. There is no need to keep asking the court the same question over and over again.

The question is whether or not the President and his staff enjoy absolute immunity, and can ignore all House subpoenas. Not about the validity of each subpoena, but on the Houses constitutional right and duty to issue them to the Executive Branch in the first place.

How long do the courts take?" Pelosi said. "We have confidence in our case."

Pelosi has confidence because "absolute immunity" isn't a constitutional or otherwise legal thing, even without SCOTUS telling us so.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Trump made a blanket statement, and this is what the Democrats are arguing, that all House subpoenas should be defied, ignored. He didn't address any of them individually, or claim executive privilege per the subpoenas' requests. As Nadler complained, when they ignore a subpoena, there is no executive privilege question to ask the courts to address.

I guess you didn't read my post very closely. The House could have went to the courts and they never did. Trump can make all the blanket statements he wants, who cares... if someone ignores a subpoena then the House can force it by using the courts. The court option was never settled, so no obstruction...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Pelosi has confidence because "absolute immunity" isn't a constitutional or otherwise legal thing, even without SCOTUS telling us so.

They have inherent contempt power is to force action with fines of up to 25,000 per day or to physically detain individuals. They did neither which means Trump didn't need to do anything either, so they didn't see a need to fine someone, but hell lets impeach on the same thing. lol

a reply to: Xtrozero

The House could have went to the courts and they never did.

That's not true. They took Don McGahn and the Trump Administration to court over McGahn's subpoena. They won twice. Now, Trump is appealing those rulings to the Supreme Court, still arguing "absolute immunity".

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sookie, it may be the banality of our justice system here in America, but that is what makes America great. It may be tedious but it is necessary to ensure the rights of every American citizen, including our elected President.

Our system was established for a reason...justice for all. Yes, they do need to go through the tedious court processes, to ensure justice for all. it may be frustrating and time consuming, but it is the fairest justice system in this whole world.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

The House could have went to the courts and they never did.

That's not true. They took Don McGahn and the Trump Administration to court over McGahn's subpoena. They won twice. Now, Trump is appealing those rulings to the Supreme Court, still arguing "absolute immunity".

Exactly! That is the right of every citizen of America. It should never be circumvented! The appellate process ensures due process.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

That's not true. They took Don McGahn and the Trump Administration to court over McGahn's subpoena. They won twice. Now, Trump is appealing those rulings to the Supreme Court, still arguing "absolute immunity".

Ok...where is the obstruction then... In your own words here you just defended Trump in the SC hasn't ruled on it so it is still open...

a reply to: CynConcepts

Our system was established for a reason...justice for all. Yes, they do need to go through the tedious court processes, to ensure justice for all. it may be frustrating and time consuming, but it is the fairest justice system in this whole world.

Yeah, but they only need to do it once. Otherwise they're just wasting taxpayer money! The question is going through the courts. The House doesn't need to, and shouldn't keep asking the courts the same question over and over again, when an answer is eventually forthcoming, in the original Don McGahn court case.

I wish that they could've waited. I really do. But I also understand that this is an election year, and the president is being charged with illegally coercing a foreign government into helping him in this 2020 election. So yeah, timing is everything.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Ok...where is the obstruction then...

I think what's being argued is that there is no such thing as "absolute immunity", and that Congress doesn't need SCOTUS to tell them that. Trump does. Because Trump is using a made up, non existent legal status to defend the charge of obstruction of Congress for ordering his staff to ignore or defy House subpoenas.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump is being 'accused by a partisan group only' that he was coercing a foriegn government to effect this 2020 election.

Seriously, if both sides of the partisan aisle of Congress were on board, it would give me pause. Yet, I will never agree to changing judicial recourse like the Nazi's did during WW2!

Such deference of laws will ALWAYS be injustice when simple accusations force you to defend yourself!

Edit add: to get back to point of the OP: This is exactly why there is no legitimate reason to toss Trump out of office. Time and time again...he is following the absolute legal process provided in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Being such a paragon Stirling, high integrity model of consistency & correctness, you MUST have thrown some enormous & prolonged Schiff-fits over O'B's many examples of ignoring congress, corruptocrat doings, pay for play, Quid pro Joe, legal accusations etc.

Obviously.

Given your flawless consistency & integrity & all.

a reply to: CynConcepts

Trump is being 'accused by a partisan group only' that he was coercing a foriegn government to effect this 2020 election.

He was accused and outed by his own appointees and members of his own administration.

Seriously, if both sides of the partisan aisle of Congress were on board, it would give me pause.

It should give you pause to consider how many Republicans are willing to look the other way, lie to and sell out the American people out of fear of retribution from this president.

Such deference of laws will ALWAYS be injustice when simple accusations force you to defend yourself!

Trump is playing the defense cards he always plays. "I'm not the criminal, you're the criminal". "I didn't do it, and if I did do it, it wasn't wrong". "You're the one doing illegal stuff!"

This is exactly why there is no legitimate reason to toss Trump out of office.

Right, because Trump didn't do nothin wrong.

a reply to: musicismagic

If he isn't thrown out of office, he coukd end up being re-elected. If he's re-elected investigations could lead to indictments against Bidens, Clintons, Romneys, and Lord knows how many others...

Furthermore, we aren't as likely to expand protracted wars if Trump remains POTUS, and we might end up continuing to skew trade agreements further in our favor.

How long can we go on like this? How many more people need to die so that witnesses to the crimes of lifelong politicians from both parties don't come to light. That blood is on Donald Trump's tiny hands. Its not Hillary's fault when such people shoot themselves twice in the back of the head with a long rifle while their hands are tied behind their backs to precent themselves from possibly testifying against her.

If Trump remains in office, the status quo in DC might not continue. Heck, if he REALLY goes crazy in a second term, what if he puts limits back on campaign contributions so that corporations don't have greater "freedom of speech" than individuals. How are Bidens and Romneys supposed to effectively launder money through Ukraine with hin in the White House?