US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
If this impeachment actually stands, it would more or less cripple the Presidency

Wtf I love impeachment now.

Seriously though, the big irony of this whole farce is the Democratic congress waking up after 8 years and pretending to be upset about the “unchecked power of the executive”.

Then quit voting to give the executive more power, assholes.
 
Technically its even worse for the dems argument. Its not that Ukraine President didn't do what Trump asked him to, its that he didn't have to.

What the media have been desperately been trying to ignore is the fact that Ukraine had already reopened an investigation into Burisma about 4 months before Trumps phone call. So there was no intimidation or extortion because the Ukrainians were doing what Trump wanted of there own accord before he even asked.

I had either forgotten that was a thing or never saw that. In case anyone else is interested below is an article supporting it.

Document reveals Ukraine had already reopened probe of Hunter Biden-linked firm months before Trump phone call

Fox News Article (Archive)

A newly unearthed document shows that Ukrainian officials had opened a new probe into the firm linked to Hunter Biden months before President Trump's phone call with that country's leader, Fox News contributor John Solomon reported late Tuesday.

Solomon said Tuesday on "Hannity" that the U.S. government knew Ukraine was planning to look again into activities at Burisma Holdings, an energy company that employed then-Vice President Joe Biden's son as a member of its board of directors, early this year. The report is noteworthy because President Trump has been accused by Democrats of threatening in July to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine unless its new president pursued an investigation into the company and the younger Biden's role there.

"The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation," he claimed. "This is long before the president ever imagined having a call with President Zelensky," he added, noting Petro Poroshenko was still Ukraine's president at that time.

"This is a significant shift in the factual timeline."

Solomon said the information he obtained, including documents shown on "Hannity" Tuesday, was omitted from a U.S. intelligence community whistleblower's complaint lodged against Trump last month.

Solomon said that NABU -- an FBI-like anti-corruption agency in Ukraine -- requested the probe into Burisma and owner Mykola Zlochevsky be reopened earlier this year. The investigation then went forward, Solomon said. The new probe later resulted in a "Notice of Suspicion" being filed, alleging the existence of "illicit funds" running through the firm, Solomon also claimed.

Since the initial story broke, presidential candidate Joe Biden has sought to play down allegations made by Trump against his 49-year-old son's role with Burisma.

The Democrat also faced criticism from Trump and his allies after a video resurfaced showing the ex-vice president appearing to brag about pressuring to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. That prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, also had been looking into Burisma.

On "Hannity," Solomon said his reporting revealed the requested reopening of the probe into Burisma involved, in part, "unusual transactions" in the natural gas giant's accounts.

Solomon said the timeline of the alleged "illicit funds" coincided in part with the time Hunter Biden held a place on the firm's board. The younger Biden was reportedly paid as much as $1 million per year for his time on the board, but Solomon said investigators in Ukraine filed a 15-page "notice of suspicion" indicating they were "looking at the possibility that the $3.4 million paid to Hunter Biden's firm may have been part of the illicit funds that were moving through the company."

"A month later, in April, the prosecutor's office -- open-source intelligence, again -- the U.S. government officials confirming they were aware of this -- made a request of another investigative agency in Ukraine for assistance in going through these bank records," Solomon claimed.

"That is a significant change in the timeline -- it was omitted from the whistleblower's complaint, and the question is did he not know it or did he exclude it because it didn't fit the narrative he was trying to write," he continued.

"That's a question for Congress to answer."
 
Wtf I love impeachment now.

Seriously though, the big irony of this whole farce is the Democratic congress waking up after 8 years and pretending to be upset about the “unchecked power of the executive”.

Then quit voting to give the executive more power, assholes.
Republicans were never supposed to get the executive back. Just like they aren't supposed to have the judicial or legislative.
 
Sen. Graham and Cruz sent a question to the house managers :

basically it was "if mitt romney's son was taking money from a corrupt company would president obama be impeached if he asked for an investigation"

Adam Schiff took up the question and he filibustered about withholding aid from allies to benefite adversaries. i think at the end he said, I'ts wrong for presidents to ask for a political investigation from the DOJ.

It's annoying that senators can't call foul when the house manageers dodge questions.

e: it funny to hear that cruz and graham threw in mitt romney's name in, esp since there's rumors that romney's kids are doing shit in ukraine too.
 
Last edited:
Sen. Graham and Cruz sent a question to the house managers :

basically it was "if mitt romney's son was taking money from a corrupt company would president obama be impeached if he asked for an investigation"

Adam Schiff took up the question and he filibustered about withholding aid from allies to benefite adversaries. i think at the end he said, I'ts wrong for presidents to ask for a political investigation from the DOJ.

It's annoying that senators can't call foul when the house manageers dodge questions.

e: it funny to hear that cruz and graham threw in mitt romney's name in, esp since there's rumors that romney's kids are doing shit in ukraine too.
Isn't Romneys son actualy taking money from a corrupt company, in Ukraine? Was this a hyperthetical question or was it a shot across the bow to try and keep Romney in line over voting for witnesses?
 
If this impeachment actually stands, it would more or less cripple the Presidency as any President could just be impeached at will because the opposition really, really hated him and had a temporary majority in the House. That's where it's really at.
The Democrats and their base have made it perfectly clear that this was their goal the minute Trump was elected, removal at all costs.
My guess it the DNC higherups think they can manipulate it so it doesn't work that way anymore once they get their people in charge. Rules for thee not for me kind of horseshit. But it's politics so it isn't very surprising.
 
Isn't Romneys son actualy taking money from a corrupt company, in Ukraine? Was this a hyperthetical question or was it a shot across the bow to try and keep Romney in line over voting for witnesses?

Listening to the VERDICT WITH TED CRUZ,

i think it's a shot across the bow. given what we know, it's too much of a coincidence.
 
Sen. Graham and Cruz sent a question to the house managers :

basically it was "if mitt romney's son was taking money from a corrupt company would president obama be impeached if he asked for an investigation"

Adam Schiff took up the question and he filibustered about withholding aid from allies to benefite adversaries. i think at the end he said, I'ts wrong for presidents to ask for a political investigation from the DOJ.

It's annoying that senators can't call foul when the house manageers dodge questions.

e: it funny to hear that cruz and graham threw in mitt romney's name in, esp since there's rumors that romney's kids are doing shit in ukraine too.

Oh that is nasty! Zodiac Killer and NoFucks Lindsey just gave a really clear threat to Romney. "You don't want witnesses, because you don't want us digging into WHO is doing business in Ukraine now do you? Shut this fiasco down now!"
 
My understanding is that he basically wrote in his upcoming book "I know that Donald J Trump committed impeachable crimes and expressly wanted quid pro quo from Ukraine" and the Democrats have apparently never once heard of something lying about something contained in a book in order to sell more copies.

Bolton now has (basically) every media site and TV channel in known existence shilling and talking about his soon-to-be-released book nearly 24/7 for several days now.
So these retards are pulling the Comey trick, a second time? And look how that turned out. Drumpft is in jail for colluding with Russia after the Muller investigation. I also find it funny that Democrats are literally siding with neocons and CIAniggers over the common man (yet they aren’t voting for their common interests despite the Dems not even representing that) , just like they tend to do on every issue tbh
 
So these exceptional individuals are pulling the Comey trick, a second time? And look how that turned out. Drumpft is in jail for colluding with Russia after the Muller investigation. I also find it funny that Democrats are literally siding with neocons and CIAniggers over the common man (yet they aren’t voting for their common interests despite the Dems not even representing that) , just like they tend to do on every issue tbh

This has to be at least the 4th time (I also recall Omarosa had a book full of "This is how crazy Trump is inside the White House" stories) - it seems like a super lucrative move to work for Trump for a little bit and then release a "tell all" book - none of them previously had anything substantial in it but maybe the 5th time is the charm.
 
John "BUY MY BOOOOK" Bolton is a sham. The whole thing is a complete sham and the Democrats don't see how double sided their sword is. When it hits trump he's a tower shield and it'll just bounce back into their shoulder.

They're trying hard with the "b-but HE LYING ORANGE MAN NO TELL TROOF!!!!!" And their anger is showing that its not working especially C-Span on site journalist.
 
Sen. Graham and Cruz sent a question to the house managers :

basically it was "if mitt romney's son was taking money from a corrupt company would president obama be impeached if he asked for an investigation"

Adam Schiff took up the question and he filibustered about withholding aid from allies to benefite adversaries. i think at the end he said, I'ts wrong for presidents to ask for a political investigation from the DOJ.

It's annoying that senators can't call foul when the house manageers dodge questions.

e: it funny to hear that cruz and graham threw in mitt romney's name in, esp since there's rumors that romney's kids are doing shit in ukraine too.
And really, all that Schiff's response came down to was that it should be impeachable to investigate criminal wrong-doing of a political candidate since at least one motivation COULD be to improve one's own election chances. Somehow, I suspect he only means Democrat candidates. What a chillingly elitist attitude.

I think I'm going to have to suddenly become religious if on Friday, before any Manager said anything about wtinesses, that Roberts addessed them all like this (especially after Schiff has spent the last several days blowing smoke up his ass saying to trust Roberts' judgement regarding witnesses):

"Senators, House Maanagers, Presidential Managers. It is clear there are a couple of issues that need further exploration. One, the Whistleblower who began this all. We don't know what the originator of the allegation knows, and a thorough exploration should be made regarding this. As well, if there is ANY legal motivation the PResident may have had, an impeachment conviction seems counter to the laws and Constitution of our land. It would behoove the Senate to have both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden called in as witnesses, to ascertain whether the President had a legitimate reason to believe corruption occurred. Therefore, without objection, I suggest a vote to call those three witnesses, after which time the Senate may decide to vote further if they would like more witnesses."

Optimistic as fuck, but the Trump curse is often surprising.

I do like how the WH counsel have referred to Lincoln pulling soldiers from Civil War duty to return home so they could vote for him and get him re-elected... in the middle of a war... and how that was and is perfectly fine. It makes all the UNPRECEDENTED! and THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC! shit from the House Managers look like complete nonsense.
 
And really, all that Schiff's response came down to was that it should be impeachable to investigate criminal wrong-doing of a political candidate since at least one motivation COULD be to improve one's own election chances. Somehow, I suspect he only means Democrat candidates. What a chillingly elitist attitude.

I think I'm going to have to suddenly become religious if on Friday, before any Manager said anything about wtinesses, that Roberts addessed them all like this (especially after Schiff has spent the last several days blowing smoke up his ass saying to trust Roberts' judgement regarding witnesses):

"Senators, House Maanagers, Presidential Managers. It is clear there are a couple of issues that need further exploration. One, the Whistleblower who began this all. We don't know what the originator of the allegation knows, and a thorough exploration should be made regarding this. As well, if there is ANY legal motivation the PResident may have had, an impeachment conviction seems counter to the laws and Constitution of our land. It would behoove the Senate to have both Hunter Biden and Joe Biden called in as witnesses, to ascertain whether the President had a legitimate reason to believe corruption occurred. Therefore, without objection, I suggest a vote to call those three witnesses, after which time the Senate may decide to vote further if they would like more witnesses."

Optimistic as fuck, but the Trump curse is often surprising.

I do like how the WH counsel have referred to Lincoln pulling soldiers from Civil War duty to return home so they could vote for him and get him re-elected... in the middle of a war... and how that was and is perfectly fine. It makes all the UNPRECEDENTED! and THREAT TO THE REPUBLIC! shit from the House Managers look like complete nonsense.

The House managers are couching the call for witnesses as one for "relevant witnesses". they're trying to set up a clause to exclude the bidens, nadler, schiff, the whistleblower. The dems only tried to refute pam Bondi's ukraine Biden timeless once, called it russian propaganda and moved on.

Its very obvious that the dems are playing to the tv and the White counsel are playing to the senate.
 
Adam Schiff took up the question and he filibustered about withholding aid from allies to benefite adversaries. i think at the end he said, I'ts wrong for presidents to ask for a political investigation from the DOJ.

What they're saying is that Trump broke the law by simply asking for a law enforcement agency to look into it.... the fact he directed them to look is being taken as proof he had ulterior and unsavory motives AND is somehow "unfair" to those who would fall under investigation, regardless if they were cleared, indicted, or anything in between.

Now, politically-motivated nuisance investigations ARE a thing, but no evidence has yet been presented that Trump didn't have the Presidential equivalent of a police officer's probable cause when he called for it. Biden said some shady shit and his Son was earning a LOT of money holding down a job he wasn't qualified for, that certainly calls for at least "look at it".

But the Dems seem to be arguing the ludicrous notion that you can't call the cops to report a crime if you know the guy committing it and you don't like them.... Because obviously you're unfairly leveraging the law to put them at a disadvantage? Really? The fact he actually WAS breaking the law is irrelevant, you can't hold another person back, even through legitimate means. They're arguing there is no fundamental difference between being framed and turned in for an ACTUAL crime by a hated rival. Why am I not surprised the trophies-for-everyone mentality eventually bred people who think this way?

The cops apparently have to find the body themselves. If you stumble on a body, and call them to report it which kicks off an investigation, YOU, by Democrat logic, have broken the law. And the murderer, when caught, can call you to the stand and argue that you abused your power/violated his rights by doing so?

Clown World strikes again.
 
Last edited:
The cops apparently have to find the body themselves, if you stumble on a body, and call them to report it which kicks off an investigation, YOU, by Democrat logic, have broken the law. And the murderer, when caught, can call you to the stand and argue that you abused your power/violated his rights by doing so?

Clown World strikes again.
This is precisely what a good trial lawyer would say in court-you boil it down to a logical real world example a reasonable person understands. But Democrats aren't exactly reasonable right now.
 
It's looking like the Republicans might know something about the whistleblower. Schiff has been asked a couple of times about whether Ciaramella was involved in the Biden dealio ousting Shokin. Directly asked if the whistleblower might be open to criminal or civil charges ovr his involvement with the Biden quid pro quo.

Very interesting.

Okay, the 2nd article is being charged (obstruction of congress) because Trump had a blanket ban on answering subpoenas, right? Over and over the House Managers have been saying that and that blanket rejection is an impeachable obstruction....

Here is basically the WH argument regarding the 2nd article if anyone wants to know, and they've repeated it several times throughout the trial but the Democrats still go back to that original misrepresentation.

1. All subpoenas sent before Oct 31 (when the House voted giving investigative and subpoena powers to committee) were rejected by theWH on the grounds that they were not valid subpoenas without house authorization to the committee. Maybe that would be a losing argunemnt, but certainly should be arbitrated by the court.

2. Three subpoenas after that were challenged on their validity by WH claiming executive privilege due to the particular high rank of the people, and apparently courts have rules many times in the past that in those people's position, the excutive power is as "close to absolute as possible". From the sounds of things, the courts would have certainly ruled in WH favour.

3. The other subpoenas were rejected on the grounds that the WH counsel was not allowed to be present. I can't imagine a court haveing a problem with the WH argument there.

As the subpoenas came out, WH counsel directly told the House that they were not responding to the subpoenas for the reasons listed. Yet here we are, constant blatant lying from the House Managers about what actually happened. I'm pretty sure there are going to be a decent number of defections on the second article from Democrats.
 
Back