re: Trump lawyers respond to articles of impeachment: 'Constitutionally invalid'

quote:

---

I equated impeachment with a grand jury proceeding.

An impeachment can lead to a loss of office, a grand jury can lead to a loss of freedom (and perhaps your life, if convicted).

Doucheowitz and shite-stirring Starr are attacking the Constitution. They purport to embrace the grand jury system while selectively wiping their arse with other parts of the Constitution. No bueno.

---

See the fricking dumb shite I have to deal with every time I post in the Cloak Room at Surly.

The Constitution says there are three branches of government, all equal. Conflicts between the legislative branch (that means Congress for any other imbeciles that have floated from over there) and the executive branch (i.e. president) are decided by the judical branch. So if Congress wants to subpoena a member of the president's staff and the president feels they are not legally obligated to honor the subpoena the case gets sent to the courts and the courts decide who is right and who is wrong. There are always different circumstances and variables with every case so every time this happens it goes to court. Just because the courts ruled against Trump in the Mcwantshisnames case does not mean that any subpoena Congress issues to a member of Trump' staff has to be honored, only that particular one has to. The second article of impeachment pretends that this is not the case and that the president has to surrender to the will of Congress whenever and wherever Congress demands. That means the legislative branch is placed above the executive branch. The whole argument the Democrats are making here is a middle finger to the Constitution and the executive branch.