(01-29-2020 02:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote: (01-29-2020 01:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: If he didn't assert any privilege, then he certainly didn't obstruct Congress... at least not any more than Bolton, Pelosi and Biden said they would.
You claim he 'instructed' people not to comply, but you can't 'instruct' someone to break the law... so either he didn't instruct anyone, or they didn't break the law by agreeing with him not to testify.
Keep spinning, but remember to spot the wall so you don't get dizzy.
Dude, just end the nonsense please. Nobody is spinning anything. We're both just presenting our thoughts on a matter that the public and even the experts are pretty much split 50/50 on. And we're dealing with a pretty much unprecedented event to boot.
And we all know trump. He's been in the public light for decades now and has always but himself first in everything he does. It's only logical for many to assume that he did that here, especially when so many testified to that under oath in the house inquiry. So it's certainly not a stretch for me to feel that way.
it's not as unprecedented as you want to claim, other than the fact that only 3 times has it gone to the Senate... and in the LAST one, everyone admits he was 100% guilty of lying to Congress, yet they acquitted him anyway.
You're acting like whether or not he asserted privilege is meaningful.... and as if him 'telling' someone not to comply carries weight.
If they wanted to compel testimony, all they'd have to do is do so. Trump most likely would assert privilege and a judge would decide if it applied.
That's how it works here... that's how it's always worked. The difference is that the Democrat controlled house kicked the 'compel' part up to the Republican controlled Senate, which IS unprecedented.
If you'd like to discuss why, that would be opinions.
IMO, they did it because they feel they can make more hay out of implying that the REPS are covering something up than they can by subpoenaing the testimony, winning the appeal and proving a crime.
Seriously, what other explanation could there possibly be?
He didn't assert it because he didn't have to.
As to how you feel about Trump? Yes we know... Orange man bad. Your opinion isn't evidence though and has no bearing on the impeachment. The impeachment is about what you can prove, not what you think... UNLESS you're admitting that it's purely political...IOW, purely about 'feelings' rather than proof.
As I've said... It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Trump held up the funds hoping to secure a favor... and may have asked people to figure out how to make that happen...
but they didn't, or at least there is no proof that he did.... so your 'belief' is about politics.
Say all you want on the campaign trail. This is about evidence.
