Supreme Court undercuts the Democrats’ second article of impeachment

Supreme Court undercuts the Democrats’ second article of impeachment

Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz pointed out Friday that the SCOTUS had undercut the Democrats’ second article of impeachment by agreeing to hear three White House appeals. ’You don’t have to comply with a subpoena of Congress unless the court tells you that you have to comply. We don’t know how the court is going to come out, but they made it clear that is a viable issue.’

porcus
porcus
npc8472
npc8472 2 months

I love how tdb is declaring trump is acting illegally while saying the court has yet to decide. It's like there is zero self awareness in the title of that article. I mean...I know...but cmon....

Paul C
Paul C 2 months

The ridiculous dailybeast headline calling out "Trump's illegality" is linked to an article behind a paywall, so only read first few stupid paragraphs. Probably irrelevant as it seems to be talking about a tax returns as related to the impeachment. The so-called 'center' article from realclearpolitics uses the phrase "Republicans slapstick willful blindness in an attempt to let Trump off the hook for his clear extortion of personal favors and electoral interference from Ukraine," so clearly is not objective.

Bravo
Bravo 2 months

RealClearPolitic's article expressed clear favoritism towards the left. Please categorize the source appropriately.

porcus
porcus 2 months

Dershowitz is spot on, and confirms what I and others have been saying - the "obstruction of justice" charges relating to the subpoenas is a conflict of power between the two branches. My opinion is that the Congress is overstepping its boundaries, but the SCOTUS will clear that one way or the other. It will be good for the public either way as it will put limits on at least ONE of the two branches.

Indo
Indo 2 months

When u run outta ideas u'd do anything that comes to mind. A dying man doth clutch at straws

Chase100
Chase100 2 months

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” — U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 1 Don't like both news sources but constitutional framers assumed that Congress would conduct investigations as the British House of Commons conducted them. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Investigations-Oversight/ Like all previous Congresses, Republican or Democrat majority, they should investigate the facts and see if there is misconduct to wrongdoing. Just as the First Congress used its investigatory privileges during 1789–1791. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, the superintendent of finances during the Continental Congress and a financier of the American Revolution, asked Congress in 1790 to investigate his handling of the country’s finances in order to clear his name of potential impropriety.

Chris Cahill
Chris Cahill 2 months

Isn’t it a bit late for all this? They vote Wednesday so what happens if the court says yes you have to go in front of congress.

Decoy
Decoy 2 months

"Man under investigation appoints personnel to determine outcome of investigation." I mean we knew it was going to come to this right? That "checks and balances" was largely bullshit?

Based Haole
Based Haole 2 months

what retarded matzah head made porcus a mod....

Top in Politics
Get the App