Why didn't House Democrats follow normal protocol to call impeachment witnesses?

[jc456]

again, if I'm a senator, I merely point to the fact that two articles were walked over after a vote. having had witnesses testify to them and voted on. Anything more than that is against the job of the senate. either, the articles were legit or not. Can't have further witnesses. If they need more witnesses, then they are not legitimate and should be dismissed. Hand them back and tell the schitts and pelosers to go get the witnesses they need and see you back. The failure is therefore at the hands of schitt's and peloser.

for fk sake, can't there be at least one mthr fking congressional person who knows our constitution?

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

don't we have due process within the law? are you an american?

 

[jc456]

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

Liar.

Obama notified congress as PER The LAW.....

Trump did not notify congress, he hid it from them..... Trump broke the law....And then tried to cover it up.

he had the right to do what he did, it's his policy.

 

[jc456]

When did he publicly announce it? Link?

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

he was? how? since when is getting dirt on an opponent against the law? Can you say Dossier? LOL.

 

[jc456]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

Link to this "strongarming"? Looks like I drove you off your "demand" lie, so you are playing a semantics game.

The President of Ukraine says he felt no pressure to do anything.

The Ukraine didn't even know the funds were delayed.

No announcement was made by the Ukranian govt.

The funds were released before the legal deadline.

Face it, you lose again.

he loses every which way and on Sunday.

 

[jc456]

What a bizarre concept of yours.

In a court of law, the prosecutor does not stop investigating the defendant once he has filed charges, he continues to search and find more New relevant evidence all the way to and thru, the trial.

After all, the truth is what everyone is in search for, in any criminal or civil trial. What if new evidence was found by the defence lawyers in a case, was found during the trial that would help exonerate a Defendant? Could they not present it because the trial already started?

And what new evidence was that ?

John Bolton ?

Asserting what had already been asserted. He had no more weight than anyone else.

So please keep dreaming.

This was all an interpretation by the left to their benefit.

They then ran a Schitt-stained hearing that should have lasted longer (and allowed the GOP to question witnesses as much as they wanted).

Even Johnathan Turley indicated it was the house that was abusing power (but you knew that).

the new evidence that came out from the emails the gvt had to release due to some non heard of non profit's FOIA Law suit for them... near all the emails and documents subpoenaed by the House were requested by this group and another non profit judicial watch like group in a freedom of information act request.... THEY GOT THEM... while the whitehouse refused to even acknowledge the House request.... well, the Friday after impeachment they got their first batch and a new additional batch released every two weeks of the docs requested.... it is still going on, another non profit had to sue to get the heavy redactions removed, and the court ruled in their favor too.... lots of evidence and revelations in there...

And all the Lev Parnas videos and emails that the Court ruled in a suit that the SDNY who is prosecuting him for campaign finance laws broken and had possession of them and refused initially to release them back to him, so he could give them to Congress as evidence, was won by him in court, so those were released given to the House Committees... lots and lots of stuff that filled in a lot of loose ends with Rudy and the administration and the Ukraine govt connections, with emails and video to back the alleged felon up...on his wild claims..... ( he would not be believed, without the physical evidence...)

------------------------------------------------------
i disagree with Turley... not completely, but in part....

I was reading today in an article, that the reason the founders left things so open for Congress and the Senate to determine each impeachment individually, was because each impeachment could be drastically different, though the charges may be the same... I can't explain it well, but the article was very informative and I found myself reading every word of it, as lengthy as it was.... I think it makes sense and you likely would think the same if you read it....here is just a small part of it, there is so much more t the link! read it! please



Amid the grandstanding in the House of Representatives, one key point can sometimes get lost: While impeachment is certainly a political process, it is not a purely political one. The judgments that Congress makes throughout the process are substantially but not entirely constrained by legal standards set out in the Constitution.

If impeachment were a purely political process, Congress could legitimately impeach and remove a president from office for any reason or no reason at all. This would make impeachment akin to a vote of no confidence in a parliamentary system, where the legislature can at any time remove its chosen prime minister—albeit with a heightened requirement for removal in the Senate. Conversely, if impeachment were a purely legal process, Congress’s sole function would be to determine the facts and apply the relevant legal standards to those facts to determine whether the president has committed an impeachable offense.

One way to understand how law and politics intersect throughout the impeachment process, therefore, is with this test: Imagine that a particular member of the House or the Senate believes that there is a “correct” legal answer to the question of whether, on the evidence before Congress, the president has committed an impeachable offense. Can they properly vote the other way? Can they vote, in other words, against the evidence? By applying this test to the different stages of the impeachment process, one can see which aspects of the decision to impeach a president are political in nature and which are legal.
Before examining each of the different scenarios, let’s consider the constitutional arguments on each side of the question. Even beyond the supermajority threshold for removal, the Constitution rather clearly rejects the view that impeachment is just a political vote of no confidence. The text consistently describes impeachment using legalistic language, empowering the Senate to “try” “Cases of Impeachment” and render a “Judgment” of “Conviction.” And the Framers famously rejected a proposal allowing the president’s removal for mere “maladministration,” substituting the more legalistic phrase high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The message is clear: Impeachment is an adjudicative process to determine whether the president has committed a certain kind of offense.

Frank O. Bowman III: The common misconception about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

However, impeachment is clearly unlike other purely legal proceedings. Most significantly, it is conducted by Congress, a quintessentially political body. Grand and petit juries, which play analogous roles to the House and the Senate in ordinary criminal trials, are made up of private citizens who are not accountable to public opinion. An early draft of the Constitution placed the trial of impeachment in the Supreme Court. Most scholars today agree that impeachment cases cannot even be appealed to the Article III courts; the Senate’s judgment is absolutely final. It is not to be presumed that the Constitution would have committed impeachment to elected branches if the Framers had wanted the process uncontaminated by politics.

And although high Crimes and Misdemeanors seems to rule out a purely political process, it does not make evaluating whether presidential conduct warrants impeachment straightforward. Scholars generally agree that high Crimes and Misdemeanors does not simply mean ordinary criminal violations. Instead, it is at least largely concerned with abuse of power. And determining whether someone has abused their authority is not a straightforward legal judgment like whether a defendant has committed each element of a statutory crime. Nor is there a clear standard for which abuses of power are so grave that they require removal from office. As Alexander Hamilton noted in “Federalist No. 65,” impeachment “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as those in ordinary criminal trials. Even answering the legal questions of impeachment requires what he called an “awful discretion.”

Even Impeachment Has to Follow the Rules

What you gonna do when the house rushed it through and didn't do it correctly?

Blame it on the demofks.

The president has no say in how the house runs an impeachment inquiry.. in to himself, the Congress has the sole constitutional power to impeach

the constitution doesnt mean jack shit to Trump's ass lickers - thats why they are ass lickers.

derangement man

 

[jc456]

We know what Trumpybear did and why. We know Trumpublicans in the Senate will never convict ol'Trumpybear no matter who appears or what they say. Getting Trumpublican hypocrisy front an center and bashing their candidates with it till November is the only alternative.

Enjoy the show.

So I'm hearing you say this isn't about anything real, it's just about smearing Trump for election purposes.

It's smearing the entire Trumpublican establishment with the fact that Trumpybear strong armed the Ukraine for help in the next election and the Trumpublicans in the Senate covered for him. Hammer that fact all year along with any other relevant facts about his scheme and the election will be very anti-Trumpublican indeed.

So yes, you're hypocritically attacking a political rival in order to influence the election for your own personal gain, while ranting and railing about your "outrage" at him for that very thing.

Got it.

 

[jc456]

so you ignored the fact that 13 witnesses were called. interesting, and then say it was intelligible. Check your spelling on that word BTW.

I ignored nothing. I'm asking what your point is and why is it relevant to what I posted.

I guess if you don't know your point, nor do we.

It's clear, dope. It was about the investigation that happened prior to the vote.
You then mentioned 13 witnesses that came after the vote. IOW irrelevant.

correct within that investigation. what is it you think they did with those 13 testimonies?

What is your point, dope?

Are you saying that evidence gathered in an investigation outside of an official impeachment proceeding cannot be used as evidence in an impeachment?

nope, you said that they didn't get to bring in witnesses. sure they did. with the articles.

 

[Ame®icano]

Then, why House didn't go to court?

Without even mentioning any crimes, there was dead body of US Customs agent as result of the Fast & Furious. No comparison, right?

They did go to court.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal


The better question is why is the Trump admin is not cooperating with subpoenas?

Howell is a far-left hack appointed by Obama and she worked for Patrick Leahy for 10 years.

Part of that ruling has already been reversed, the rest is still on appeal.

You lose again.

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

 

[BlindBoo]

He didn't have to. Trumpybear got busted and the aid, which was being illegally withheld, was finally released.

I bet that pissed him off too. "I'm the President damn it, I should be able to do what I want!"

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

he was? how? since when is getting dirt on an opponent against the law? Can you say Dossier? LOL.

Instead of fighting corruption in the Ukraine, Trumpybear was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to engage in the politically corrupt act of announcing an investigation into the Bidens without any evidence that anyone had broken any law, just a favor to the "Don"!

 

[Cecilie1200]

It isn’t illegal to withhold aid, fk son

" the White House violated what’s known as the Impoundment Control Act (ICA).

“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the report said. “OMB withheld funds for a policy reason, which is not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act (ICA)...Therefore, we conclude that OMB violated the ICA.”

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

And as I stated in other posts, obammy did it seven times according to the GAO. So fking what? Where's your outrage man?

The fact that withholding the aid was illegal was just a side note and not at all the substance of his impeachment.. The intent of his corrupt Ukraine shakedown scheme was to inflict political damage on half the country.

Embrace your corruption.

he was? how? since when is getting dirt on an opponent against the law? Can you say Dossier? LOL.

Instead of fighting corruption in the Ukraine, Trumpybear was attempting to blackmail the President of the Ukraine to engage in the politically corrupt act of announcing an investigation into the Bidens without any evidence that anyone had broken any law, just a favor to the "Don"!

And if you just keep stating it as fact long enough, maybe people will forget that you couldn't prove your ASSumption.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I ignored nothing. I'm asking what your point is and why is it relevant to what I posted.

I guess if you don't know your point, nor do we.

It's clear, dope. It was about the investigation that happened prior to the vote.
You then mentioned 13 witnesses that came after the vote. IOW irrelevant.

correct within that investigation. what is it you think they did with those 13 testimonies?

What is your point, dope?

Are you saying that evidence gathered in an investigation outside of an official impeachment proceeding cannot be used as evidence in an impeachment?

nope, you said that they didn't get to bring in witnesses. sure they did. with the articles.

WTF are you talking about?!
I said no such thing, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They did go to court.
Federal Judge Rules Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal


The better question is why is the Trump admin is not cooperating with subpoenas?

Howell is a far-left hack appointed by Obama and she worked for Patrick Leahy for 10 years.

Part of that ruling has already been reversed, the rest is still on appeal.

You lose again.

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

 

[Ame®icano]

Howell is a far-left hack appointed by Obama and she worked for Patrick Leahy for 10 years.

Part of that ruling has already been reversed, the rest is still on appeal.

You lose again.

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

For instance, if police show up at my door with search warrant not signed by the judge, i don't have to let them in. My refusal is not obstruction, but my constitutional right.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

 

[Siete]

Howell is a far-left hack appointed by Obama and she worked for Patrick Leahy for 10 years.

Part of that ruling has already been reversed, the rest is still on appeal.

You lose again.

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

the senate republicans wanted a speedy process so naturally the board russians bitch about the house hurrying the process .

Ass meet Alabama

Kansas City meet Missouri

stupid bitches dont know wtf they want, they just want to bitch.

 

[Ame®icano]

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh, ok.
You mean the obstruction is ongoing.

Funny how Dimwingers think if something is in our court system awaiting a final ruling it is "obstruction".

It demonstrates just how fucking clueless you are.

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

the senate republicans wanted a speedy process so naturally the board russians bitch about the house hurrying the process .

Ass meet Alabama

Kansas City meet Missouri

stupid bitches dont know wtf they want, they just want to bitch.

So it's spiffy for the Democrats to rush the House investigation because they wanted it speedy, but it's a crime against humanity for the Senate to do the same thing?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

They were not ALL legal. Once they realized their fuckup Democrats rushed to vote on impeachment inquiry. Those issue after inquiry vote were legal and were answered.

No. They voted to open impeachment after the investigation found evidence to warrant doing so. Hence the term, "inquiry".

Try using your brain, dope.

The House can't be undertaking impeachment proceedings if they never voted to open impeachment proceedings.
Derp...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

When the intent is to obstruct, it is.

If you have right to do something, whatever you intent do with it is not obstruction.

Does president have right to challenge House's request?

The intent is to obstruct. Obviously.
He is the only president to ever deny every subpoena request without asserting privilege at all.

Intent is to exercise constitutional right.

Every House's subpoena issued legally was properly answered.

They were all legal, dope. That's the point.
They had to rely on feeble, specious arguments to resist compliance.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

How do YOU know they were "feeble and specious"? Your Dem leaders couldn't be bothered to pursue the subpoenas in court.

Wow...
How do you NOT know?

It's obvious. There is no rule, regulation or law that requires a full vote of the House for a committee to open an investigation or issue subpoenas.