BrooksBearLives said:
Sam Lowry said:
He went to court to avoid complying, which is the same thing Trump will do.
Wow. No. He went to court to negotiate. Also, that was during the special counsel investigation -which is extremely different.
Are you seriously confusing these things? Or are you just being deliberately obtuse.
Trump gets essentially no say in this phase of impeachment. He's going to have to be dragged to this through court order -and that's a bad thing for the country. Especially since he's claiming that unmitigated wisdom and that it was a "perfect phone call."
He's guilty. YOu know it. I know it. This is just about him fighting the proof of it coming out. Because it is absolutely there. We all know it.
Here's how lawyers view the letter from Pat Cipollone:
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/09/barely-lawyered-temper-tantrum-heres-how-lawyers-are-talking-about-cipollones-impeachment-letter/?kw=%27Barely-Lawyered%20Temper%20Tantrum%27:%20Here%27s%20How%20Lawyers%20Are%20Talking%20About%20Cipollone%27s%20Impeachment%20Letter&utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=breakingnews&utm_content=20191009&utm_term=nljGreg Nunziata, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips partner and former general counsel to Sen. Marco Rubio: "Wow. This letter is bananas. A barely-lawyered temper tantrum. A middle finger to Congress and its oversight responsibilities. No Member of Congress should accept it, no matter his or her view on the behavior of Pelosi, Schiff, or Trump. Things are bad. Things will get worse."
Joseph diGenova, former U.S. attorney for D.C.: "What you're seeing is regicidethis is regicide by another name, 'fake impeachment.' The Democrats in the House want to destroy the president. They don't want to preserve the republic. There's nothing honorable about what is happening. This is a despicable abuse of constitutional power. If they had on the floor a vote to establish an impeachment inquiry, that would give the Republicans subpoena power. But the Democrats are not doing that. They want to deny them subpoena power." [
Fox News]
>> Tess Bridgeman, former Obama White House associate counsel: "A primary role of the White House Counsel is to defend the office of the presidency. When the White House Counsel instead tries to hold that office above the law, refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a co-equal branch of governmentand becomes party to the distortion of reality that is a hallmark of the current Presidenthe damages the very office he is charged with protecting." [
Just Security]
>> Laurence Tribe, constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School: "It is tempting to say that this latest desperate gambit simply illustrates the sad truth that little if anything this president says or does can be trusted, and that it is only fear of further exposure of the guilty truth that could possibly explain a line of argument that any court worthy of the name would quickly dismiss as meritless. But one needn't go that far to conclude that the House clearly cannot permit such brazen obstruction to carry the day." [
USA Today]
>> Mimi Rocah, a former Southern District of New York prosecutor, and criminal justice fellow at Pace Law School: "Can you imagine lawyers in any other forumcriminal or civilwriting a letter saying 'nope, my client doesn't like this, he's not participating?' Of course not. This is political propaganda not real legal arguments."
>> Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas: "I think the goal of this letter is to further inflame the president's supporters and attempt to delegitimize the process in the eyes of his supporters." [
Associated Press]
>> Glenn Kirschner, former federal prosecutor in Washington: "I don't know WH Counsel Pat Cipollone, but he just signed a letter that will go down in infamy. But the good news is, that letter makes Trump's removal from office more certain than it was yesterday, IMO."
>> Jonathan Turley, George Washington University constitutional law professor: "A President cannot simply pick up his marbles and leave the game because he does not like the other players. A refusal to cooperate with a constitutionally mandated process can itself be an abuse of power. Worse yet, the letter again undermines the executive privilege arguments that will be key to any court fight." [
jonathanturley.org]
