This impeachment fiasco is not motivated or cemented in law. To the contrary it is based on the inability and out right refusal to accept the results of a lawful election. Some of the historical precedent should possibly be considered, but like I said there's no precedent on how to handle a premeditated impeachment that can openly be won in the House of Congress regardless of any wrong doing.
I do support the Constitution, but not the Democrats interpretation of it or their apparent abuse of the impeachment process. Seeings as there's ten of thousands of laws on the books; many of which address issues that aren't covered in the Constitution and many that outright defy it I see no reason to think it's unconstitutional for the DOJ to fight such apparent abuse (using whatever laws or reasoning they're justifying it with).
The federal courts in this instance did in fact order the White House staff to testify, but the DOJ is standing by #1, #2 and #3 by appealing thus I'll agree with their statements and rules and until a court with the power to rule them unconstitutional does so I will not say it is either way or the other. Up until then I don't think it's unconstitutional based on the fact they came up with the rules due to the fact the Democrats are abusing the Constitution by trying to impeach Trump for any reason they can regardless of guilt.
I also don't need to 'own Liberals. They're the ones who need their brown slaves. As per
@Xzi comments on the rats fighting on a sinking ship; at least the Conservatives have fight in them and wouldn't cower and beg for mercy while kneeling covered in their own feces. Almost every thing that comes out of the Liberals mouths on this forum is enough to satisfy my desire to constantly laugh at them and their outrage. They PWN themselves almost every time they try to do something as most of what they say and do is fueled by the hatred and intolerance they have for others. The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading. Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.
What is illogical is that #3 says the judicial can't intervene or make a ruling on this matter yet you keep insisting you support a court of a higher power making a ruling if this is appealed. You can't even admit that because either you refuse to take the time to digest the facts presented or you actually don't have an opinion and will say that you support the court decision
"And, third, DOJ asserted that the federal courts
cannot exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over any such subpoena-related stalemate
between the Legislature and the Executive branch, on separation of powers grounds."
No matter what I cite or present you'll just attack it because you've already made up your mind that you want Trump impeached regardless of guilt.
'Holy Projection Batman!' Also to point this out again, you have yet to cite a single quote from a source in this entire discussion and have proven that you don't even read quotes that are presented and address them, much less actually preview their source.
If you'd like to prove me wrong you can start here. Can you even explain the basis of what is being presented 'on separation of powers grounds' in the #3 assertion? I find it funny, in the quotes below, you have demonstrated 'faith' not 'logical reasoning', because at this point you aren't working in actual understanding of what is being stated, in the DOJ's assertions that stopped a congressional subpoena in court?
Because at this point I believe the DOJ is merely participating in strategic lawsuits to delay proper oversight and nothing further. This is clearly made evident in assertion #3 but you've since been too uninterested to even understand what our government is participating in to obstruct congressional oversight only because you support the end goal. That much you have abundantly stated over the past few hours of back and forth discussion.
I agree with the DOJ and Trump. Whatever laws they used to come up with their decision to tell Congress to get fucked on this issue are fine by me. If their basis includes things not even cemented in law that's also fine.
I agree with the side that is under attack for simply winning the election and not being popular among the Liberal voters.
With that you aren't someone who is interested in obtaining an informed opinion on anything that appears to conflict with how you 'feel' about a situation. You believe you know everything you need to know and desire to learn nothing else. With that I'm going to point out your own words to conclude my response.
"The simple fact they contradict themselves in every post makes for very entertaining light reading" - .
"They PWN themselves almost every time they try to do something as most of what they say and do is fueled by the hatred and intolerance they have for others."
Both of these statements seem to apply to you more than they apply to other members present on these threads that try to actually discuss the facts revolving around a significant moment in our nation. You've knotted yourself into a pretzel by supporting assertion #3 as it is a direct conflict. You also refuse to address assertion #2 as it shows very plainly that you were incorrect about immunity being 'granted' (which means it must be given on condition) when the DOJ was asserting an alleged
already present absolute testimonial immunity of all employees of the executive branch.
"Second, DOJ maintained that a President can demand that his aides (both current
and former) ignore a subpoena that Congress issues, on the basis of alleged absolute
testimonial immunity."
Absolute immunity contrasts with qualified immunity, which only applies if specified conditions are met."
You are arguing that it is granted, applying with specified conditions - that would be a qualified immunity. But instead the DOJ is arguing an absolute immunity. Don't argue terminology if you don't know what you are talking about. It just highlights your ignorance.
Their constant failure in trying to push their sick and twisted will on others is enough to satisfy my desire too see them fail at doing so and watching them destroy their own lives is just a bonus - a cream cheese topping on the carrot cake per say.
Small goals for a small minded person. How pitiful.