Related PagesSee All
32,719,151 Followers · Media/News Company
27,221,400 Followers · Political Candidate
9,335,914 Followers · TV Show
888,773 Followers · Media/News Company
1,130,093 Followers · Interest
18,205,311 Followers · Media/News Company
86,596 Followers · Government Official
17,109,616 Followers · Public Figure
53,440,364 Followers · Politician
7,508,461 Followers · Politician
34,864 Followers · Political Organization
125,587 Followers · News Personality
Video Transcript
The point is the Supreme Court ruled the President does retain a limited executive privilege when documents are sought from the judicial branch. These were not documents sought from the Congress. The executive privilege is limited to military diplomatic to the National security matters, but where I disagree with my dear friend, I've worked with him at testified alongside of him. John Turley on the significance of obstruction of Justice. He is forget. The that have the House has the soul SOUL E power of impeachment. It doesn't need to go to a court for approval. It doesn't need to go to court to get its subpoenas enforced. When the President receives a subpoena or in this case, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo received a subpoena and they throw it in a drawer. They don't comply or challenge because the President told them too. That is the act of obstruction. You believe the President has committed in peaceable offenses. Well, I believe that the cracks a currently ah our give that he committed and future funds the easiest one because this existed in enter johnson richard next and clean this instruction of congress so by directing his support needs to refuse to comply with law fully i should spinners whether its protester money or for ah documents vatsala beach table friends we know that from history event on the house of representatives look at back with respect to our president it is found to be in future will on that reason why Cannot disagree without rejecting history now that rejected rejecting constitutional noise. so if you are in the House would you vote for impeachment? Sir yesterday, I certainly would on well. I'm never gonna be in the House, but I would I would I would have that count. This is Fox News Judge Andrew Napolitano blowing a major hole in the defense that George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who is called by Republicans to testify to the House Judiciary Committee, presented on behalf of Trump totally had claimed that Congress was abusing its power by impeaching the President and that the Trump administration has. To go to the courts to enforce congressional subpoenas, a claim that is patently untrue. As Napolitano noted, the only entity that has any discretion over impeachment is the House of Representatives. That's it. In other words, there's absolutely no basis for the Trump administration to think that it could defer to the courts to rule on whether congressional subpoenas for any administration officials are enforceable. So while I get the Trump might not like that, the Democratic House is actually performing oversight of the executive branch for the first time, that doesn't mean they can rewrite the. Of impeachment because of it and clearly, Trump is a vested interest in trying to defer to the courts. Of course he trying to offer a second opinion. despite the fact that the congressional subpoena is already legally binding unto itself. Of course, he tried every stalling tactic knee could by letting it languish in the court system. And of course, he used an illegitimate technique to obstruct Justice, which is impeachable in and of itself. in a case currently being investigated for other impeachable behavior. I mean, honestly only Donald Trump could commit impeachable offenses during. Into his existing impeachable offenses and the Trump administration's excuse here is that they shouldn't have to comply with subpoenas because they've decided that the process is unfair to the President. But A of course, Trump thinks it's unfair. He's the subject of the investigation. I don't know too many criminals who are exactly happy with the way their judicial process plays out and be if he truly thought it was unfair. You think he might wanna make his case and be represented and yet the fact that he's not only refusing to participate but actually blocking his. Administration officials from testifying tells you everything you need to know the fact is that numerous members of Trump's Cabinet have been implicated in this extortion scheme. Gordon Sunline testified again under oath that not only did Trump know about conditioning aid on the announcement of an investigation into his top political opponent. But that is officials all acted at his direction. First Secretary Perry Ambassador Volker and I worked with mister Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine Matters at the Express. Section of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with mister Giuliani simply put we were playing the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refuse to work with mister Giuliani, we would lose a very important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. We followed the President's orders so while White House officials have tried to cast out on testimony like this, there's still refusing to testify under oath themselves. In other words, they'll deny responsibility in public, but not under penalty of perjury. I wonder why the fact is these officials might think they're doing Trump a favor by failing to comply with congressional subpoenas, But all they're doing is proving the extent to which this administration believes that it's above the law if the goal of the Trump administration is to try and convince the American people in Congress that the President didn't commit. Offenses It might not be the smartest move to respond by committing yet more impeachable offenses then again making smart moves hasn't exactly been the White House's MO thus far.
Occupy DemocratsVideos🔥 Fox judge CRUSHES Republican witness's testimony defending Trump 🔥