The Trump Presidency

[Quantum Quack]

Vociferous

President Vladimir Putin claims Russia is the only country in the world that can deploy hypersonic weapons, which places it ahead of its arch-foe, the United States, for the first time in modern history.​

src: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12...s-world-leader-in-hypersonic-weapons/11826940

... and you are happy that Putin supports Trumps re-election in 2020?

Gosh ....even Xi of China probably supports Trumps re-election...

 

[Vociferous]

Any idea how a POTUS has the time to tweet 115 tweets? I mean to say... that's an awful amount of posting by anyone's standards...
Even you have only 845 posts here at sciforums and how long have you been a member?

I also don't have staff that tweet for me sometimes, and my forum posts tend to be more long-form than Twitter. Both seem fairly obvious to the attentive or unbiased.

like I wrote, most pundits would have won something...

You didn't mention pundits.

 

[Vociferous]

... and you are happy that Putin supports Trumps re-election in 2020?

Asked and answered.

 

[iceaura]

No, this is the first impeachment to include zero statutory crimes.

Several statutory crimes are visible here - as Trump well knows. Obstruction of justice is one of the explicit ones (the 2nd article of impeachment).

And just like the police, no one is convicted without the opportunity for due process in a court of law.

The due process for impeachment happens in the House and Senate. The due process for the crimes visible here must wait for impeachment and removal - or retirement from office on other grounds. The statute of limitations will not run out on many of them, even if Trump serves another full term. (And he's not going to stop committing them).

An appeal is either upheld or denied. - - -

Or remanded. Are you counting your errors of fact here? You've made several.

Executive immunity has nothing to do with what can be included in articles of impeachment,

It does influence what the accusers here want to include, as a matter of strategy.
If as seems possible the goal is to pin Roberts to a few simple facts, this is one way to do it. Roberts may be the only Republican involved who still has a reputation to protect - but he does.

Seeking due process, a Constitutional right, is the opposite of a crime.

Obstruction of Congress is not.

Again, Pelosi is the only one delaying at this point.

Pelosi has everything ready to go, as soon as McConnell has made the necessary arrangements. Her job was done days ago.

Why do you suppose McConnell has refused to do his? He's had plenty of warning, advance notice, etc. And he claims to be in a hurry.

 

[Vociferous]

Several statutory crimes are visible here - as Trump well knows. Obstruction of justice is one of the explicit ones (the 2nd article of impeachment).

You need to learn how to read. The second article is "obstruction of Congress" NOT "obstruction of justice" (which is nowhere mentioned in the articles*), but no doubt, the Democrats were counting on their constituents to basically be illiterate.
"Obstruction of Congress" is a term of art, without any definition in statutory law. Hence the first impeachment in US history including ZERO statutory crimes.


*The words "obstruction" and "justice" each appear only once, and not even near each other.

And just like the police, no one is convicted without the opportunity for due process in a court of law.

The due process for impeachment happens in the House and Senate. The due process for the crimes visible here must wait for impeachment and removal - or retirement from office on other grounds. The statute of limitations will not run out on many of them, even if Trump serves another full term. (And he's not going to stop committing them).

Nope, you do not surrender your right to due process simply by being an elected president. The depths of your ignorance of US government and law continues to amaze. Conflicts between two separate but equal branches are adjudicated by the third branch. All subpoenas can be appealed to the courts, otherwise civil rights and, in this case, the separation of powers are violated.
You'd actually have to have evidence of a statutory crime (again, nowhere in the impeachment articles or Mueller report), that could hold up in court, before anyone needs to concern themselves with statutes of limitation.

Or remanded. Are you counting your errors of fact here? You've made several.

Appeals can only be remanded if a lower court has already ruled on them, which hasn't occurred.
Vague attempts to poison the well will not distract from your continually demonstrated ignorance. I can't even try to count how many glaring mistakes of yours I've pointed out without you even attempting to address them. Usually you just ignore them so you can maintain the pretense of your erroneous self-assuredness.

It does influence what the accusers here want to include, as a matter of strategy.
If as seems possible the goal is to pin Roberts to a few simple facts, this is one way to do it. Roberts may be the only Republican involved who still has a reputation to protect - but he does.

So the accusers specifically don't want to include any statutory crimes? I believe that.
Again with your ignorance that Roberts has any sway over the outcome of the Senate trial.

Seeking due process, a Constitutional right, is the opposite of a crime.

Obstruction of Congress is not.

Yep, obstruction of Congress is not a crime.

Pelosi has everything ready to go, as soon as McConnell has made the necessary arrangements. Her job was done days ago.

Why do you suppose McConnell has refused to do his? He's had plenty of warning, advance notice, etc. And he claims to be in a hurry.

You're being duped by leftist sources, or your own fevered imaginings. When Clinton was impeached, the articles were walked over to the Senate the same day. There are zero arrangements for the Senate to make ahead of simply receiving the articles of impeachment. The House's duty is not complete until it delivers the articles to the Senate, and the Senate can do nothing until then. McConnell is waiting on Pelosi, and only the Democrats have claimed to be in any hurry. McConnell literally said Pelosi could keep the articles as long as she wanted...and I've told you this before.

But Pelosi's delay does make one wonder how critical impeachment really is to them. Either the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors (though no statutory crimes) and needs to be ousted posthaste, or this delay just proves it's nothing but a political ploy, aimed squarely at woefully uninformed leftists.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

against a completely unproven and Democrat supporting guy.

any person running for office in the usa is a democrat supporter
even if they openly declare themselves a socialist
by entering into the process of the democratic election, they render themselves "democrat supporter"

Democratic socialist Republic of america ...

on one hand your box ticking
on the other your enunciating specificity of terminology.

usa law defines drug users as terrible people

how does it define those whom over dose ?
victims ?

"abuse of office" is a real crime isn't it ?
that is being spoken about and is a real crime as it is abuse of office/power.

personally i doubt they will get anything to stick because it is all too american capitalist and paying lip service to capitalism over morality must be backed up with actions.

exploiting positions for profit is the very core morality of capitalism

Celebrity(Rich) peoples morals ... lol

 

[Vociferous]

any person running for office in the usa is a democrat supporter
even if they openly declare themselves a socialist
by entering into the process of the democratic election, they render themselves "democrat supporter"

So, you don't even seem to know that, when capitalized, Democrat means one political party in the US, not democracy in general. Jeez, I bemoan whatever education system produced you.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

reaching for the stars again i see

So, you don't even seem to know that

 

[Vociferous]

reaching for the stars again i see

 

[RainbowSingularity]

i'l have what shes having

 

[Vociferous]

...

You sure you want to be spreading such naive racism?

 

[iceaura]

You need to learn how to read. The second article is "obstruction of Congress" NOT "obstruction of justice"

Same thing in an impeachment, as I explicitly noted - for you to read, if able.

"Obstruction of Congress" is a term of art, without any definition in statutory law

Congressional impeachment of a President does not rest in statutory law - it is a Constitutionally governed act.

Yep, obstruction of Congress is not a crime.

It apparently is, in this case, as noted (your "Yep" is illiterate).

But Pelosi's delay does make one wonder how critical impeachment really is to them.

Your idle wonderments are hardly of moment.
If it's not important, you and the rest of the Republicans should just ignore it.

You'd actually have to have evidence of a statutory crime (again, nowhere in the impeachment articles or Mueller report), that could hold up in court, before anyone needs to concern themselves with statutes of limitation.

Your inability to recognize evidence of statutory crime in a situation as flagrant as this is not shared by very many non-partisan observers.

Appeals can only be remanded if a lower court has already ruled on them, which hasn't occurred.

By the same invoked criteria, an appeal can only be upheld or denied if a lower court has ruled - clearly you have other criteria in mind, yes?

So the accusers specifically don't want to include any statutory crimes?

The evidence for them is included, for the Senate's consideration - the Senate is oath-bound to consider it, formally and explicitly and fairly.

Again with your ignorance that Roberts has any sway over the outcome of the Senate trial.

He is in charge of the procedure.
Are you claiming the procedure will have no effect on the outcome?

There are zero arrangements for the Senate to make ahead of simply receiving the articles of impeachment.

That is obviously not the case here.

McConnell is waiting on Pelosi, and only the Democrats have claimed to be in any hurry.

McConnell and several other Republican Senators have claimed to be in a hurry, and complained about Pelosi's delays.

. McConnell literally said Pelosi could keep the articles as long as she wanted

Then it's a non-issue, and McConnell can return to his many important tasks as majority leader of the Senate - leaving Pelosi to decide when and how to deliver the documents.

 

[Tiassa]

"Obstruction of Congress" is a term of art, without any definition in statutory law. Hence the first impeachment in US history including ZERO statutory crimes.

18 U.S.C. § 1505↱.

The proper legal term is, "Obstruction"; the law enumerated is, "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees".

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress―

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.​

From the second Article of Impeachment↱:

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its "sole Power of Impeachment". President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives ....

.... President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment—and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.​

Those parts are pretty straightforward and apparent; the only real question is what part of historical infamy Senate Republicans will put their names on.
____________________

Notes:

"18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees". United States Code. 2019. Law.Cornell.edu. 31 December 2019. http://bit.ly/39rHbib

NPR Staff. "READ: Articles Of Impeachment Against President Trump". National Public Radio. 10 December 2019. NPR.org. 31 December 2019. https://n.pr/2sAU350

 

[Vociferous]

Same thing in an impeachment, as I explicitly noted - for you to read, if able.

Your unsupported arm-waving does not make a term of art a statutory crime. Again ignoring the simple fact that the second article only exists due to House Democrat impatience with the courts and due process.

Congressional impeachment of a President does not rest in statutory law - it is a Constitutionally governed act.

At this point I can no longer remember how many times I've literally said impeachment is political rather than criminal.
If you agree, why do you feel the need to shoehorn in statutory crimes? Maybe you're smart enough to realize that the content of the actual articles of impeachment are a partisan joke.

Yep, obstruction of Congress is not a crime.

It apparently is, in this case, as noted (your "Yep" is illiterate).

Then show us the law that details "obstruction of Congress".

Your idle wonderments are hardly of moment.
If it's not important, you and the rest of the Republicans should just ignore it.

Yes, the Senate should have voted weeks ago to dismiss for lack of prosecution by the House.

Your inability to recognize evidence of statutory crime in a situation as flagrant as this is not shared by very many non-partisan observers.

Unsupported twaddle.

Appeals can only be remanded if a lower court has already ruled on them, which hasn't occurred.

By the same invoked criteria, an appeal can only be upheld or denied if a lower court has ruled - clearly you have other criteria in mind, yes?

No, you just don't seem to understand when the word "appeal" is used in a legal sense. Technically, if falls on Congress to seek a court ruling to enforce its own subpoenas. Only after that initial ruling can a legal appeal be made.

House leaders have left a long list of subpoenas for dead: Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney refused to testify about his knowledge of Trump’s decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine. So did Robert Blair, a top Mulvaney aide who listened to the July 25 call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for the “favor” of announcing a criminal investigation into a domestic political rival, Joe Biden; John Eisenberg, a National Security Council lawyer who put a summary of the call on a top-secret computer server; Michael Ellis, Eisenberg’s deputy; State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who was also on the July 25 call; Brian McCormack, former chief of staff to Energy Secretary Rick Perry; Russell T. Vought, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; and a White House budget official named Michael Duffey. The House also requested the testimony of former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman, but withdrew the subpoena on the curious rationale that Kupperman’s lawsuit seeking clarification on his subpoena obligations could slow down the impeachment investigation.

Subpoenas for documents also remain unanswered and unenforced. Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Perry, and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani have all rebuffed requests. Meanwhile, none of these witnesses has been subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee—nor has former National Security Adviser John Bolton—despite their deep knowledge of the president’s role in the Ukraine affair.

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas while at the same time maintaining the brisk pace of the impeachment inquiry thus far. Courts can move quickly—but only if asked.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...mocrats-need-better-subpoena-strategy/602782/​

The evidence for them is included, for the Senate's consideration - the Senate is oath-bound to consider it, formally and explicitly and fairly.

Since no statutory crime is mentioned in the articles of impeachment, there is zero obligation to consider crimes not mentioned therein.

He is in charge of the procedure.
Are you claiming the procedure will have no effect on the outcome?

Roberts is only there to keep order. All procedural questions are voted on by the Senate. Look it up and alleviate at least some of your ignorance. God knows my cited references have failed to penetrate.

McConnell and several other Republican Senators have claimed to be in a hurry, and complained about Pelosi's delays.

Who, where? They've balked at her breaking precedent with the political game of delay, but as you've been told several times now, McConnell himself said he was in no hurry.

Then it's a non-issue, and McConnell can return to his many important tasks as majority leader of the Senate - leaving Pelosi to decide when and how to deliver the documents.

Constitutional due process includes the right to a speedy trial. So the Senate can, like any court, dismiss the impeachment for lack of prosecution.

18 U.S.C. § 1505↱.

The proper legal term is, "Obstruction"; the law enumerated is, "Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees".

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress―

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.​

Tsk, tsk. You're either being very intellectually dishonest or you really didn't bother to read what you're citing beyond the affirmation of your own bias.

Hell, you even quoted the bit where it explicitly said it applied to antitrust law. You obviously just Googled "obstruction" and ignorantly ran with the first thing you found, completely devoid of any comprehension on your part. Now Google "Antitrust Civil Process Act" and see if you can't manage to see where you goofed.

 

[iceaura]

Your unsupported arm-waving does not make a term of art a statutory crime.

Of course not. The existence of laws does that.
Your confusion stems from your mistaken and illiterate use of the label "term of art".

At this point I can no longer remember how many times I've literally said impeachment is political rather than criminal.

And ignored the obvious and often repeated response: so?
If you have some objection to the US Constitution's specification of how and why US Presidents are to be impeached, rather than criminally charged, you'll have to be a bit more specific. Do you wish to amend the Constitution?

If you agree, why do you feel the need to shoehorn in statutory crimes?

I don't. You do.
All my observations about the obvious presence of statutory crimes in the detailed behavior of this impeached President- such as obstruction of justice, which is a felony, or using the powers of his public office for coercion of private benefit, which is also criminal - have been responses to your introducing the topic. You post bs Republican media spew, I call you on it - no shoehorn necessary for a garbage can that widely open.

Constitutional due process includes the right to a speedy trial.

In criminal matters. You are on record as denying this is a criminal matter. Change your mind?
Besides: a trial in matters like this - in civil or criminal court, of course, because ordinary citizens are not immune from indictment - normally takes a few months at least, even for low profile and comparatively powerless perps.
And Trump has lots of power here - he can speed this whole thing up quite a bit simply by ceasing to obstruct it.

Since no statutory crime is mentioned in the articles of impeachment,

Obstruction of justice is a felony crime (that's the second article of impeachment). So is (separately) intimidation of witnesses, withholding of court-demanded documents, bribery, and extortion. That's a partial list.

Then show us the law that details "obstruction of Congress".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
Are you denying that obstruction of justice is a crime?

Roberts is only there to keep order. All procedural questions are voted on by the Senate.

Roberts is there to establish and oversee procedure - that would include the procedure for calling witnesses, among other matters. The only way to overrule his decisions would be by majority vote of the Senate - you seem to be confused about that sequence.

No, you just don't seem to understand when the word "appeal" is used in a legal sense. Technically, if falls on Congress to seek a court ruling to enforce its own subpoenas. Only after that initial ruling can a legal appeal be made.

So?

So the Senate can, like any court, dismiss the impeachment for lack of prosecution.

In a couple of years, if Trump quits obstructing the process.
So far the prosecution is well ahead of schedule, to its detriment - as many cynical lefties have noticed, anticipating a whitewash by the irredeemably compromised and complicit Republicans in the House, Senate, FBI, State Department, and corporate media.
Who but a guilty perp tries to silence the very eyewitnesses who would best exonerate the innocent?

They've balked at her breaking precedent with the political game of delay, but as you've been told several times now, McConnell himself said he was in no hurry.

You believe what McConnell says? Oh child - - - -

McConnell has complained, repeatedly, about delays. So have other Republicans. In addition to complaining, they have tried to reduce the trial they are obligated to conduct to a quickly dismissed sham - no witnesses, no testimony, no additional evidence, no delays. Nobody else is in such a hurry they are willing to pretend they can have a trial without witnesses, testimony, or evidence.

 

[Vociferous]

If you have some objection to the US Constitution's specification of how and why US Presidents are to be impeached, rather than criminally charged, you'll have to be a bit more specific. Do you wish to amend the Constitution?

None of the above.

I don't. You do.
All my observations about the obvious presence of statutory crimes in the detailed behavior of this impeached President- such as obstruction of justice, which is a felony, or using the powers of his public office for coercion of private benefit, which is also criminal - have been responses to your introducing the topic. You post bs Republican media spew, I call you on it - no shoehorn necessary for a garbage can that widely open.

Again, nowhere mentioned in the articles of impeachment, hence you doing all the shoehorning. And trying in vain to cover for it with a genetic fallacy.

In criminal matters. You are on record as denying this is a criminal matter. Change your mind?
Besides: a trial in matters like this - in civil or criminal court, of course, because ordinary citizens are not immune from indictment - normally takes a few months at least, even for low profile and comparatively powerless perps.
And Trump has lots of power here - he can speed this whole thing up quite a bit simply by ceasing to obstruct it.

Due process is a basic civil right. The right to a speedy trial does not mean you forego the right to other due process, like legally challenging subpoenas.

Obstruction of justice is a felony crime (that's the second article of impeachment). So is (separately) intimidation of witnesses, withholding of court-demanded documents, bribery, and extortion. That's a partial list.

Obstruction of justice is nowhere in the impeachment articles. You're imagining things again.

Then show us the law that details "obstruction of Congress".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice
Are you denying that obstruction of justice is a crime?

Not the same thing, and any intellectually honest and moderately intelligent person knows that.

Roberts is there to establish and oversee procedure - that would include the procedure for calling witnesses, among other matters. The only way to overrule his decisions would be by majority vote of the Senate - you seem to be confused about that sequence.

No, like Rehnquist, all procedure is established by Senate vote. And even if he broke that precedent, Republicans have a majority and can determine the entirety of the procedures.

No, you just don't seem to understand when the word "appeal" is used in a legal sense. Technically, if falls on Congress to seek a court ruling to enforce its own subpoenas. Only after that initial ruling can a legal appeal be made.

So?

Glad you see your error.

In a couple of years, if Trump quits obstructing the process.
So far the prosecution is well ahead of schedule, to its detriment - as many cynical lefties have noticed, anticipating a whitewash by the irredeemably compromised and complicit Republicans in the House, Senate, FBI, State Department, and corporate media.
Who but a guilty perp tries to silence the very eyewitnesses who would best exonerate the innocent?

That's one hell of a wide-reaching conspiracy theory.

You believe what McConnell says? Oh child - - - -

McConnell has complained, repeatedly, about delays. So have other Republicans. In addition to complaining, they have tried to reduce the trial they are obligated to conduct to a quickly dismissed sham - no witnesses, no testimony, no additional evidence, no delays. Nobody else is in such a hurry they are willing to pretend they can have a trial without witnesses, testimony, or evidence.

Again, who, where? Making quick work of a complete sham to get back to the business of the American people is their duty.

 

[Quantum Quack]

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas

There is no constitutional reason to pursue something that is legitimately demanded.

 

[Vociferous]

There’s no reason House Democrats could not have pursued lawsuits to compel compliance with all of the subpoenas

There is no constitutional reason to pursue something that is legitimately demanded.

Separate but equal powers mean that no branch of government can simply "demand" anything from another. IOW, no such "demand" is automatically legitimate without either voluntary compliance or the courts adjudicating the matter.

Again, try learning something about the stuff you opine about.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Separate but equal powers mean that no branch of government can simply "demand" anything from another. IOW, no such "demand" is automatically legitimate without either voluntary compliance or the courts adjudicating the matter.

Again, try learning something about the stuff you opine about.

Can congress appeal the Presidents constitutional rights?
Pardons, veto specifically....
Do you believe Trump has the capacity to ignore constitutional rights?

Seriously , where in the Constitution does it state that Trump and those he has commanded can appeal against giving evidence in his impeachment by Congress?

I mean to say... gosh... appeal against giving evidence under oath, as a way of saving his ass... a tad obvious isn't it...?

Isn't his refusal to testify on his own behalf due to his fear of committing perjury? Lying is, after all, a serious problem for Trump.
Why does he avoid giving testimony under oath generally?
Why is he being advised to avoid giving testimony under oath?

 

[Vociferous]

Separate but equal powers mean that no branch of government can simply "demand" anything from another. IOW, no such "demand" is automatically legitimate without either voluntary compliance or the courts adjudicating the matter.

Again, try learning something about the stuff you opine about.

Can congress appeal the Presidents constitutional rights?

I can't make any sense of that question. I doubt you can either.

Pardons, veto specifically....
Do you believe Trump has the capacity to ignore constitutional rights?

What constitutional right do you imagine he's ignored? You know, considering your demonstrated, complete lack of constitutional understanding.

Seriously , where in the Constitution does it state that Trump and those he has commanded can appeal against giving evidence in his impeachment by Congress?

Executive privilege, separate but equal powers, etc..

I mean to say... gosh... appeal against giving evidence under oath, as a way of saving his ass... a tad obvious isn't it...?

Isn't his refusal to testify on his own behalf due to his fear of committing perjury? Lying is, after all, a serious problem for Trump.
Why does he avoid giving testimony under oath generally?
Why is he being advised to avoid giving testimony under oath?

I'm not surprised you've never heard of a perjury trap, where the smallest inconsistency in answering on the spot can be construed into intentional lying, especially by partisans out for blood.

The House only had to file suit against officials not complying, and they could have even asked the court to fast track their rulings. Now, the court could have still found in favor of executive privilege, but that's the process laid out in the Constitution.