Is it just me, or does the "second article" have a fatal flaw?
 

It accuses Trump of "obstruction of Congress" for refusing to comply with the House's "subpoenas". But if I understand the process properly (always a major chance I don't), they never issued any subpoenas, only "letters of request", which have no legal ramifications for a failure to comply.

I thought the House had to have a vote to open an official "Impeachment Inquiry" in order to gain subpoena power. They skipped that step, since it would have come along with at least some due process for Trump, so they went directly from committee investigation to a vote on the articles without the House ever voting to open an official investigation.

For months now, the Democrats and the media have been conflating the terms "letter of request", and "subpoena", but in this case, isn't it the crux of the biscuit?

Political. It's all you have to know.

My understanding is that the House cannot issue legal binding subpoenas. No obligation to appear. What creepy Joe is about to learn however, is that the Senate issues actual subpoenas and if he thinks he doesn't have to appear, he should be prepared to be arrested. Not that he will be because Democrat...but he could/should be.

Maybe one should seek legal advice from former Attorney General Eric Holder.

He was subpoenaed by the House and later held in contempt but nothing happened.

Perhaps subpoenas by the Senate hold more weight? :dunno:

Repubs need to grow some balls and stop acting like wimps and kick ass

If I understand it correctly (and there is always a chance I don't), on the average day, the House only has the power to issue "letters of request", which are expected to be taken seriously, but carry no legal penalty for a failure to comply. If the House votes to have an impeachment inquiry, they then obtain subpoena power. The only difference between a letter of request and a subpoena is that a subpoena DOES have legal consequences for a failure to comply.

So, since they never had the vote for an impeachment inquiry, they never had subpoena power, and these "subpoenas" they supposedly issued were only letters of request. Although the House Democrats and the media have been conflating the terms "letter of request" and "subpoena", technically they are legally very different, that difference seems like it would be important here.

Interesting to see the spin changing:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartanntp

No mention of "subpoenas" in this article. Do we have a blink?

:waiting: