(I think) they did but they decided that if they tried to use those powers they'd be bogged down in legal process and never deliver the articles.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There’s a subtle difference. In a House impeachment inquiry, subpoenas start in a lower court if challenged. In a Senate trial, Chief Justice Roberts presides. Subpoena challenges go straight to him. He could resolve them in time for an election threatened by foreign meddling.
-
This is the reason. The House does not, in fact, have the same subpoena powers. Trump could still defy them, but there would be no way to hide behind a pretense of waiting for the court to decide things.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They did, and the administration refused to comply with the subpoenas without a court order -- and appeals would have run out the clock to the election. I'm not sure why the Senate would have better luck, though a vote would get vulnerable GOP Senators on the record opposing it.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some of the documents & people’s involvement came to light after the articles were passed; they didn’t want to start the process over. Some of the witnesses were being blocked by the WH and they didn’t want to wait for the court ruling on it, which also came after the articles.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A subpoena asserts there is a right to hear the testimony, and so when Trump blocks the witness on specious grounds, it forces the Senate to say hey yeah trample our rights or to do something about it, i.e. remove the obstruction.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.