I’d probably agree with you, more or less (the less part of that is because parenting can be a factor - one among several / many - in having ne’er-do-well children), but the reality is that Hunter’s misdeeds will almost certainly be fodder for at least some campaign ads, if not by President Trump’s campaign itself, then at least some other groups. That’s a prediction, not a justification / defense of the actions.
I think this is a very likely scenario up to the last part. I feel that the only way the Republicans in the Senate will agree to remove Trump from office is if they see that there is a strong public movement for doing so. And I don’t think that will happen.
What I think will happen will be that the public will see the evidence against Trump and realize he is guilty. And then they’ll see the Senate Republicans refuse to act on this. So Trump will remain in office to continue his full term.
And then the real verdict will be rendered next November. I feel that there will be a backlash against both Trump, for committing crimes, and the Republicans, for condoning his crimes. And if they are voted out of office, that’s the lesson that future Presidents will learn from.
EXCEPT the House has the sole power of impeachment so if they say the President committed the crimes A and B and in the Senate’s honest opinion he did not commit those crimes but DID commit the crimes C, D, E, … , S, T then it is proper for them to acquit and place the blame on the House for not bringing him up on the correct charges.
He hasn’t been claiming executive privilege. He’s been claiming a BS theory of “absolute immunity” that no one in the executive branch should respond to any subpoena whatsoever. As one of the many judges handling the subpoena battles ruled you can try to assert privilege, but you still have to respond.
What you’re describing here sounds like more than a technicality, which the definition of “political opponent” certainly is.
Is this like a rule that you just made up? For the record, the senate is not bound by rules you just made up.
I hope you’re right, but I spent a few minutes scrolling through the comments on the local TV station’s coverage. Granted, that’s a self-selected sample, but people are absolutely coming unglued already. They really do not care what Trump has done, only that those damn liberal demonrats (yes, that term is used with distressing frequency) are attacking “our” President.
When ya stab Caesar, ya better make it count. I think this is going to backfire, with lasting tragic results.
Always, always question the veracity of the origin of such comments. This is a classic disinformation tactic frequently taken by the Russians or others hoping to influence public opinion.
Question: Is challenging a subpoena in the courts illegal?
Not where I live. Trump really is bigger than Jesus here. And Russian trolls typically have better spelling and grammar.
Damn, I’m sorry. 
IANAL, but no, it’s not illegal at all. Motions to quash subpoenas in court proceedings are brought all the time.
“Unprecedented”? I don’t think that’s a constitutional requirement. Presumably Andrew Johnson & Richard Nixon could provide precedents; not to mention Reagan & Harding, even if their high crimes didn’t get them impeached.
So your logic is that a person should be convicted of crimes they didn’t commit because they committed crimes they did not get charged with?
I guess we’re establishing that there really aren’t any rules for impeachment. That being said, I’m reasonably satisfied with Article 1’s text.
Sure, but that’s something someone and their lawyers do together as a normal legal procedure.
What Trump did is in effect a CEO of a company telling his workers to ignore subpoenas in a case against himself.
The legal system would come down like the proverbial ton of bricks on any private citizen who presumed to order such a thing, as well as any of the people who refused the subpoena.
So why is it somehow different because Trump is President and it’s Congress doing the subpoena-ing? They definitely have that legal power, and he does not.
No. Not remotely.
My statement was straightforward and direct. The senate is not bound by rules you just made up. That’s it. A simple statement of fact.
Has there been any legal subpoenas from the inquiry that have not been contested in court? Of the contested subpoenas, has there been a court ruling on any of them that has been ignored by the administration? I sincerely do not know the answer to these questions.
Oh, I get all that. I answered the question in the context I thought it was asked: “Question: Is challenging a subpoena in the courts illegal?” I suppose there are a couple different ways to read that. I simply meant that in regular courts, subpoenas are contested all the time.
And of course you’re correct – it’s a really big crazy deal that Trump has blown off Congressional subpoenas and failed to produce either documents or witnesses. Congress does have this power of oversight. At least, they do according to the Constitution. That’s why the obstruction of Congress article of impeachment is massively important. It’s hard to overstate how important it is.
There have been legal subpoenas from the inquiry that have not been contested in court. All those career civil servants who appeared before the Intelligence Committee to testify complied lawfully with Congress’s subpoenas, defying Trump’s bogus assertion of “absolute immunity,” which is a concept that exists only in the fevered minds of Trump, his henchmen and his followers but doesn’t exist in law. Of the contested subpoenas, there have been a number of rulings by various courts on them. Dems are batting .1000. To date, there have been no adverse rulings for their positions.
At least one of the rulings by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson related to Don McGahn’s failure to comply with Congress’s subpoena to testify was quite critical of the positions taken by the DOJ. It’s worth a read.
1.000.
That is all.