Maybe this is where I learn something. My impression was that when a law isn’t clear or has multiple ways to be interpreted, it the job of the judge to make the case it’s being applied to. And one of the first things a judge relies upon when making application is to look at precedent. In this case, I understand that the constitution doesn’t clearly say how the House should start an impeachment inquiry, but there is precedent. She ruled against precedent and with the party line that she has been associated with. And if a person is issued a subpoena and their lawyer believes it to be done illegally, does that person, any person, have to comply before the legality of the subpoena has been established?
But I’m not anywhere close to a lawyer and could be completely wrong. I would be glad to see trump elected out of office next year, but I’m afraid of what the political parties are doing bending and twisting the everything to suit their political needs.
Edit: My point is that if there was a house vote to begin an inquiry that was then run through the Judiciary committee like the previous two impeachment’s, then there would be no question of the legality of the subpoenas and need for trump to comply.
