Why did the House Judiciary not take the subpoena issue to court?

[KCfromNC]

Have you read the call record? He references balance of contributions from Germany and other European nations first.

Well, yeah, but he's also someone who frequently says things which aren't true. So when I was asking for evidence, I meant more along the lines of things which are reliable. Like his AG announcing he was going to work with Ukraine on an investigation. Or evidence such an investigation happened.

 

[tall73]

Well, yeah, but he's also someone who frequently says things which aren't true. So when I was asking for evidence, I meant more along the lines of things which are reliable. Like his AG announcing he was going to work with Ukraine on an investigation. Or evidence such an investigation happened.

You asked for evidence he asked for something else. I posted the call, where he asked about it.

However,

Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

As Laura Cooper, who oversees Ukraine policy at DoD, testified to the House Intelligence Committee, the president wanted to know if U.S. companies would be providing Ukraine any of the equipment, what other countries were doing to contribute, and where the U.S. funding came from. Defense Department officials collected the answers and sent them back up the food chain and then over to the White House.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think the last president who has never used executive privilege is from quite a long time ago...One of the more recent ones though.....Judge rejects Obama's executive privilege claim over Fast and Furious records

I thought this part was interesting:

"This ruling is not predicated on a finding that the withholding was intended to cloak wrongdoing on the part of government officials or that the withholding itself was improper," the judge wrote.

 

[NotreDame]

It is not a real trial. Even if it were only the presiding judge can allow new evidence presented during trial. Evidence is supposed to be gathered during the investigation and discovery phases. BTW, you realize under the constitution that the House has sole power of impeachment which means investigating and drawing up the articles of impeachment. The senate only listens to and weighs the evidence that they have gathered.

I agree, see #1

The House Dems declined to do so. They must not have seen any importance in it. Again, the Senate does not need to do the House's job. Maybe the dems will learn from this process.....

It is not a real trial.

So, the Constitutional provision that reads, “Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments“ that is referring to “not a real trial,” but a fake trial? So the word “try” in 1787, referring to a “trial” meant “not a real trial.” I’m intrigued. Tell me more. What’s your evidence?

The fact is, a trial was a well known concept to the framers in 1787. A a jury trial was a right long established in English law and the U.S. inherited the concept of a trial from England and English law.

Impeachment was also an English tradition inherited by the U.S. Baron William Latimer has the misfortune of being immortalized as the first recorded person to be impeached in England. The English practice of impeachment trials included the use of witnesses and evidence. Furthermore, an impeachment trial by the Lords was governed by the rule of evidence. Yes, those rules of evidence courts follow for their trials. We know this because, in part, it is referenced in a Senate impeachment trial of James H. Peck in 1831.

Impeachment trials in Congress have reflected court trials. In the 1831 impeachment trial of James H. Peck, the Senate allowed witnesses. The Senate, after examining English precedent, determined “the strict rules of evidence in force in the courts should be applied. Hinds' Precedents, Volume 3 - Chapter 69 - Rules of Evidence in an Impeachment Trial Yes, the Senate sought to follow the same rules of evidence the courts in the U.S. followed for their trials.

As a matter of fact, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment included witnesses, 31 in total. The Senate has heard from witnesses in every trial it has conducted in its history.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-it-heard-witnesses-every-one/?outputType=amp Or from witnesses in every trial or it has conducted over the last 50 years.
The Senate Impeachment Trial: Call the Witnesses or Concede the Facts

So, the historical evidence demonstrates a practice that a trial in the Senate was treated like those “real trials,” with witnesses and rules of evidence. The historical practice in England, no doubt adopted by the framers with its own personal touches added to suit the American experience, with witnesses and rules of evidence, would have been what the framers and framing generation had in mind with the idea of a Senate trial.

So, I’m mystified by your phrase “not a real trial.”

Again, the Senate does not need to do the House's job.

Calling witnesses isn’t “to do the House’s job.” Calling witnesses is within the purview of the Senate since they are to have a trial. A trial has historically been known to involve witnesses. The Senate has a long, tenured history of hearing from witnesses during an impeachment trial. Calling witnesses for a trial is within the constitutional job description of the Senate!

 

[KCfromNC]

You asked for evidence he asked for something else. I posted the call, where he asked about it.

He may have referenced it, but I seem to remember the spin about it being a reason for holding up the aid didn't come out until much later.

However,

Exclusive: Unredacted Ukraine Documents Reveal Extent of Pentagon’s Legal Concerns

As Laura Cooper, who oversees Ukraine policy at DoD, testified to the House Intelligence Committee, the president wanted to know if U.S. companies would be providing Ukraine any of the equipment, what other countries were doing to contribute, and where the U.S. funding came from. Defense Department officials collected the answers and sent them back up the food chain and then over to the White House.

Same questions about the timing of this stuff.