That second charge related to obstruction of congress of whatever is the biggest load of horseshiit to come down the pike since the beginning of the Republic. The notion that you can impeach and remove somone for not automatically accepting something that Congress requests and without Congress even going to court to enforce it is absurd. Maxine lookin' hot there.
I have been searching for the right word to describe the entire procedure -- a discovery phase where the defendant refused to cooperate in any way without a practical way to make him cooperate before the defendant's plan to rob a bank, so to speak, would be a fait accompli ; then a so-called trial where no witnesses were cross examined, followed by plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys alternately sending, sunday school style, leading questions to a doormat, i.e., "judge", to be read aloud and responded to with, "Thank you for that question, bla bla bla." When I hear the word "trial" used to refer to this "episode" in American political life, another word, "irony," keeps popping up. But that still seems like not quite the right word. Maybe "farce" is better.
You mean the discovery phase where the accused's attorneys were not allowed to participate and were not allowed to depose witnesses?
Maybe precedent is a better word. Say what you want about Trump, but the House has set some dangerous precedents here. A few that come to mind, advancing the articles before a full house vote. Conducting the preliminary inquiry in the Intelligence committee, so things can be kept secret.
This what it comes to. Dump says media is out to get him and his supporters provide cartoon fake quotes to "back it up".