Despite your dismissiveness it's a valid point, in order to prove his proclaimed innocence why does he stop the people directly involved from testifying?
He has not stopped the people the dems wanted to testify. The office of the president has executive privilege.
Here's how it basically works in this scenario (under tried and tested separation of powers):
- The house Subpoena a witness to testify.
- The office of the president has executive privilege to deny the subpoena on the grounds of XYZ.
- The house then start court proceedings to overrule the executive privilege.
- The court then rules. If in favour of the house, then the witness will have no choice but to testify. If in favour of the office of the president, then the witnesses do not testify.
As established, only one of the several witnesses the dems want were subpoena'd, were denied at step 2 and the house failed to take if further through the process. As for the other witnesses, the house never even bothered.
I have never denied that the administration (like all of them in one or another) is trying to hide something, but the separation of powers are clear and there for good reasons.
You say the Democrats have a nothing case, but why don't people testify and destroy it?
OK, please show what constitutional crimes have been committed and enshrined in the articles of impeachment?
More and more constitutional scholars, Attorney generals and lawyers everyday join the many already stating there are none. And this is why this is going to fail.