Nadler: This isn't something that needs to be adjudicated by the third branch, the judicial branch because there's no privilege being asserted here.

The obstruction of congress means the defiance of lawfully issued subpoena's by the US House of Representatives, unlike the obstruction of Congress that has taken place in the past, this president obstruction has been total, has been absolute.

This is about as dangerous and unconstitutional as it gets. This in essence declares congress to be sovereign instead of a tripartite government. The president is entitled to resist subpoena's from congress and say the court's have a right to decide. Not that the argument is relevant to begin with but it didn't take the courts months to issue a statement on Trump's attorney, the trial hasn't been taking place for months. Just as democrats has asserted that Trump has over reached his powers letting congress declared itself the sole arbitrator in deciding what constitute obstruction bypasses the judicial processes meant to guard against such tyranny, ultimately serving to deny due access rights to the judiciary branch of government under the constitution.

Obstruction of congress is not a crime especially when there's no review by the judiciary to determine otherwise. Neither is abuse of power. Nadler saying that a president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors while declaring abuse of power the highest of high crimes is laudable within itself. The highest of crimes is treason, then bribery, other would entail something that would be in the same category, as in obstruction of justice...in other words an element of criminality. Dems frequently fall back into comparing this to Nixion's abuse of power, what they don't comprehend is that his list of abuses were all manners of criminal activity. When republicans showed up to defend against the democrats list of abuses under the charge of abuse of power they brought legal scholars to advise them the last couple days. I don't know about you but how do legal scholars give advice to counter arguments like we seen Ms. Scalon provide: If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck it probably is a duck. Or how about Hank Johnson who provided this tidbit of evidence to back up the assertion of abuse: "Big 6'4" Trump with 5'11' President Zelensky there and Mr Trump is holding court and he says no pressure and you saw President Zelensky shaking his head as if his daughter was downstairs in the basement duck taped". Huh?...this person is in charge of a district somewhere?

No you are in the wrong clown car on this circus ride and once this gets to the Senate the ratings are going to go through the roof while Americans sit back and watch Republicans burn this process to the ground. You won't have to worry about how much time this takes away from Biden as it's speculated he will be subpoenaed, his son for sure, Adam Schiff is on the list along with the whistle blower and all witnesses who testified. They'll be able to present evidence, challenge witnesses, present their own witnesses, challenge witnesses and object. For them to go this route instead of toss it out the door they have to be pretty confident they'll win, even acquit the president of this silliness. You may say if it goes to him being acquitted it'll show he just gets away with it....but you know what...it took this country in Nov 2016 to serve up the justice that Hillary Clinton so much deserved, it felt good, it felt right that she no longer got away with it, and in the end up to and including how she set this whole process rolling, when the vindication comes down it's coming down hard and the word acquitted will be in the proper context.