Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Some TV lawyer made this case. I just assumed he knew what he was talking about:

The Clause serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere, but also to bar judicial or executive processes that may constitute a “distraction” or “disruption” to a Member’s representative or legislative role. Despite the literal text, protected acts under the Clause extend beyond “speeches” or “debates” undertaken by Members of Congress, and have also been interpreted to include all “legislative acts” undertaken by Members or their aides.

Posted
14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Some TV lawyer made this case. I just assumed he knew what he was talking about:

The Clause serves various purposes: principally to protect the independence and integrity of the legislative branch by protecting against executive or judicial intrusions into the protected legislative sphere, but also to bar judicial or executive processes that may constitute a “distraction” or “disruption” to a Member’s representative or legislative role. Despite the literal text, protected acts under the Clause extend beyond “speeches” or “debates” undertaken by Members of Congress, and have also been interpreted to include all “legislative acts” undertaken by Members or their aides.

I think he's off-base.  More than you wanted to know about it. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45043.pdf

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Fuck.  It just occurred to me that this decision is limited to "presidential records" covered by the Presidential Records Act, and not necessarily to claims of executive privilege covering testimony about conversations, for example.

So, strictly speaking, Meadows' lawsuit may have a bit of traction on that ground alone.

The case does make clear some things very helpful to annihilating any claim of executive privilege.  Primarily that it belongs to the incumbent President and not to a former President, and secondarily, that any claim of privilege must be supported by alleging harm to the nation or the office of the President, and not to the President's personal interests.

And it is the Presidential Records Act itself that gives a former President the ability to raise executive privilege even when the incumbent refuses to do so.

So, there are a few questions that remain unanswered.

Posted

Didn't realize politico was the protector or her client's privilege.  Is that like how if I ask someone if they've been vaccinated, they yell, "HIPAA Violation!" even though I am not a health care provider or insurance provider.  

It really is sad how stupid this whole simulation has gotten.  It makes what's happening even that much harder to digest.  Say what you want about the Third Reich, people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Louis Gohmert wouldn't have been put in charge of anything.  They would have placed onto trains or turned over to Mengele like all the other 'mentally defective', not elevated to leadership positions.  

As Heydrich once so eloquently put it, "There are no shortage of meathooks on which to hang enemies of the state."  It's the one thing he and I see eye to eye on.  

 

Posted

I have been following this situation closer than most.  Perhaps not as close as some you crazy CR cabal, but closer than 98% of Americans.  I have never, ever seen that clip.  I imagine it's about to start making a very vigorous set of rounds through social media and cable news.

All I can say is what we all know to be true, we send our thoughts and prayers to the Sherwin family on Michael's upcoming suicide.  

Posted
On 12/9/2021 at 5:43 PM, Bama Chick said:

giphy.gif
 

 


(I’ve never really noticed - or paid much attention to - how much he looks like Sammy Davis Junior.)

Be curious to find out who the service is from.

 

 

big fucking shock, he's from the DFW area !!!!

Posted

I feel like we’re all bill Murray in “Groundhog Day” sometimes. Every damn insurrectionist,

”take a guess what I do…”

”uh, do you sell real estate?”

BINgO!  Now guess where I’m from Phil!

”are you from the Dallas area Ned!”

BINGO AGAIN Connors!!

Posted
12 hours ago, Lobo said:

I have been following this situation closer than most.  Perhaps not as close as some you crazy CR cabal, but closer than 98% of Americans.  I have never, ever seen that clip.  I imagine it's about to start making a very vigorous set of rounds through social media and cable news.

All I can say is what we all know to be true, we send our thoughts and prayers to the Sherwin family on Michael's upcoming suicide.  

I remember that. Seems they might have dropped the ball on that one. 

Posted
23 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

This tweet has the entire slide deck. 

 

"Hang Mike Pence" might go down as the notable phrase from this episode. The grand irony is that Trump had positioned him to either be the savior or destroyer of this democratic republic as we know it. Whether through courage or cowardice he did not go through with or even attempt any of various methods they had devised to discount/discredit/reject the vote results. in all of this, Pence was the singular hero by simply doing his job. Because he did, his boss tried to have him killed. I still don't think he realizes or has let himself comprehend that. If he did/does, he'd be helping lead the investigation.

Posted
2 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Don't know why, but I don't trust this PowerPoint data point. Or this whole Mark Meadows situation for that matter. 

metadata will say whether it's legit or an attempt to deflect

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

This tweet has the entire slide deck. 

 

It’s amazing to me how shitty some people are at PowerPoint. I mean, fuck. 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

metadata will say whether it's legit or an attempt to deflect

Very true. But this whole situation is odd. Meadows says he'll play ball, offers tons of incriminating evidence, then bounces? 

Posted
1 minute ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

Very true. But this whole situation is odd. Meadows says he'll play ball, offers tons of incriminating evidence, then bounces? 

maybe he gave them only what they asked for and thought perhaps he would be able to skate by on that - I've given you what you want, now leave me alone kind of thing. basically he gave them what they already knew about. but I doubt this is everything

Posted
Very true. But this whole situation is odd. Meadows says he'll play ball, offers tons of incriminating evidence, then bounces? 

Apparently he balked when he found out they had subpoenaed his personal phone/email records and not just his “official” communications.

So, makes ya wonder - how bad is the shit they’re going to find there?
Posted
41 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Apparently he balked when he found out they had subpoenaed his personal phone/email records and not just his “official” communications.

So, makes ya wonder - how bad is the shit they’re going to find there?

Almost like he figured the "official" communications would be subpoenaed at some point.

Posted
43 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Someone get Hillary to email their shit from her house.

Then the republicans might be interested.

Put it on Hunter’s laptop. 

Posted
7 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Put it on Hunter’s laptop. 

Slap a Ducks Unlimited sticker on a laptop, throw the data on it, tell your local Republican official that it's a hunter's laptop, voila!

Posted
19 hours ago, Bama Chick said:


Apparently he balked when he found out they had subpoenaed his personal phone/email records and not just his “official” communications.

So, makes ya wonder - how bad is the shit they’re going to find there?

The weird thing is that a subpoena is not some "variable" thing subject to change, or even much interpretation.  What it sought should have been pretty plain on its face, to the lawyers if not to Meadows himself.

And personal email is far less likely to be subject to a claim of executive privilege than "official."

Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The weird thing is that a subpoena is not some "variable" thing subject to change, or even much interpretation.  What it sought should have been pretty plain on its face, to the lawyers if not to Meadows himself.

And personal email is far less likely to be subject to a claim of executive privilege than "official."

Its weird because we keep thinking these guys must be smart. They’re not. Mark Meadows is a genuine fucking moron.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Its weird because we keep thinking these guys must be smart. They’re not. Mark Meadows is a genuine fucking moron.

And it’s quite hysterical watching him realize what happened.  Well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions. 

Edited by Biff Tannen
Posted

Unnamed politician’s text to Meadows on Jan. 7:  “Yesterday was a terrible day. We tried everything we could in our objection to the six states. I’m sorry nothing worked.” 
 

Bets on who this is?  Whoever is complaining the loudest about the committee’s work tomorrow is the prime suspect. Betting on Gosar, but hoping it’s Cruz.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted

They were merely trying to exit through the gift shop.  And my gift shop, I mean exit through the tip of Trump's Urethra.  

I get almost all of it.  I just don't get...why Trump.  A guy these folks wouldn't cross the street to piss on if he was on fire.  Suddenly, it's battle-time?



×
×
  • Create New...