Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance

Longhorn_Fan68

By Longhorn_Fan68
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19,559

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Maybe a lawdog or two can weigh in, but Georgia is in  . . . Georgia.  Ladybug lives in DC and SC.  So unless he's flying Delta through Atlanta he can thumb his nose at the grand jury of Georgia. Not sure about those other fucks.

Not a law dog, but can Georgia extradite him for ignoring a subpoena? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Chuckie Finster
Chuckie Finster
Pig Bellmont
Pig Bellmont
Make em eat Taco Bell
Make em eat Taco Bell

this is really boring and overhyped.  Most of the country doesn't care about topic, I'd say a 3 hour special on inflation would get more eyeballs.  Or a bikini contest. 

Posted Images

Bullneck

Bullneck 19,454

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Not a law dog, but can Georgia extradite him for ignoring a subpoena? 

Depends on whether this is a lawful extradition to determine the validity of our government and way or life or . . .

SCUMBAG ON A WITCHUNT!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,992

Posted
Posted

Subpoenas usually have some sort of territorial limitations, initially.  For a state court, it's usually the state itself.

However, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, there are usually ways to make subpoenas effective for out-of-state or otherwise out of jurisdiction witnesses.

In many cases, they are directed to a court that has jurisdiction over the witness and that court then assumes jurisdiction over the subpoena and either issues its own or a similar order that the witness comply with the subpoena, with whatever "inconvenience" mitigation things (travel fees, etc.) the court orders or provided by state law.  Nominally, the local court can refuse to enforce the subpoena if it would somehow offend the sovereignty of the state, but, historically, that doesn't happen very often.

These days, if a Fulton County grand jury subpoena hit a Magat judge in South Carolina for Lindsey Ladybugs, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that judge refused to enforce it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44,773

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Subpoenas usually have some sort of territorial limitations, initially.  For a state court, it's usually the state itself.

However, because of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution, there are usually ways to make subpoenas effective for out-of-state or otherwise out of jurisdiction witnesses.

In many cases, they are directed to a court that has jurisdiction over the witness and that court then assumes jurisdiction over the subpoena and either issues its own or a similar order that the witness comply with the subpoena, with whatever "inconvenience" mitigation things (travel fees, etc.) the court orders or provided by state law.  Nominally, the local court can refuse to enforce the subpoena if it would somehow offend the sovereignty of the state, but, historically, that doesn't happen very often.

These days, if a Fulton County grand jury subpoena hit a Magat judge in South Carolina for Lindsey Ladybugs, it wouldn't surprise me at all if that judge refused to enforce it.

Except he's in DC most of the time and I don't think there are many MAGA judges there...

But I could be wrong about this. Not a lawyer just a dude with a keyboard.

Edited by The Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,992

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Except he's in DC most of the time and I don't think there are many MAGA judges there...

But I could be wrong about this. Not a lawyer just a dude with a keyboard.

Well, initially, you would consider issuing a subpoena to where someone legally resides, which for him would be SC.

He may certainly "be found" or be domiciled in DC, which would probably be fully legal.  But, legislators enjoy a shit ton of immunity from service of things like subpoenas, so that might be a big pain in the ass.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44,773

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, initially, you would consider issuing a subpoena to where someone legally resides, which for him would be SC.

He may certainly "be found" or be domiciled in DC, which would probably be fully legal.  But, legislators enjoy a shit ton of immunity from service of things like subpoenas, so that might be a big pain in the ass.

Yeah was wondering about that.

Regardless I think he sings like a canary (and the rest will too after going through some bullshit). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28,596

Posted
Posted
Well, initially, you would consider issuing a subpoena to where someone legally resides, which for him would be SC.
He may certainly "be found" or be domiciled in DC, which would probably be fully legal.  But, legislators enjoy a shit ton of immunity from service of things like subpoenas, so that might be a big pain in the ass.

I betcha there’s a Democratic senator or two that would happily freelance as a process server to serve Ladybug right there in the chamber.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StassneyHorn

StassneyHorn 6,755

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

200.gif

Like it would matter?  For fuck's sake, he could confess right now, on live TV, "I led the insurrection -- I asked for people to go kill Mike Pence, and when they were trying to do so, I wanted to go help them kill him so he couldn't certify the votes, and I ordered security that could stop them to stand down.".....and the only consequence would be that he would GAIN votes.

Georgia has shown to be different and has rejected him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44,773

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, royiv said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/06/politics/pat-cipollone-deposition-january-6-committee-this-week/index.html

 

NYT broke the story. 

He will not testify in public but will do a videotaped and transcribed interview. Won't discuss conversations with Trump except for one on Jan 3rd. Conversations with other WH staff appears to be fair game.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20,884

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Georgia has shown to be different and has rejected him.

Yep and elected 2 D senators on January 5 in no small part because of all of Trump's bullshit lies and lawsuits, even before the Capital attack

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8,867

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Law dogs need to weigh in:  I saw an alleged legal expert interviewed a couple of days ago who claimed that subpeonas are typically for witnesses, not the accused.  If true, that might indicate Rudy isn't a main target.

*grand jury subpoenas 

And that’s true. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,992

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Bama Chick said:


I betcha there’s a Democratic senator or two that would happily freelance as a process server to serve Ladybug right there in the chamber.

No doubt.  But such service would be ineffective.  And the immunity extends to "going to and from" the chambers, making service effected on a legislator subject to quashing even if it occurs outside the chamber or halls of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,992

Posted
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

*grand jury subpoenas 

And that’s true. 

To elaborate, the first purpose of a grand jury is to indict people.  They are a buffer between prosecutors and defendants that ostensibly insures that there is probable cause to charge a person with a felony.

To issue an indictment, grand juries must hear the evidence of the crime, usually presented in a one-sided fashion by the prosecutor.  Leading to the expression that a decent prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich (or, as we have seen more recently, get a no-bill for Adolf Hitler).

But grand juries can also investigate crimes. essentially gathering their own evidence of probable cause in order to issue indictments.  That also tends to be at least "guided" by the prosecutors, in terms of suggesting who to subpoena and what they might know.  But it is a tad more impartial than a pure presentation by the prosecution.

But the real reason "investigative grand juries" are empaneled is because they have subpoena power that prosecutors lack on their own, at least until a trial.  It's about the only way prosecutors can engage in "discovery" of evidence and facts before trial.  They can do search warrants, yes, but only for documents and things, and wiretaps that listen in on conversations, but they can't compel people to tell what they know or what the documents and things mean (excluding unconstitutional methods like beating the shit out of people during interrogations).

So, yes, grand juries typically subpoena witnesses to a crime.  But it's not unheard of for a witness to become a target of an indictment. 

I used to office with a fairly high-level criminal practitioner.  DOJ sends letters informing people that they are targets of a grand jury investigation.  Fairly frequently, she would represent people subpoenaed as witnesses, and get a target letter for that same person a few weeks or months later.  Generally speaking, grand jury witnesses are not represented by counsel while testifying in accordance with the secrecy provisions.  On occasion, though, a lawyer for a defendant or target is permitted to make a presentation to the grand jury of exculpatory evidence or explaining whatever other evidence they may have heard, in order to avoid an indictment.  That's tenacious defense work.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31,992

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Who is Sarah Matthews? Apparently another very young woman with insider access who has come forward. Anyone have details?

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/01/07/sarah-matthews-white-house/

NINTCHDBPICT000629197538.jpg?strip=all&w

She don't spell too good for a press secretary

“As someone who worked in the halls of Congress I was deeply disturbed by what I saw today. I’ll be stepping down from my rope, effective immediately. Our nation needs a peaceful transfer of power.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1,911

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/01/07/sarah-matthews-white-house/

NINTCHDBPICT000629197538.jpg?strip=all&w

She don't spell too good for a press secretary

“As someone who worked in the halls of Congress I was deeply disturbed by what I saw today. I’ll be stepping down from my rope, effective immediately. Our nation needs a peaceful transfer of power.”

Pro:  Claims ability to balance on rope.

Cons:  East Texas Box Face.  Bony knees. 

Verdict: WNB.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbbruin

Sbbruin 22,082

Posted
Posted

How soon before Trump starts taking pot shots at Cipilone for being a weak and ineffective lawyer, and whatever other insult he ends up hurling at him?  Does he wait until after his testimony so that Cipilone doesn't go scorched earth?  It will be interesting to see Trump melt down if another loyal subject doesn't exactly fall on their sword.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...