Jump to content

January 6th Committee Hearings Thread of Dominance


Longhorn_Fan68

Recommended Posts

That's just it, if it's not rooted in American history/culture or whatever the fuck they said last summer...then precedent can be ignored/elevated based on historuy/culture.  

Jefferson was subpoenaed but turned over shit on Burr voluntarily.  That's really the only "founding history" incident.  Otherwise Nixon was gonna be, but he resigned so non-starter.  Clinton was and was close to being compelled to appear, but he voluntarily appeared and said his schtick.  There's really no "historical precedent in line with traditional American principles and values" that would allow sCOTUS to bend over for Trump on this.  Really the legal question is can the DC circuit even hear a motion to dismiss the subpoena by Congress of a former President?  They've heard cases before for private citizens, which I guess Trump technically is.  I guess maybe the closest parallel would be have they heard a complaint before from a former Rep/Senator/Judge/high ranking regulator or cabinet member who was subpoenaed but refused?  

The really troubling thing about all this and the document theft thing is there's no real clear legal path or precedent because the Framers just had this wild notion that no sitting or former president would attempt insurrection, usurping free elections, committing espionage, or treason.  the fact that quartering soldiers in homes was a bigger deal to them than Washington possibly engaging in selling state secrets to England should be pretty damn telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

He won't show up at all and we'll prove once again that the law/rules doesn't  matter to the rich and powerful.

Nixon resigned rather than comply with a subpoena. Clinton reluctantly volunteered to testify. Trump will double check the range of his retooled 757.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

You know, 'pubs, if you had impeached Trump's sorry ass for engineering a violent riot to overturn a lawful Presidential election like your oath's to the constitution implore, none of this would be happening.  The Jan 6th committee won't stop because you keep attempting to protect Trump from lawful justice.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

if he comes and sits down and takes the 5th 600x, i assume nothing happens.

this option is funny... like he's disciplined enough to stick with it lol. he wouldn't make it three questions in before he veered offscript and started with the word salads.

it would be awesome to watch 🤣 i hope they try it. 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, miguelito said:

Convince Trump that his subpoena hearing would have huge ratings, and he'll show up.

I can see him having some dumbass nickname for every person on the committee, and pleading the fifth with a dumbass, smarmy grin on his face.

Because, in Trump world, pleading the fifth isn't a sign that you're guilty and don't want to incriminate yourself; rather, it's a brave act of defiance against the deep state witch hunt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I can see him having some dumbass nickname for every person on the committee, and pleading the fifth with a dumbass, smarmy grin on his face.

Because, in Trump world, pleading the fifth isn't a sign that you're guilty and don't want to incriminate yourself; rather, it's a brave act of defiance against the deep state witch hunt!

Hag-Bag Lofgren

Shifty Schiff

Greasy Pete

Slanty Stephanie

Jewey Jamie

ETC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they had to subpoena him.  Put him in a position where he can/must testify under oath and have him avoid it.

Fairly certain that, despite the limitations we have seen imposed on documentary evidence and executive privilege, he can validly assert the privilege against testifying as to anything that transpired prior to January 20, 2021.  That's because this is a congressional subpoena that implicates separation of powers, where executive privilege is at its strongest.

Thankfully, I think it's a bit different for a criminal prosecution.

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

Jamie Raskin just called Trump a snowflake for sending his minions to do his bidding and not having the courage to testify.

He also laid out that Trump can go to the criminal trial and plead the 5th but in a civil matter if he does it you can infer that he is guilty.

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

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think they had to subpoena him.  Put him in a position where he can/must testify under oath and have him avoid it.

I would be shocked if any of the committee members actually think he'll show up, even if only to assert privilege.

The subpoena does provide a nice rebuttal to the disingenuous "one sided, no fair!!" nonsense. And then he can be reminded that Hillary actually testified in person, under oath, and live on camera.

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

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I think they had to subpoena him.  Put him in a position where he can/must testify under oath and have him avoid it.

Fairly certain that, despite the limitations we have seen imposed on documentary evidence and executive privilege, he can validly assert the privilege against testifying as to anything that transpired prior to January 20, 2021.  That's because this is a congressional subpoena that implicates separation of powers, where executive privilege is at its strongest.

Thankfully, I think it's a bit different for a criminal prosecution.

That's a lot of words to say he is above the law and will never face any consequences.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That's a lot of words to say he is above the law and will never face any consequences.

Any president would be within rights to avoid testifying before Congress pursuant to a subpoena.

Very few have done so. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-presidents-testified-congress-210846664.html

Congress can't impose any consequences, anyway.  I think they need to put him under the gun, though.

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

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Any president would be within rights to avoid testifying before Congress pursuant to a subpoena.

Very few have done so. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/former-presidents-testified-congress-210846664.html

Congress can't impose any consequences, anyway.  I think they need to put him under the gun, though.

I know I know.  Thanks man. 

You're going to be number ONE! in line for the lawyers in the line for trying to get into heaven when you realize you are in the line fo hell.  It's gonna be fucking awesome. You worked really REALLY hard for it.  

I'm kind of joking, but kind of not.  And fuck it, who cares.  

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

4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

That's just it, if it's not rooted in American history/culture or whatever the fuck they said last summer...then precedent can be ignored/elevated based on historuy/culture.  

Jefferson was subpoenaed but turned over shit on Burr voluntarily.  That's really the only "founding history" incident.  Otherwise Nixon was gonna be, but he resigned so non-starter.  Clinton was and was close to being compelled to appear, but he voluntarily appeared and said his schtick.  There's really no "historical precedent in line with traditional American principles and values" that would allow sCOTUS to bend over for Trump on this.  Really the legal question is can the DC circuit even hear a motion to dismiss the subpoena by Congress of a former President?  They've heard cases before for private citizens, which I guess Trump technically is.  I guess maybe the closest parallel would be have they heard a complaint before from a former Rep/Senator/Judge/high ranking regulator or cabinet member who was subpoenaed but refused?  

The really troubling thing about all this and the document theft thing is there's no real clear legal path or precedent because the Framers just had this wild notion that no sitting or former president would attempt insurrection, usurping free elections, committing espionage, or treason.  the fact that quartering soldiers in homes was a bigger deal to them than Washington possibly engaging in selling state secrets to England should be pretty damn telling.

I never got the big deal about quartering soldiers…. i mean, as long as I dont have to change in front of them……

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, for half a century and through eight administrations that have considered the issue:

"Since the 1970s, this Office has consistently advised that “the President and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a Congressional committee” on matters related to their official duties. Memorandum for All Heads of Offices, Divisions, Bureaus and Boards of the Department of Justice, from John M. Harmon, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Executive Privilege at 5 (May 23, 1977) (“Harmon Memorandum”); see also Rehnquist Memorandum at 7 (“The President and his immediate advisers—that is, those who customarily meet with the President on a regular or frequent basis—should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee.”). Indeed, this Office has endorsed that legal principle on more than a dozen occasions, over the course of the last eight presidential administrations."

That's an excerpt from the most recent OLC opinion on the matter, but as it states, and it's accurate, that has been the position of every presidential administration since Nixon on the matter, note the Carter Administration memo from 1977, also similar memos during the Clinton and Obama Adminstrations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Would citing that memo as protection from compelled testimony regarding official duties ostensibly declare that what happened on January 6th was part of their official duties?  

The memos themselves (they're all about the same, updated with cases here and there) have no precedential value.

The cases and reasoning of the memos would be used in arguments with congress about responding.

The courts are unlikely to get involved as these fights between Congress and the President, any president, are political questions that they most likely will not rule on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mchookem said:

this option is funny... like he's disciplined enough to stick with it lol. he wouldn't make it three questions in before he veered offscript and started with the word salads.

it would be awesome to watch 🤣 i hope they try it. 

 

 

Well, he did it in the NY AG case.  Four hundred and forty times.  Eric finally outdid pops racer there by invoking it 500 times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how the law seemingly provides infinitely high bars to clear before someone in power actually pays up for their obvious and dangerous malfeasance, but some poor motherfucker in compliance with state pot laws can still get years in the pokey because federal laws differ.

No real point here, just tiring of all the "well, you see . . . " bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I love how the law seemingly provides infinitely high bars to clear before someone in power actually pays up for their obvious and dangerous malfeasance, but some poor motherfucker in compliance with state pot laws can still get years in the pokey because federal laws differ.

No real point here, just tiring of all the "well, you see . . . " bullshit.

Well, in this particular case, the law stems from the Constitution, which basically says Congress and congressmen have important jobs to do and can't be screwed with for doing their jobs by another branch of government or the states, or civil litigants (the Speech and Debate Clause).  Similarly, the President (and advisors) has an important job to do and can't be screwed with by another branch of government, the states, or civil litigants for doing their jobs (executive privilege and immunity).  That's rational.

But when you elect a bunch of pigfuckers to congress and the presidency, these rational laws stop making sense.  The answer probably is better found in not electing pigfuckers or as few as possible than in changing these otherwise rational laws.

The pot laws are the result of electing pigfuckers, too.  So are many/most of the problems of the justice system.

And, in many cases, the laws are fucked up because they were changed to address the "problem du jour" that may not have been such a big problem after all, or because the law change had severe unintended consequences, or was poorly thought out, none of which is the exclusive province of pigfuckers.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Yeah, I don’t think the imperial president has emerged from the cocoon just yet. All ante dystopian  precedents show some degree of acquiescence. 

See my post immediately preceding yours.  There is a rationality to keeping a POTUS from having to answer to Congress (or basically anyone else) for every petty grievance, particularly those with a purely political purpose.  The office would grind to a halt.  Same with the Congress and the speech and debate clause and other immunities that governments and government officials have (which is all of them, down even to cops and dogcatchers). 

The grievances against Trump are not petty, but it's hard to make exceptions to these doctrines without swallowing the whole thing.  And, there are means to hold a former president to account, but not to Congress.  There are even means to hold a president accountable to congress (impeachment), but Congress had best be acting with one mind for that one, if it's not, don't even bother.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

See my post immediately preceding yours.  There is a rationality to keeping a POTUS from having to answer to Congress (or basically anyone else) for every petty grievance, particularly those with a purely political purpose.  The office would grind to a halt.  Same with the Congress and the speech and debate clause and other immunities that governments and government officials have (which is all of them, down even to cops and dogcatchers). 

The grievances against Trump are not petty, but it's hard to make exceptions to these doctrines without swallowing the whole thing.  And, there are means to hold a former president to account, but not to Congress.

Oral sex. That’s the precedent in our adult lifetime.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Asult
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line, we purposefully designed a system that put the sitting president above the law, because we saw the risk of relentless politically motivated prosecutions by his rivals and detractors. A fair concern.
But we put in a failsafe: the Senate. It could deliberate and convict the president and remove him from office after the House impeached him.

Problem: our failsafe failed. Turns out, it was a bad design. It didn’t fully account for the self-absorbed narcissist fuckery that is the GQP.
GQP selfishness killed this Republic. We had it for nearly 250 years, but they couldn’t help but kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Oral sex. That’s the precedent in our ladult lifetime.

Well, Clinton was neither impeached/convicted nor indicted for either oral sex or lying about it under oath because he enjoyed the same protections as other presidents.

But because he's not a total psychopath, he admitted his mistakes to the Arkansas bar and lost his law license for five years.  Don't think I'd get a five year suspension for perjury (I'm not bagging on Clinton, I actually like the guy and think he's smart as shit in a political way).  And by doing so, he avoided any criminal prosecution, that seemed imminent.

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Bottom line, we purposefully designed a system that put the sitting president above the law, because we saw the risk of relentless politically motivated prosecutions by his rivals and detractors. A fair concern.
But we put in a failsafe: the Senate. It could deliberate and convict the president and remove him from office after the House impeached him.

Problem: our failsafe failed. Turns out, it was a bad design. It didn’t fully account for the self-absorbed narcissist fuckery that is the GQP.
GQP selfishness killed this Republic. We had it for nearly 250 years, but they couldn’t help but kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Like I said.

Pigfuckers.

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

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Bottom line, we purposefully designed a system that put the sitting president above the law, because we saw the risk of relentless politically motivated prosecutions by his rivals and detractors. A fair concern.
But we put in a failsafe: the Senate. It could deliberate and convict the president and remove him from office after the House impeached him.

Problem: our failsafe failed. Turns out, it was a bad design. It didn’t fully account for the self-absorbed narcissist fuckery that is the GQP.
GQP selfishness killed this Republic. We had it for nearly 250 years, but they couldn’t help but kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

the two party system is always gonna cause fuckery in the senate because of the numbers needed to actually do things (like convict). 

you need it to go like nixon who was fucked because the gop was done with him. 

it will be like this (or worse) until it ceases to be a team sport. 

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

the two party system is always gonna cause fuckery in the senate because of the numbers needed to actually do things (like convict). 
you need it to go like nixon who was fucked because the gop was done with him. 
it will be like this (or worse) until it ceases to be a team sport. 

Yeah….we won’t make it that long. We’ll just descend into some version of a fascist/autocratic/hell-state, as is our destiny.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the two party system is always gonna cause fuckery in the senate because of the numbers needed to actually do things (like convict). 

you need it to go like nixon who was fucked because the gop was done with him. 

it will be like this (or worse) until it ceases to be a team sport. 

Yeah, the Senate sure seems like a mistake in a whole bunch of ways, along with the electoral college.

But the founders didn't wholly trust this newfangled democracy thing, and for pretty good reasons, so they put some anti-democratic firewalls in place.

The horrible irony of it is that the firewalls were supposed to prevent Trumps. 

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



×
×
  • Create New...