Donald Trump 2019

[Blotto 23560]

.it's some guy named Merrick Garland.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

9 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

I love their statement that gun violence is to blame for Trump Chicago getting their ass beat.  Langham is literally right across the street and is absolutely killing it.  Everybody in town knows if it's a busy weekend and you need a place to crash at 5am after the bars close, the Trump is always open occupancy.  #Sad

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

6 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I love their statement that gun violence is to blame for Trump Chicago getting their ass beat.  Langham is literally right across the street and is absolutely killing it.  Everybody in town knows if it's a busy weekend and you need a place to crash at 5am after the bars close, the Trump is always open occupancy.  #Sad

So, it's a glorified flophouse?

 

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

"At the May 14th oral argument, Plaintiffs asked the court to stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days already agreed upon by the parties, pending final appellate review by the D.C. Circuit. See Hr’g Tr. at 77–78. The court declines to do so."

 

I can't imagine DC Circuit somehow jumping into this before tomorrow and somehow granting a stay, so these docs are due tomorrow (from a third party, who isn't as inclined as the White House to ignore the law).

[jimmyjazz 46000]

3 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, it's a glorified flophouse?

Plus, bedbugs.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

5 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

So, it's a glorified flophouse?

 

 

Oh for sure.  Places are open til 5am Saturdays in Chicago.  There's a couple pvt lounges you can drink at til 6/7 and believe it or not they're usually going strong on busy weekends.  Pretty high end crowd, some celebrities...But even those close eventually.  So either you have some piece of ass you need to take and smash somewhere that doesn't look like an hourly motel - Trump.  Also, if you want to keep partying and still have 12-15 people no other decent place will rent you a suite with that many people rolling in hammered at 7am with no luggage - Trump is your spot.  So, thanks Dotard?  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

The judge denied the stay of enforcement of the subpoena because Trump and his lawyer’s arguments are frivolous and everyone involved knows it. The only reason they haven’t declared them as such is because nobody before has ever tried to make such dumb arguments. 

Tumps banking on his Supreme Court from bailing him out, as well as his usually tactic of delaying all negative cases against him. Despite being a 5-4 conservative court, they aren’t complete hacks like trump hopes they are, or at least I hope.

Anyway trump will lose all these fights. The only question is how long its gonna take. 

[TornACL 7722]

56 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

I love their statement that gun violence is to blame for Trump Chicago getting their ass beat.  Langham is literally right across the street and is absolutely killing it.  Everybody in town knows if it's a busy weekend and you need a place to crash at 5am after the bars close, the Trump is always open occupancy.  #Sad

It's even more fucking stupid because that area of Chicago is no more dangerous than any other major US city.

You can always tell a Fox News addict whenever you casually mention you're headed to Chicago, and then they react in horror, like they're sniping people off at curb of the O'Hare Arrivals Level.

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

^^^truth

[HenryJames 66134]

32 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

President Comments Section

[HenryJames 66134]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[HenryJames 66134]

DP

Edited May 20, 2019 by HenryJames

[Gil Bang 25983]

I'm not a lawyer. 

I find it astounding that a lawyer can get away with ignoring a subpoena.   I hope that in the future, everybody in every case that McGahn is involved with, ignores every subpoena.  

IMHO, a lawyer that pulls this shit should lose his law license, quickly.  

Edited May 20, 2019 by Gil Bang

[RPM 26327]

35 minutes ago, TornACL said:

You can always tell a Fox News addict whenever you casually mention you're headed to Chicago, and then they react in horror, like they're sniping people off at curb of the O'Hare Arrivals Level.

Everybody knows that's only at Midway.

[henrygandorf 29194]

4 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I'm not a lawyer. 

I find it astounding that a lawyer can get away with ignoring a subpoena.   I hope that in the future, everybody in every case that McGahn is involved with, ignores every subpoena.  

IMHO, a lawyer that pulls this shit should lose his law license, quickly.  

a few weeks ago when the stonewalling began, they mentioned that targets of the subpoenas, especially those not currently employed by the govt, would be subject to losing their law licenses/being disbarred.

not sure what happened to that.

[HenryJames 66134]

12 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

That jacket tho.

[HenryJames 66134]

This website sucks so hard on a mobile device. 

Edited May 20, 2019 by HenryJames

[HenryJames 66134]

Meh.

Edited May 20, 2019 by HenryJames

[Captainant 27686]

Isn't McGahn a private citizen now? Trump is obstructing justice by impeding an official investigation and attempting to influence a witness's testimony. Like, this is black letter law. Trump has no valid reason to impede a private citizen testifying

[Homercles 10206]

Good thread from a former Army JAG prosecutor on Trump’s plan to pardon all those war criminals.




And why don’t the resident Trumpkins ever post in this thread to defend their orange lord’s honor?

They’re all up in the Mueller thread and tariff thread and other threads carrying the water for this clown and his merry band of twats but never in the actual Trump thread.

Wonder why that is?

Oh because most of this shit is actually indefensible and they all know that so they just avoid it like the pussies and cowards they are.

Right.

A guy who is a verified retired SEAL wrote this on their subreddit and I think it’s excellent:

This is so fucked. We have a system to handle this shit and it may or may not have been working in this case but we'll never know and we'll never be able to fix the system if it was broken if some asshat can just come in and make the system moot. This would be a clearly political move too. If Eddie was unfairly charged he deserves a trial to actually clear his name. If he's guilty we need to show people the system works. If it's a grey area, we need to have the conversation about what we're actually doing over there. All a pardon will do is make it explicitly clear that the people who run America believe that they're above the law, and the agents of their policies are likewise above the law.

[atomheartbevo 89752]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

the administration fights these subpoenas, hoping to get it bogged down in the courts.

 once the court rules that they have to comply...then what?

they'll obviously continue to refuse, but they can't just go back hoping to fight it in the courts - or at least i would hope that circular bullshit isn't an actual option for them.

at some point, is there some sort of court order to seize the documents, and refusal to do so would result in...contempt?  arrests?  for who?  i know people can refuse to show up (or if they show up, they can refuse to talk), but these documents exist somewhere, and it seems more black and white.

Mazar’s is a private company.  Trump can’t order them to ignore a subpoena.   As somebody said, they have their cover to turn over everything.  They don’t want to get in a situation where they get raided and/or get fined out the ass, and they sure as hell know Trump wouldn’t cover the fines anyways.  

Even as a former client, Trump has no authority over them once that subpoena holds up. 

[retread 2951]

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

itsallhappening.gif?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Might as well sit this one out Pelosi, none of your legislation is getting passed anyway. 

[retread 2951]

From the article

Quote

During the Monday night leadership meeting, Pelosi was speaking about how Democrats’ messaging isn’t breaking through because everyone is talking about corruption, special counsel Robert S. Mueller’s report and impeachment. She argued that last week the investigations were making page one news while the House move to pass the Equality Act —a bill ensuring gay, lesbian and bisexual people are not discriminated against —was on “page 26.”

That’s when Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a subcommittee chairman on Judiciary, jumped in to tell Pelosi that it amounted to a good case for launching an impeachment inquiry, according to people in the room who recounted the exchange. Raskin argued that an inquiry would allow leadership to streamline and centralize all of the investigations into one inquiry — then let everyone else to focus and talk about the Democratic agenda items that won them the majority in 2018. 

Quote

Panel members are arguing that there is a distinction between an impeachment inquiry and impeachment proceedings that necessitate a vote. Lieu, in an interview, declined to comment on the meeting, but said that an inquiry “could lead to nothing” — or it could lead to impeachment. 

“That inquiry is also what happened during Watergate,” he said. “It’s not like the House Judiciary Committee just dropped articles of impeachment. There was an investigation that preceded it. This inquiry could lead to impeachment or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn’t show, we have to at least start it.”

Edited May 21, 2019 by retread

[Gil Bang 25983]

cohen transcript

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190520/109549/HMTG-116-IG00-20190520-SD001.pdf

[Doc Sam Beckett 5797]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Isn't McGahn a private citizen now? Trump is obstructing justice by impeding an official investigation and attempting to influence a witness's testimony. Like, this is black letter law. Trump has no valid reason to impede a private citizen testifying

 

Lulz, it's cute that there are people who think that rules and laws still matter. 

 

40 minutes ago, retread said:

 

 

Fuck her, launch the damn inquiry 

Edited May 21, 2019 by Doc Sam Beckett

[henrygandorf 29194]

Just now, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Fuck her, launch the damn inquiry 

dumb question amnesty - whose actual decision is it to get started?  judiciary committee vote?   

[Gil Bang 25983]

she decides who's on what committee.  go against her, you may lose your seat. 

[Pancho 44877]

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

lock up the fbi?

i mean, it's tough but it's fair.

[tantric superman 4667]

10 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

she decides who's on what committee.  go against her, you may lose your seat. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45694]

Oh he had another one of them regard rallies?  Same as usual I presume?

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Isn't McGahn a private citizen now? Trump is obstructing justice by impeding an official investigation and attempting to influence a witness's testimony. Like, this is black letter law. Trump has no valid reason to impede a private citizen testifying

 Confidentiality in regard to even private companies extends past the point that a person leaves the company.  If you could break privelige or confidentiality simply by quitting, there would be no such thing as confidentiality or privilege.  Fuck, I can't spell privaledge.

Not arguing that he shouldn't testify.  Just arguing the "private citizen now" point.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

14 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

I'm searching for a "both sides" example but can't really come up with one. Any Trump supporters here got anything for me?

Edited May 21, 2019 by SmokeyTheBear

[David Dennison 18939]

They have options if she doesn't play ball.

https://www.byrdcenter.org/byrd-center-blog/how-to-remove-a-speaker-of-the-house

[Brandywine 1316]

Start the damn impeachment proceedings!

[henrygandorf 29194]

3 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

 Confidentiality in regard to even private companies extends past the point that a person leaves the company.  If you could break privelige or confidentiality simply by quitting, there would be no such thing as confidentiality or privilege.  Fuck, I can't spell privaledge.

Not arguing that he shouldn't testify.  Just arguing the "private citizen now" point.

i think executive privilege was waived when mcgahn spoke to mueller, so that would render it meaningless, and not like some nda you sign when you leave a job.

the private citizen point was in response to whether trump could legally stop him from testifying, as he theoretically could if he still worked in the white house.

my understanding is that mcgahn's firm deals with a lot of conservative business, and it would suffer if he came forward voluntarily and spilled his guts.

[Foosters 17858]

12 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

I'm searching for a "both sides" example but can't really come up with one. Any Trump supporters here got anything for me?

I played this game last week. Was told that they are committing treason so what's the problem with him saying it.

Pretty open and shut argument there.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I'm searching for a "both sides" example but can't really come up with one. Any Trump supporters here got anything for me?

As I pointed out this weekend, they seem to avoid this thread.

They spill their palaver all over the abortion thread and the Mueller thread and other various threads but for some reason they avoid the topic devoted to their orange demigod like the plague.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

46 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i think executive privilege was waived when mcgahn spoke to mueller, so that would render it meaningless, and not like some nda you sign when you leave a job.

the private citizen point was in response to whether trump could legally stop him from testifying, as he theoretically could if he still worked in the white house.

my understanding is that mcgahn's firm deals with a lot of conservative business, and it would suffer if he came forward voluntarily and spilled his guts.

And most NDAs are required to have a provision that confidential information can be released if compelled by law or legal proceedings.  

Edited May 21, 2019 by Judge Roybeanbag

[HenryJames 66134]

[Gil Bang 25983]

26 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

And most NDAs are required to have a provision that confidential information can be released if compelled by law or legal proceedings.  

Isn't his firm one of the world's biggest?  Do they really need "conservative" business?   And they aren't good enough to hold on to that business regardless?

[Gil Bang 25983]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

Isn't his firm one of the world's biggest?  Do they really need "conservative" business?   And they aren't good enough to hold on to that business regardless?  And what the fuck does "conservative" have to do with Trump?

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

30 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

And most NDAs are required to have a provision that confidential information can be released if compelled by law or legal proceedings.  

True but that doesn’t take into account when the president wants to obstruct justice. The lawyers drafting the NDA forgot about that part.

[Burt 4089]

4 hours ago, TornACL said:

You can always tell a Fox News addict whenever you casually mention you're headed to Chicago, and then they react in horror, like they're sniping people off at curb of the O'Hare Arrivals Level.

Yep, a guy I coach with was beside himself when, on the bus ride home over the weekend, one of our players said she was going to Chicago this summer to visit family.  He almost had her convinced to cancel her trip. 

[Party_Taco 3746]

"At the May 14th oral argument, Plaintiffs asked the court to stay the return date of the subpoena beyond the seven days already agreed upon by the parties, pending final appellate review by the D.C. Circuit. See Hr’g Tr. at 77–78. The court declines to do so."
 
I can't imagine DC Circuit somehow jumping into this before tomorrow and somehow granting a stay, so these docs are due tomorrow (from a third party, who isn't as inclined as the White House to ignore the law).

Isn’t Merrick Garland the one at the DC Circuit who would have to grant the stay? Somehow, and I’m not sure why, I don’t see him carrying the GOP’s water on this one...