impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Brisketexan 105438]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Yep.   A zealot.  A lunatic.  An asshole.  But lacking integrity, no.

And a longtime civil servant and government pro.

America, 2019.  A place where "zealot, lunatic, and asshole" can still be a giant step up in leadership quality.

[Bullneck 19215]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

nah, they'll jump when trump is no longer politically advantageous to them. it's already starting to happen

That's what I think.  When the cracks start to appear a few will take a secret vote and bail on him come impeachment time.  Once he's out he can't hurt them anymore.

[Message Board User 12396]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28806]

47 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

 

@WhatTheBuck and/or @RomaVictais there a good source for where I can read more about that? The Kushner game, I mean?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

Jared Kushner and Russia’s ambassador to Washington discussed the possibility of setting up a secret and secure communications channel between Trump’s transition team and the Kremlin, using Russian diplomatic facilities in an apparent move to shield their pre-inauguration discussions from monitoring, according to U.S. officials briefed on intelligence reports.

Ambassador Sergey Kislyak reported to his superiors in Moscow that Kushner, son-in-law and confidant to then-President-elect Trump, made the proposal during a meeting on Dec. 1 or 2 at Trump Tower, according to intercepts of Russian communications that were reviewed by U.S. officials. Kislyak said Kushner suggested using Russian diplomatic facilities in the United States for the communications.

The meeting also was attended by Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser. 

The White House disclosed the meeting only in March, playing down its significance. But people familiar with the matter say the FBI now considers the encounter, as well as another meeting Kushner had with a Russian banker, to be of investigative interest. 

Kislyak reportedly was taken aback by the suggestion of allowing an American to use Russian communications gear at its embassy or consulate — a proposal that would have carried security risks for Moscow as well as the Trump team.

[atomheartbevo 89824]

32 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

 

 

Trump really shouldn't have spent months shitting all over the FBI.  

[atomheartbevo 89824]

47 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

think this might have just gone up to 11:

 

So they are going to try and run out the clock in court challenges, and let the voters decide (while praying that the Rs get control of the House again, which everybody knows won't happen).

[Message Board User 12396]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

So they are going to try and run out the clock in court challenges, and let the voters decide (while praying that the Rs get control of the House again, which everybody knows won't happen).

Pretty much - just gum up the process or outright stonewall as much as they can and hope that voters get impeachment-fatigue.

[Pig Bellmont 8739]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Is Barr willing to throw everything he’s worked for away, in order to protect Rudy and Trump?

I get his mercenary act, but plenty of mercenary types tend to bail on bosses who are going down 

And is Barr, Trump, and Rudy willing to roll the dice with the Senate if Barr uses his power to bail Rudy out of trouble?

Barr will end up in prison. 

[RomaVicta 30031]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Maybe that is their play then with the document stall? Keep Pence as safe as possible, get everything to the Senate and depending upon how the wind blows either impeach DJ and pardon or clear DJ and keep the criminal enterprise rolling.

 

@WhatTheBuck and/or @RomaVictais there a good source for where I can read more about that? The Kushner game, I mean?

I get most of my knowledge from links posted here or just googling names. My comments about impeachment were merely musings. This Ukrainian story was laid out very well by the letter accompanying the Whistle Blower's complaint.

Here's a link to CBS News for a pdf version. There are many other places to get it. 

Thanks for the kind words earlier.

RV

[RomaVicta 30031]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html

 

 

Thanks. It's worse than I remembered. 

Iron cage for them all. Slow voyage to N. Atlantic. Dump in sea.

[David Dennison 18951]

36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

So they are going to try and run out the clock in court challenges, and let the voters decide (while praying that the Rs get control of the House again, which everybody knows won't happen).

He's still going to get impeached. They don't need one more document.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Thanks for the links guys! I am going to dive into those after the debate tonight.

[TwiceHorn 31554]

27 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He's still going to get impeached. They don't need one more document.

Agreed.

From a procedural and evidentiary standpoint, they don't need any more proof or evidence of impeachable offenses.  

At this point, it's convincing people with the attention span and intelligence of a gnat that it is legitimate and not merely a political ploy.

[Message Board User 12396]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.

From a procedural and evidentiary standpoint, they don't need any more proof or evidence of impeachable offenses.  

At this point, it's convincing people with the attention span and intelligence of a gnat that it is legitimate and not merely a political ploy.

Correct and this is why Nancy Pelosi (contrary to what Hugo thinks) has played this masterfully.  Just be patient, let the evidence pile up, and slowly support for impeachment is growing to the point where even some Republicans are turning against Trump.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8739]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

Oh?

[4th&Five 41599]

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

4 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Barr will end up in prison. 

[RPM 26360]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

I do declare, looked like he had a sudden case of the vapors.

[Asithappens 974]

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

It bends....until it breaks.  History is built on the ashes of once powerful and functioning governments.  We aren't special.  There it is, the Great American Scandalous Truth -- we aren't exceptional, we aren't special.  We're just as susceptible to being brought down from within as any other historical power.  And continuing to believe that we''re NOT at risk is exactly how it all comes down.

 

A couple of things. One, I don't remember calling the US "special", although we do have a system of government that, imo, is superior to many others (US Constitution) and does offer a better than average chance of weathering these types of storms. Maybe you disagree with that assessment. And while I'm in no way a Nationalist, we are exceptional, at least there's nothing wrong with thinking so. It's fine to do so. It's fine for the Swedes to think they are exceptional, too. 

And nothing I have said means that I don't think we are at risk of imploding. Of course we are at risk. Take your argument to those who have explicitly said such a thing. 

But you seem to think the sky is falling a lot of the time. I guess one of these times you'll be right.

[shnsajax 3592]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[4th&Five 41599]

 

[Biff Tannen 45750]

48 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

This should make me feel better.  But it doesn't.

[RomaVicta 30031]

56 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

 

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This should make me feel better.  But it doesn't.

I find it heartening. It at least indicates that people are beginning to pay attention: the people who will vote based on this issue. I don't predict anything from it regarding the Senate's support of Trump, but it helps that this has become (finally) a national issue.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Because of the big sort, National polls like that mean nothing now wrt a senate vote. 

[Asithappens 974]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Because of the big sort, National polls like that mean nothing now wrt a senate vote. 

Don't agree at all.

I don't define "everything" as being a conviction in the Senate, and imo, neither should you.

[Theo Huxtable 48]

13 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

 

Not sure that this adds anything to the situation. Trump hasn't ignored subpoenas, has he? Others have but they aren't in an impeachment situation. Isn't Graham just saying that it would only be impeachable if Trump ignored them?

[The Royal We 3072]

You serious Clark?  Trump has been openly instructing witnesses to his crimes not to comply with subpoenas.  Witch hunt out front should have told ya.

[sheeeit 129]

I am on the fence with this one.  Essentially it boils down to the issue of which constitutional power is more sacrosanct: presidential privilege or congressional subpoena power.  Ultimately, it is most likely a decision to be decided by the Supreme Court.  

I can see both sides to the argument.  The impossible thing for 98% of this forums crazies to look at is how this plays out in the future when there is a new POTUS and new congress. 

But a few of you (especially THOSE of you who REALLY like to make their points) need to realize how incredibly stupid you sound when you make comments like unprecedented obstruction, banana republic, lawlessness etc.  It was only 7 years ago when we had a very similar scenario.  Congress issued subpoenas to Eric Holder on Fast and Furious related issues.  Holder refused, citing executive privilege, was then held in contempt and then Obama/DOJ refused to act on the contempt and it went to court.  And guess what? Life went on.  America went on.  The courts ultimately ruled and some documents were released and some were not.

The absolute hypocrisy of the people involved is astounding.  Both sides.  In 2012 the republicans were crying that the subpoenas were lawful and the democrats (led by Pelosi) were claiming that the subpoenas were simply a political witch hunt.  this is a direct quote from Pelosi " "What the Republicans are doing with this motion ... is contemptible," Pelosi declared. "This is something that makes a witch hunt look like a day at the beach. It is (the) railroading of a resolution that is unsubstantiated by the facts, based on a false premise."  This what the WH said about the subpoenas "White House accused House Republicans of engaging in “political theater rather than legitimate Congressional oversight.”  Amazing how the words are the same but now in different hands.  

This why I ultimately believe that presidential privilege should preempt congressional subpoena power.  The precedent is just too damning.  Lets assume Warren is the new POTUS and she has her first call with Xi.  Some anonymous source tells Fox news that Warren said something unethical or possibly illegal in the call.  Fox runs with the story, the House subpoenas records of the call, Warren refuses, the House claims obstruction and impeaches her.  It would be ridiculous.  

 

[Brisketexan 105438]

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Congress issued subpoenas to Eric Holder on Fast and Furious related issues.  Holder refused, citing executive privilege, was then held in contempt and then Obama/DOJ refused to act on the contempt and it went to court. 

And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong.

Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power.

You, on the other hand, are just fine with this administration telling the rule of law to go fuck itself.  So, with all due respect, fuck the fuck off, and....

[bolverk 29728]

Ex-Aide Saw Gordon Sondland as a Potential National Security Risk

WASHINGTON — A former top White House foreign policy adviser told House impeachment investigators this week that she viewed Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, as a potential national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job, according to two people familiar with her private testimony.

The adviser, Fiona Hill, did not accuse Mr. Sondland of acting maliciously or intentionally putting the country at risk. But she described Mr. Sondland, a hotelier and Trump donor-turned-ambassador, as metaphorically driving in an unfamiliar place with no guardrails and no GPS, according to the people, who were not authorized to publicly discuss a deposition that took place behind closed doors.

Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs at the White House, also said that she raised her concerns with intelligence officials inside the White House, one of the people said.

Mr. Sondland’s lawyer declined to comment.

In her testimony, Ms. Hill described her fears that Mr. Sondland represented a counterintelligence risk because his actions made him vulnerable to foreign governments who could exploit his inexperience. She said Mr. Sondland extensively used a personal cellphone for official diplomatic business and repeatedly told foreign officials they were welcome to come to the White House whenever they liked.

Ms. Hill said that his invitations, which were highly unusual and not communicated to others at the White House, prompted one instance in which Romanian officials arrived at the White House without appointments, citing Mr. Sondland.

Ms. Hill also testified that Mr. Sondland held himself out to foreign officials as someone who could deliver meetings at the White House while also providing the cellphone numbers of American officials to foreigners, the people said. Those actions created additional counterintelligence risks, she said.

Mr. Sondland is scheduled to meet privately with impeachment investigators himself on Thursday, despite directions from the State Department and the White House that he and other witnesses should not cooperate with an investigation because the president and his senior advisers view it as illegitimate. Mr. Sondland’s lawyer has indicated that his client will testify.

Spoiler

 

Other aspects of Ms. Hill’s explosive testimony that have been previously reported as well as details offered by other officials who have spoken to investigators put Mr. Sondland at the center of a parallel foreign policy toward Ukraine. Sidelining career experts and the former American ambassador to Kiev, Mr. Sondland, other political appointees close to the president and Mr. Trump’s private lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to pressure Ukraine’s new government to open investigations into Democrats that would benefit the president politically.

Ms. Hill said that she and her boss, John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, were so concerned by what they saw that Ms. Hill alerted White House lawyers. She told the committees that Mr. Bolton wanted to make clear that he was not part of whatever “drug deal” that Mr. Sondland and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, were crafting on Ukraine, and that on another occasion Mr. Bolton compared Mr. Giuliani to “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

Ms. Hill testified that she and Mr. Bolton were moved to act after Mr. Sondland revealed during a July 10 meeting that there was an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that Mr. Trump would meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine if his government opened the investigations the White House sought. Mr. Sondland also mentioned Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that had appointed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., to its board.

A White House meeting would be a sought-after prize for Mr. Zelensky, conferring legitimacy on his new government and demonstrating American support as Ukraine battles Russian-backed separatists in its east.

Ms. Hill left the White House in July, before Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky that prompted the whistle-blower complaint that set off the Ukraine scandal.

Earlier this month, Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy for Ukraine, produced to investigators text messages with Mr. Sondland and other American and Ukrainian officials that showed Mr. Sondland was deeply enmeshed in efforts to secure investigations from the Ukrainians that could help the president politically.

 

 

[sheeeit 129]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong.

Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power.

You, on the other hand, are just fine with this administration telling the rule of law to go fuck itself.  So, with all due respect, fuck the fuck off, and....

Lulz.  You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond.  I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office.  If you want to debate that then lets do it.

"Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." 

Which "rule of law" should we follow?  The law is not black and white on this issue.  Is presidential privilege not lawful?  The courts certainly think that it is.  Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly.  Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege.  That is a defensible position.  Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position.  I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored.  That is why we have a 3rd branch.  If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them.  You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public.  That cant be your true feelings on the matter.   

"And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong."

I never suggested that you didnt.  My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved.  I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45750]

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Ex-Aide Saw Gordon Sondland as a Potential National Security Risk

WASHINGTON — A former top White House foreign policy adviser told House impeachment investigators this week that she viewed Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, as a potential national security risk because he was so unprepared for his job, according to two people familiar with her private testimony.

The adviser, Fiona Hill, did not accuse Mr. Sondland of acting maliciously or intentionally putting the country at risk. But she described Mr. Sondland, a hotelier and Trump donor-turned-ambassador, as metaphorically driving in an unfamiliar place with no guardrails and no GPS, according to the people, who were not authorized to publicly discuss a deposition that took place behind closed doors.

Ms. Hill, the former senior director for European and Russian affairs at the White House, also said that she raised her concerns with intelligence officials inside the White House, one of the people said.

Mr. Sondland’s lawyer declined to comment.

In her testimony, Ms. Hill described her fears that Mr. Sondland represented a counterintelligence risk because his actions made him vulnerable to foreign governments who could exploit his inexperience. She said Mr. Sondland extensively used a personal cellphone for official diplomatic business and repeatedly told foreign officials they were welcome to come to the White House whenever they liked.

Ms. Hill said that his invitations, which were highly unusual and not communicated to others at the White House, prompted one instance in which Romanian officials arrived at the White House without appointments, citing Mr. Sondland.

Ms. Hill also testified that Mr. Sondland held himself out to foreign officials as someone who could deliver meetings at the White House while also providing the cellphone numbers of American officials to foreigners, the people said. Those actions created additional counterintelligence risks, she said.

Mr. Sondland is scheduled to meet privately with impeachment investigators himself on Thursday, despite directions from the State Department and the White House that he and other witnesses should not cooperate with an investigation because the president and his senior advisers view it as illegitimate. Mr. Sondland’s lawyer has indicated that his client will testify.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Other aspects of Ms. Hill’s explosive testimony that have been previously reported as well as details offered by other officials who have spoken to investigators put Mr. Sondland at the center of a parallel foreign policy toward Ukraine. Sidelining career experts and the former American ambassador to Kiev, Mr. Sondland, other political appointees close to the president and Mr. Trump’s private lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani sought to pressure Ukraine’s new government to open investigations into Democrats that would benefit the president politically.

Ms. Hill said that she and her boss, John R. Bolton, then the national security adviser, were so concerned by what they saw that Ms. Hill alerted White House lawyers. She told the committees that Mr. Bolton wanted to make clear that he was not part of whatever “drug deal” that Mr. Sondland and Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, were crafting on Ukraine, and that on another occasion Mr. Bolton compared Mr. Giuliani to “a hand grenade who’s going to blow everybody up.”

Ms. Hill testified that she and Mr. Bolton were moved to act after Mr. Sondland revealed during a July 10 meeting that there was an agreement with Mr. Mulvaney that Mr. Trump would meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine if his government opened the investigations the White House sought. Mr. Sondland also mentioned Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm that had appointed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., to its board.

A White House meeting would be a sought-after prize for Mr. Zelensky, conferring legitimacy on his new government and demonstrating American support as Ukraine battles Russian-backed separatists in its east.

Ms. Hill left the White House in July, before Mr. Trump’s call with Mr. Zelensky that prompted the whistle-blower complaint that set off the Ukraine scandal.

Earlier this month, Kurt D. Volker, the former special envoy for Ukraine, produced to investigators text messages with Mr. Sondland and other American and Ukrainian officials that showed Mr. Sondland was deeply enmeshed in efforts to secure investigations from the Ukrainians that could help the president politically.

 

 

The.  Best.  People.

 

The Vanity Fair article about the DOE is all I needed to know about how completely inept and dangerous this admin is.  And that was from 2017.  It should be required reading for all citizens.

[SimonBolivar 10960]

26 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Ms. Hill said that his invitations, which were highly unusual and not communicated to others at the White House, prompted one instance in which Romanian officials arrived at the White House without appointments, citing Mr. Sondland.

 

[DDD Dad 14352]

24 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond.  I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office.  If you want to debate that then lets do it.

"Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." 

Which "rule of law" should we follow?  The law is not black and white on this issue.  Is presidential privilege not lawful?  The courts certainly think that it is.  Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly.  Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege.  That is a defensible position.  Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position.  I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored.  That is why we have a 3rd branch.  If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them.  You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public.  That cant be your true feelings on the matter.   

"And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong."

I never suggested that you didnt.  My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved.  I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.

 

 

OK I'll bite.  The current refusal to comply with subpoenas is not based on executive (or presidential) privilege.  Instead it's a new, half-baked theory that the House must put its investigation to a full vote of the House before its committees can undertake impeachment investigation proceedings, despite the lack of any authority other than "tradition".  Ironic considering Merrick Garland and the fact that in 2015 the Republican controlled House changed its rules to permit committee chairs to issue subpoenas without full vote of the committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-congressional-subpoena-is-too-powerful-to-be-issued-unilaterally/2015/02/05/a9d75160-aca8-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

Edited October 16, 2019 by DDD Dad

[Dahobbs 17692]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

OK I'll bite.  The current refusal to comply with subpoenas is not based on executive (or presidential) privilege.  Instead it's a new, half-baked theory that the House must put its investigation to a full vote of the House before its committees can undertake impeachment investigation proceedings, despite the lack of any authority other than "tradition".  Ironic considering Merrick Garland and the fact that prior to 2015 the Republican controlled House changed its rules to permit committee chairs to issue subpoenas without full vote of the committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-congressional-subpoena-is-too-powerful-to-be-issued-unilaterally/2015/02/05/a9d75160-aca8-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

Right, executive privilege has almost nothing to do with the current issue. It is however a nice red herring for sheeeit to return to the forum with. 

[Message Board User 12396]

 

[Bateshorn 9942]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

OK I'll bite.  The current refusal to comply with subpoenas is not based on executive (or presidential) privilege.  Instead it's a new, half-baked theory that the House must put its investigation to a full vote of the House before its committees can undertake impeachment investigation proceedings, despite the lack of any authority other than "tradition".  Ironic considering Merrick Garland and the fact that in 2015 the Republican controlled House changed its rules to permit committee chairs to issue subpoenas without full vote of the committee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-congressional-subpoena-is-too-powerful-to-be-issued-unilaterally/2015/02/05/a9d75160-aca8-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html

This.  To be clear:  The President is NOT exerting Executive Privilege.  He's exerting "Fuck you, I've deemed your investigation to be bullshit, so I won't comply" privilege.

This is dramatically different than Eric Holder testifying under oath that high level officials were not involved in "Fast and Furious" (which is sort of a catch all phrase for a number of border gun walking programs).  The House then made a broad document request that DOJ deemed to be outside the lines of investigation, delivering only a portion of the documents. Holder was convicted of contempt and the case is STILL being litigated. Holder appeared before Congress at least a half dozen times, under oath and withering testimony, acquitting himself well.

Keep in mind, with Fast and Furious DOJ provided thousands of pages of documents, testimony, and background.  It was only when Holder decided the GOP had gone to far afield did he object.

The White House is literally refusing to provide even a scintilla of information and is attempting to block all witnesses from testifying, even for investigatory fact finding.   That's not presidential prerogative, that's obstruction of justice. If you attempted that during a Grand Jury proceeding, you would be thrown in jail immediately. If this were allowed to stand, every president for the rest of time could simply say  "No, your ridiculous" to any Congressional request and that would be the end of the matter.

[HenryJames 66188]

[Judge Roybeanbag 11821]

The Eric Holder thing has become a "test the waters" type of right-wing talking point.  It started as a blurb in the Wall Street Journal, and then such vanguards as the American Thinker and Washington Free Beacon have picked it up and run with it.  Even though it is apples and oranges.  Or more aptly, a relatively benign silent fart vs. full on shitting yourself and smearing it on the walls.

[Goredho 17422]

20 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Maybe.  Maybe not.

This is where we are.  The Admin will simply refuse to cooperate with any subpoena.  Congress can't make them comply  The courts can't make them comply. 

See, this is the fatal flaw in the rule of law: it only works if people are willing to comply with the orders and judgments of the courts.  Once they say "fuck you," then we're in a position where the only way to enforce compliance is literally with force.  US Marshals show up.  With badges and guns.  And Pence still says "no, you can't have them."  Then what?  US Marshals, squared off against the Secret Service, and perhaps private armed security (don't rule that out).  Do you want a gunfight between dueling US government forces?  Because....that's really, really fucking bad. At that point, we no longer have a legal issue.  We have an actual violent fight for supremacy of power.  No matter who wins, we the people have lost.  We are now officially a banana republic.

Agreed.  Its probably worth remembering the context in which all of this was defined.  Fresh after the war for independence had been won.  People had been willing to fight and die for their independence from Britain.  If some asshole wants to be a despot and shit all over the constitution, then the people overthrow them.  The idea of armed conflict to protect the fledgling republic would not have seemed far fetched or radical.

Today?  It seems ghastly and incomprehensible.  But it may be what is required.  I certainly don't see Trump blinking and taking a different tact when he's been able to simply hold strong, counter attack and largely win to this point in his Presidency.  It gets back to his sociopathy.  The majority of people, those cursed with a conscience, would feel guilt and remorse over the lives lost and the end of Democracy and the rule of law.

Trump?  A shootout over Pence ignoring a lawful subpoena will simply be an opportunity for him.  An opportunity to paint the democrat's lawful and absolutely justified impeachment as an attempt at a coup.  If Pence is killed in the crossfire, you will see Trump tweet out a meme showing Nancy standing over his bullet riddled body doing her assassination clap from the state of the union.

[Bama Chick 28596]

It’s pretty simple to me.

There should be no executive privilege when there are crimes involved.

And this current bullshittery going on isn’t even about executive privilege, it’s about obstruction and not complying with the law.

Trump is not a fucking monarch. It’s like Trumpkins refuse to acknowledge we have coequal branches of government.

[sheeeit 129]

As usual you guys are omitting certain facts.  Maybe you are just unaware.

There is actually very little case law regarding impeachments and very little precedent when it comes to congressional subpoena power and executive privilege.   The reason is that, in virtually all former instances, the executive and congress worked out a compromise on the issues.  What Cippallone's and Pence's letters are saying is that unless the congress and the executive can agree to certain guidelines in the impeachment process, the executive will invoke privilege which it is legally entitled to do.  

Contrary to what you guys keep saying, the executive has said it will be willing to waive privilege with an understanding and clarification of the process.  It is asking for compromise.  Perhaps it is bullshit but it will certainly be much harder for the executive to defend its position of uncooperation if the congress agrees to certain terms which certainly appear to have precedence.  Essentially, congress is asking for everything and giving nothing.  The executive has indicated they will cooperate under certain terms and, so far, the congress has refused to any such terms.  

So, like I have said, if both parties refuse to budge then it becomes a case of executive privilege versus congressional subpoena power.  Congress is saying that they have absolute/unlimited subpoena power for any reason they want. 

This whole claim of "obstruction" is so stupid but you guys just love to eat it up.  Asserting legal rights is not obstruction.  Executive privilege is a legal right.  I get it that most of you think it is bullshit, but that doesnt make it illegal.  To me, this episode is actually a great statement to our country's constitution and rule of law.  It is why we have 3 branches.  It is within congress' legal rights to issue subpoenas an it is within the executives legal rights to claim privilege.  If, and only if, the issues are heard by the courts (likely all the way to the SC) and then one side fails to comply with the courts rulings then that side would absolutely be obstructing justice and should be help accountable.  But not before.  

Have any of you actually read what the executive is asking for in exchange for waiving privilege?  It is actually pretty reasonable.  If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately as they do not change any of the underlying facts of the case.  

 

 

[Dahobbs 17692]

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

As usual you guys are omitting certain facts.  Maybe you are just unaware.

There is actually very little case law regarding impeachments and very little precedent when it comes to congressional subpoena power and executive privilege.   The reason is that, in virtually all former instances, the executive and congress worked out a compromise on the issues.  What Cippallone's and Pence's letters are saying is that unless the congress and the executive can agree to certain guidelines in the impeachment process, the executive will invoke privilege which it is legally entitled to do.  

Contrary to what you guys keep saying, the executive has said it will be willing to waive privilege with an understanding and clarification of the process.  It is asking for compromise.  Perhaps it is bullshit but it will certainly be much harder for the executive to defend its position of uncooperation if the congress agrees to certain terms which certainly appear to have precedence.  Essentially, congress is asking for everything and giving nothing.  The executive has indicated they will cooperate under certain terms and, so far, the congress has refused to any such terms.  

So, like I have said, if both parties refuse to budge then it becomes a case of executive privilege versus congressional subpoena power.  Congress is saying that they have absolute/unlimited subpoena power for any reason they want. 

This whole claim of "obstruction" is so stupid but you guys just love to eat it up.  Asserting legal rights is not obstruction.  Executive privilege is a legal right.  I get it that most of you think it is bullshit, but that doesnt make it illegal.  To me, this episode is actually a great statement to our country's constitution and rule of law.  It is why we have 3 branches.  It is within congress' legal rights to issue subpoenas an it is within the executives legal rights to claim privilege.  If, and only if, the issues are heard by the courts (likely all the way to the SC) and then one side fails to comply with the courts rulings then that side would absolutely be obstructing justice and should be help accountable.  But not before.  

Have any of you actually read what the executive is asking for in exchange for waiving privilege?  It is actually pretty reasonable.  If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately as they do not change any of the underlying facts of the case.  

 

 

Well, you're only arguing with actual lawyers that know law and shit. It isnt about privilege and they arent asserting it. And their conditions were to end the investigation, which is a bit of a nonstarter for what should be obvious reasons to people who arent idiots. 

[sheeeit 129]

56 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

This.  To be clear:  The President is NOT exerting Executive Privilege.  He's exerting "Fuck you, I've deemed your investigation to be bullshit, so I won't comply" privilege.

This is dramatically different than Eric Holder testifying under oath that high level officials were not involved in "Fast and Furious" (which is sort of a catch all phrase for a number of border gun walking programs).  The House then made a broad document request that DOJ deemed to be outside the lines of investigation, delivering only a portion of the documents. Holder was convicted of contempt and the case is STILL being litigated. Holder appeared before Congress at least a half dozen times, under oath and withering testimony, acquitting himself well.

Keep in mind, with Fast and Furious DOJ provided thousands of pages of documents, testimony, and background.  It was only when Holder decided the GOP had gone to far afield did he object.

The White House is literally refusing to provide even a scintilla of information and is attempting to block all witnesses from testifying, even for investigatory fact finding.   That's not presidential prerogative, that's obstruction of justice. If you attempted that during a Grand Jury proceeding, you would be thrown in jail immediately. If this were allowed to stand, every president for the rest of time could simply say  "No, your ridiculous" to any Congressional request and that would be the end of the matter.

Do you even realize what you are saying?  Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not.  You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield".  I think you typed it with a straight face too.  So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide?  Wow.  In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege.  So by your definition it was obstruction.

And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine.  Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

[HenryJames 66188]

I think @sheeeit is just asking questions.

[Brisketexan 105438]

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Potus released a paraphrased summary of the call

FIF truth.  Not that you'd recognize it if it ran you over.

[HenryJames 66188]

4 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

Except it wasn’t a transcript.

[RPM 26360]

20 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

If this is really an actual impeachment inquiry as opposed to a political hunt, then congress should agree to the terms requested immediately