Sol Rosenberg

Drip Drip Drip

Recommended Posts

Just now, Ishmael said:

You could be the next Secretary of the Interior.

I'd take the job..... Just for the pay, and benefits, not the work part.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

like I said, I have read and understand the doj policy statement - no indictment for a sitting president by the doj (and by extension the special prosecutor)

but that policy statement doesn't prevent the special prosecutor from concluding the evidence he gathered indicates the president committed a crime

do you understand the difference?

mueller will be asked this, and then asked why he waffled

It does if he wants the appropriate authorities to indict or impeach, since it couldn't be him.  Because saying someone committed a crime when you can't indict them, nor can they defend themselves, would jeopardize the cases Mueller did make and put into the hands of Congress and various state AG's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'd take the job..... Just for the pay, and benefits, not the work part.......

I always find work enjoying.

Times ago, the factory supplied my bank account.  There were interesting people there, some far more intelligent than I ever intended to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hermetic said:

like I said, I have read and understand the doj policy statement - no indictment for a sitting president by the doj (and by extension the special prosecutor)

but that policy statement doesn't prevent the special prosecutor from concluding the evidence he gathered indicates the president committed a crime

do you understand the difference?

mueller will be asked this, and then asked why he waffled

Reading is fundamental.

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

Reading is fundamental.

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

Forgive me for responding.  I just left court where I have spent most of my adult life.  Little don tends to speaking mobster tones.  There is a reason for that speech and his well documented antics.  Politics is not really my thing, I like religion.  Do you want to talk in a bar?  I would rather speak to you about my country and my church more than my local sports team.  I am not violent but fist suggests I may not know myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sean said:

Reading is fundamental.

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

That would be a good point if Mueller was responsible for making his findings public. As it is he reports only to the AG who may or may not decide to make them public. There was nothing preventing Mueller from reporting a conclusion that the president committed a crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dog said:

That would be a good point if Mueller was responsible for making his findings public. As it is he reports only to the AG who may or may not decide to make them public. There was nothing preventing Mueller from reporting a conclusion that the predident committed a crime.

Still haven't read the report have you cunt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

That would be a good point if Mueller was responsible for making his findings public. As it is he reports only to the AG who may or may not decide to make them public. There was nothing preventing Mueller from reporting a conclusion that the president committed a crime.

Except he is a lap puppy, and you can relate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sean said:
41 minutes ago, hermetic said:

like I said, I have read and understand the doj policy statement - no indictment for a sitting president by the doj (and by extension the special prosecutor)

but that policy statement doesn't prevent the special prosecutor from concluding the evidence he gathered indicates the president committed a crime

do you understand the difference?

mueller will be asked this, and then asked why he waffled

Reading is fundamental.

“The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. A prosecutor’s judgement that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.”

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

what would he have done if he discovered trump conspired with the russians?  punt on that one as well?

I don't buy the explanation you quoted.  the speedy and public trial is in congress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

what would he have done if he discovered trump conspired with the russians?  punt on that one as well?

I don't buy the explanation you quoted

It is okay that you do not understand.  That is the beginning of being edumacated. Little don has shot himself in the foot so many times it is a wonder he can still wobble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hermetic said:

 yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.

actually, he didn't. He stopped at more than a few of the rocks in the way and in the report said "well, ya, they deleted their shit, who knows, NBD"?

and then the Trump non-defenders say "deleting electronic correspondence is great yo, don't mean someones guilty at all unless they've got the D".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Dog said:

That would be a good point if Mueller was responsible for making his findings public. As it is he reports only to the AG who may or may not decide to make them public. There was nothing preventing Mueller from reporting a conclusion that the president committed a crime.

Yes, there is. He’s an employee of he DOJ and NOT independent. He has to follow DOJ rules.

he was not an “independent” counsel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

what would he have done if he discovered trump conspired with the russians?  punt on that one as well?

I don't buy the explanation you quoted.  the speedy and public trial is in congress

Yes, he would have had to punt. Remember, the target of the investigation was the campaign, not the president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

what would he have done if he discovered trump conspired with the russians?  punt on that one as well?

I don't buy the explanation you quoted.  the speedy and public trial is in congress

Mueller points out in his report that he can’t even accuse Shitstain because Shitstain wouldn’t have a venue in which to defend himself against the accusation. Mueller could document facts but that’s it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Mueller’s decision was, as he wrote, based on a 2000 WH counsel memo. The executive overseas the DOJ, So this explains why he “wimped out.”

He was following directions that authorize a special counsel to investigate, and then present the relevant info to the AG. 

The info, if it implicated the president in high crimes & misdemeanors, or if the AG is unable to adequately deal with the issues involved, necessarily is released to Congress so charges can be filed and the president & the country afforded a speedy trial.

check out Neal Kumar Katyal’s writings: he helped draft the SC regulations 

But the AG was able to adequately deal with the issues involved. 

And speaking of AG Barr, why do you suppose his contempt citation for failing to violate the law by providing the unredacted Mueller report not been put to a vote by the house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, hasher said:
44 minutes ago, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

what would he have done if he discovered trump conspired with the russians?  punt on that one as well?

I don't buy the explanation you quoted.   the speedy and public trial is in congress

It is okay that you do not understand.  That is the beginning of being edumacated. Little don has shot himself in the foot so many times it is a wonder he can still wobble.

why not used that vast understanding, education, and experience you have and try and address my questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog, remind us which law Barr would be violatin’ by releasing the unredacted Mueller report to Congress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, hermetic said:

why not used that vast understanding, education, and experience you have and try and address my questions

If you would choose to read, I would not have to write it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you just posted a law that says that Mueller's disclosure of GJ testimony to congress would be perfectly legal.  Good work

It's ok, he didn't read it. Hannity told him what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

It's ok, he didn't read it. Hannity told him what it says.

I love my sources.  Foxy, the stripper around the corner, is my best confidant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

He explained that bit too -

“Given those considerations, [the DOJ policy rules] the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you just posted a law that says that Mueller's disclosure of GJ testimony to congress would be perfectly legal.  Good work

“Forget it, he’s rolling.”

 

E1822B8A-81D9-4949-AF72-7FF2105A7B2F.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

you just posted a law that says that Mueller's disclosure of GJ testimony to congress would be perfectly legal.  Good work

"Worse, the witnesses agreed that Barr could not release the “full and unredacted report” to Congress including any grand jury, or Rule 6(e), evidence. That is in direct contradiction to weeks of demands for the unredacted report along with a subpoena that demanded disclosure of the entire report. The committee maintained that “neither Rule 6(e) nor any applicable privilege barred disclosure of these materials to Congress.” Yet, the expert witnesses it called on have now testified that is not true.

As I noted to the committee, the subpoena, which is the very basis for the earlier contempt vote, was demanding an unlawful act from Barr, and the committee then held him in contempt for not committing that unlawful act"...Jonathan Turley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2017 at 11:02 PM, Spatial Ed said:

He was told the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT had dirt on Hillary.  He went for it.  That is not only illegal but grossly unethical.  Had Chelsey done the same you would have exploded.

 

One degree of separation from Trump.  And its getting hot hot hot.

I was told that a guy in Africa was going to send me millions of dollars if I contacted him. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Yeah, apparently Barr needed just a few hours to decide that he didn’t even need to ask Trump any questions before “clearing” him, despite ample evidence of obstruction. Given that hundreds of prosecutors would have charged the president if he hadn’t been in that office at the time, there is a huge question of “why not?” left lingering.

On this circumstance, Congress needs unfettered access given that Mueller cites “many difficult legal” issues and also states “much” of the obstruction has been already reported. Well, what are the issues and what hasn’t been reported? Somebody with an adversarial viewpoint needs to vet that information to be sure our country’s legal traditions are continued in this hour of need. If charges are to be brought, Barr is obviously not the man to do it. 

Hence, he needs to hand the report over, without restrictions, to a competent authority.

Apparently there was not ample evidence of obstruction and Barr has handed over all he is legally allowed to hand over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Dog said:

Apparently there was not ample evidence of obstruction

Really? Did you read that in the Report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fakenews said:

So a patriotic judge just ruled that Trump’s CPA firm must turn over his financial records to Congress. 

Drip Drip Drip

https://thehill.com/regulation/444638-judge-upholds-house-panel-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records

Warms the cockles...

"History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the president or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation," Mehta wrote.

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," he added.

"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

Jack will be along shortly to remind us that the judge is not white, and therefore, biased against Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Warms the cockles...

"History has shown that congressionally-exposed criminal conduct by the president or a high-ranking Executive Branch official can lead to legislation," Mehta wrote.

"It is simply not fathomable that a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior would deny Congress the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct -- past or present -- even without formally opening an impeachment inquiry," he added.

"The court is well aware that this case involves records concerning the private and business affairs of the President of the United States. But on the question of whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the President is subject to the same legal standard as any other litigant that does not prevail," Mehta wrote.

Jack will be along shortly to remind us that the judge is not white, and therefore, biased against Trump.

And a DemocRAT

The good thing is that the CPA firm is in possession of the documents and has stated it’s intent to cooperate with congress. Plus there is no stay pending appeal meaning transfer can begin tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

Apparently there was not ample evidence of obstruction 

You lie

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The claim comes from a transcript of the roughly 15 hours of closed-door testimony that Cohen gave the committee and the panel voted to release Monday evening.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/20/politics/michael-cohen-transcript-released/index.html

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190520/109549/HMTG-116-IG00-20190520-SD002.pdf

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

"Just to be perfectly clear about this, the statement about the Trump Tower negotiations ending in January that was part of your original draft was false, and Mr. Sekulow knew that it was false?" asked Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, according to the transcript.
"Yes, sir," Cohen answered.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

And a DemocRAT

Probably an angry Democrat, and worst, an Obama appointee. Could be the Deep Doggy State rearing its ugly head again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sean said:

Really? Did you read that in the Report?

No...I havn't read it, and I doubt you have either, but I do know it didn't result in an obstruction charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

No...I havn't read it, and I doubt you have either, but I do know it didn't result in an obstruction charge.

If you had read it you would know why there were no charges. Of course, you've been told many times why by many people. 

Have you ever read a Tom Clancy novel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dog said:

No...I havn't read it, and I doubt you have either, but I do know it didn't result in an obstruction charge.

I've refuted your bs about that multiple times with fact and for some reason you never respond. You just keep parroting the Party line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:

I've refuted your bs about that multiple times with fact and for some reason you never respond. You just keep parroting the Party line. 

Perhaps he should change his avatar to “ParrotDog” seems appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasher said:

I always find work enjoying.

Times ago, the factory supplied my bank account.  There were interesting people there, some far more intelligent than I ever intended to be.

I usually find my work to be enjoyable.....

 However, I suspect that the job you suggested would require me to lie, and do other things that I would find distasteful, so...... I'll take the job for the pay, and the benefits, and I'd do my best to reverse the direction it has taken, but...... In the end I'd take the pay and the bennies, and do my best afterwards to make it better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dog said:

No...I havn't read it

So why do you keep bullshitting about it? About stuff that's wrong? THAT PEOPLE FUCKING TELL YOU IS WRONG AND YOU WONT FUCKING READ THE REPORT.

Fuck it, arrest Barr for contempt. Have an "accident" and Barr gets shot. Tough shit, happens all the time. That's the shithole you want Dog, that's what you get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So why do you keep bullshitting about it? About stuff that's wrong? THAT PEOPLE FUCKING TELL YOU IS WRONG AND YOU WONT FUCKING READ THE REPORT.

Fuck it, arrest Barr for contempt. Have an "accident" and Barr gets shot. Tough shit, happens all the time. That's the shithole you want Dog, that's what you get. 

Easy now. Dogs just being dog. He doesn’t give a shit about the report.

Lie lie lie deny deny deny.  He lives it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happens in every administration -

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/michael-cohen-told-lawmakers-that-trumps-attorney-asked-him-to-give-false-testimony-1336076

Cohen: Trump’s attorney urged false testimony

President Donald Trump’s former fixer also said Jay Sekulow dangled a pardon to 'shut down' the Russia probe.

 

Excerpt -

Michael Cohen told lawmakers earlier this year that one of President Donald Trump's personal attorneys asked him to falsely testify to Congress and told him the president was considering granting him a pardon to “shut down” the Russia investigation, according to transcripts released Monday of Cohen’s two private interviews with the House Intelligence Committee.

Cohen said the lawyer, Jay Sekulow, requested he falsely tell Congress that negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow ended on January 31, 2016, nearly six months before they actually fizzled. 

Cohen — a former Trump lawyer who is serving a three-year prison sentence for perjury, campaign-finance violations, and tax and bank fraud crimes — answered questions from committee members for more than 16 hours over a two-day period earlier this year. On a party-line vote, the Democrat-led committee released those transcripts Monday evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How loyal will this Sekulow guy turn out to be?

I have a hunch he did not act in such a manner without the knowledge of his client. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump’s team is the little Dutch boy trying to plug the dyke. Futile in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Trump’s team is the little Dutch boy trying to plug the dyke. Futile in the end.

I think the very essence of being a dyke is not wanting to be “plugged” by a boy, regardless of his nationality. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And, yes, I know what he meant as well as the spelling variant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dyke is getting leaky however the obstruction continues:

Looks like DOJ are acting as Personal lawyer and protector to the great orange fuckwit.

Trump stops ex-White House counsel Don McGahn testifying to Congress

  • Justice department says McGahn cannot be compelled to talk
  • House panel chair Jerry Nadler condemns intervention

Sabrina Siddiqui and David Smith in Washington

Mon 20 May 2019 23.02 BSTLast modified on Tue 21 May 2019 00.39 BST

 

95
 
 

Don McGahn has been subpoenaed to appear before the House judiciary committee on Tuesday.  Don McGahn has been subpoenaed to appear before the House judiciary committee on Tuesday. Photograph: Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images

Donald Trump has blocked the former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before Congress about the special counsel report on Russian election interference, prompting sharp criticism and even threats of impeachment.

In a legal opinion released on Monday, the justice department said lawmakers on Capitol Hill cannot compel McGahn, who was subpoenaed by the House judiciary committee, to answer their questions under oath.

“The Department of Justice has provided a legal opinion stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and constitutional precedent, the former counsel to the president cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr McGahn has been directed to act accordingly,” the White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said in a statement.

 

“This action has been taken in order to ensure that future presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the office of the presidency.”

McGahn is a central figure in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, often standing in the way of Trump’s efforts to obstruct justice. According to investigators, McGahn threatened to resign when the president ordered him to have Mueller fired.

McGahn was also dispatched by Trump to convince the former attorney general Jeff Sessions not to recuse himself from overseeing the Russia investigation. (Sessions did not heed the president’s demands.)

Travelling to a rally in Pennsylvania, Trump was asked why he was asking McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena. “Well, as I understand it, they’re doing that for the office of the presidency, for future presidents,” he replied, according to a pool report. “I think it’s a very important precedent. And the attorneys say that they’re not doing that for me. They’re doing it for the office of the president. So we’re talking about the future.”

The White House’s intervention was condemned by Jerry Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the judiciary committee. “The Mueller report documents a shocking pattern of obstruction of justice,” he said in a statement. “The president acted again and again – perhaps criminally – to protect himself from federal law enforcement.

“Don McGahn personally witnessed the most egregious of these acts. President Trump knows this. He clearly does not want the American people to hear firsthand about his alleged misconduct, and so he has attempted to block Mr McGahn from speaking in public tomorrow.”

The move is the latest example of the Trump administration’s “disdain for the law”, added Nadler, who said the committee will meet as planned on Tuesday morning and still expects McGahn to appear.

Another Democratic member of the committee, David Cicilline, went further in his criticism, suggesting that impeachment of Trump would be warranted if McGahn did not respond to the subpoena.

“Let me be clear: if Don McGahn doesn’t testify, it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,” he told the MSNBC network. “The president has engaged in an ongoing effort to impede our ability find the truth, to collect evidence, to do our work … No one is above the law, including the president of the United States.”

Cicilline admitted he did not know if his view was shared by other members of Democratic leadership but added: “We may well be forced into a position to have to open a formal inquiry in order to facilitate the collection of the evidence that we need to see.”

The justice department’s legal opinion does not prevent McGahn testifying if he so chooses, although it would be potentially at risk to his own career. Trump has mused about instructing Republicans to cease dealing with his law firm, Jones Day, the Associated Press reported.

 

 

 

Matthew Miller, former director of the office of public affairs for the justice department, tweeted: “Just show up and testify, McGahn. This isn’t about some garden-variety Congressional-executive branch dispute, but as one of your predecessors described it, a cancer on the presidency. Think about your place in history.

McGahn was subpoenaed by Nadler last month and, under instruction by the White House, failed to meet an initial deadline to appear before the committee. Nadler threatened to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress if he did not meet a second deadline of 21 May.

McGahn, who left the White House last year, has increasingly become the subject of Trump’s ire following the release of the redacted Mueller report. Last week, the president tweeted he was “never a big fan” of McGahn and suggested it was the former White House counsel, and not Mueller, who was on his chopping block at the time of the investigation.

The Trump administration has repeatedly blocked attempts at oversight by the Democratic-controlled House. Last month it instructed the former personnel security director Carl Kline not to testify at a hearing into alleged lapses in White House security clearance procedures. Last week the treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, refused to comply with a congressional subpoena to hand over Trump’s tax returns.

Nadler’s committee has previously voted to hold the attorney general, William Barr, in contempt for refusing to provide the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence to Congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expect an EPIC twitter tirade tonight.

 McGahns testimony would be a watershed event.

Donnie's phalanx of attorneys must be running around like the keystone cops.

Where,s rudy? He should be coughing up bullshit and distraction  on all the major networks NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shitstain can't assert executive privilege over McGahn because McGahn is a former employee. Apparently, there's no attorney-client privilege because the Stable Genius waived it by allowing McGahn to testify for Mueller. So Shitstain can threaten McGahn (I'm not sure whether witness tampering applies with respect to Congressional testimony) and threaten his law firm Jones Day (no Republican business for you).

Even though McGahn served as a counsel for Shitstain's campaign and 14 Jones Day employees have been appointed to the Shitstain adminstration, Jones Day is the 5th largest law firm with $2B/yr in billings. I think Jones Day says, sorry, this is Shitstain's problem; moreover they're not going to tell a partner what to do.

If McGahn wasn't going to testify then he wouldn't have already testified for Mueller. So I think McGahn testifies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should tell Iran they are about to attack us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Shitstain can't assert executive privilege over McGahn because McGahn is a former employee. Apparently, there's no attorney-client privilege because the Stable Genius waived it by allowing McGahn to testify for Mueller. So Shitstain can threaten McGahn (I'm not sure whether witness tampering applies with respect to Congressional testimony) and threaten his law firm Jones Day (no Republican business for you).

Even though McGahn served as a counsel for Shitstain's campaign and 14 Jones Day employees have been appointed to the Shitstain adminstration, Jones Day is the 5th largest law firm with $2B/yr in billings. I think Jones Day says, sorry, this is Shitstain's problem; moreover they're not going to tell a partner what to do.

If McGahn wasn't going to testify then he wouldn't have already testified for Mueller. So I think McGahn testifies.

It should be interesting for sure, but he has already indicated he won't testify. Of course, Nadler has already sent him a letter telling him that the Committee is 'prepared to use all enforcement mechanisms at his disposal.' I hope McGahn is prepared.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

So why do you keep bullshitting about it? About stuff that's wrong? THAT PEOPLE FUCKING TELL YOU IS WRONG AND YOU WONT FUCKING READ THE REPORT.

Fuck it, arrest Barr for contempt. Have an "accident" and Barr gets shot. Tough shit, happens all the time. That's the shithole you want Dog, that's what you get. 

It's on you then...Don't blame me for your shithole agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sean said:

I've refuted your bs about that multiple times with fact and for some reason you never respond. You just keep parroting the Party line. 

You have not refuted shit. You can cry obstruction all you want but  it won't make it true. There has been no charge, there has been no hearing from both sides. There is only a prosecutors report and that's not enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sean said:
17 hours ago, hermetic said:

except mueller went into this investigation knowing he couldn't indict trump, yet he turned over every rock to find obstruction.  found it, then punted

He explained that bit too -

“Given those considerations, [the DOJ policy rules] the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available”

i've read all of mueller's excuses.  I also read the letters signed by hundreds of past prosecutors that disagree.  as does the dems in congress

I'm not quite sure why all of you are defending mueller's decision to punt, given all the evidence he accumulated.  I guess we'll have to wait for him to testify before we get an answer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hermetic said:

i've read all of mueller's excuses.  I also read the letters signed by hundreds of past prosecutors that disagree.  as does the dems in congress

I'm not quite sure why all of you are defending mueller's decision to punt, given all the evidence he accumulated.  I guess we'll have to wait for him to testify before we get an answer

I’m not “defending mueller's decision to punt”, I’m arguing against the claim by some on the Right that Mueller has cleared Trump and company of obstruction. Quite the opposite. He has laid a trail of bread crumbs for others, not constrained by DOJ policy, to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Sean said:
34 minutes ago, hermetic said:

i've read all of mueller's excuses.  I also read the letters signed by hundreds of past prosecutors that disagree.  as does the dems in congress

I'm not quite sure why all of you are defending mueller's decision to punt, given all the evidence he accumulated.  I guess we'll have to wait for him to testify before we get an answer

I’m not “defending mueller's decision to punt”, I’m arguing against the claim by some on the Right that Mueller has cleared Trump and company of obstruction. Quite the opposite. He has laid a trail of bread crumbs for others, not constrained by DOJ policy, to follow.

sure you are.  otherwise you'd post the section in the doj policy that constrains a special prosecutor from concluding evidence of a crime against a sitting president, handing that up,  leading to an impeachment hearing.  the evidence is there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, hermetic said:

sure you are.  otherwise you'd post the section in the doj policy that constrains a special prosecutor from concluding evidence of a crime against a sitting president, handing that up,  leading to an impeachment hearing.  the evidence is there

I’ve done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sean said:
41 minutes ago, hermetic said:

sure you are.  otherwise you'd post the section in the doj policy that constrains a special prosecutor from concluding evidence of a crime against a sitting president, handing that up,  leading to an impeachment hearing.  the evidence is there

I’ve done that.

where?  (mueller's interpretation of the policy in his report is not the policy section)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, hermetic said:

where?  (mueller's interpretation of the policy in his report is not the policy section)

Misread your post. No, I haven’t posted a written DOJ policy document. They apparently rely on past legal memos surrounding the Nixon and Clinton cases.

It’s actually a bit murky according to this -

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bully, Berate, Bullshit, Browbeat, Refuse, Reject, Refute, Revoke, Discredit, Disallow, Disclaim, Disavow, Deny, Discredit, Bully - these are a few of Trumps favorite things.

You wrote bully twice - He likes Bully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Bully, Berate, Bullshit, Browbeat, Refuse, Reject, Refute, Revoke, Discredit, Disallow, Disclaim, Disavow, Deny, Discredit, Bully - these are a few of Trumps favorite things.

You wrote bully twice - He likes Bully.

You forgot “Distract”. As in...

This Amash thing is very bad. We can’t have people actually reading the report. Let’s get the online bullshitters tonwork on a distraction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You forgot “Distract”. As in...

This Amash thing is very bad. We can’t have people actually reading the report. Let’s get the online bullshitters tonwork on a distraction. 

ah, distract. And deflect - as in Hillary did worse, these are just a few of our favorite things.  Don't think about the elephant in the room, just imagine if Hillary was POTUS.  Of course I have not doubt that Trump wishes she were - life would be so easy for him as well  all the usual suspects here. Remembering the good old days

RIP 2008 to 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sean said:
1 hour ago, hermetic said:

where?  (mueller's interpretation of the policy in his report is not the policy section)

Misread your post. No, I haven’t posted a written DOJ policy document. They apparently rely on past legal memos surrounding the Nixon and Clinton cases.

It’s actually a bit murky according to this -

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-bound-olcs-memos-presidential-immunity

the olc memos basically say a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime, it's up to the house and senate to impeach and convict.  the olc does not appear to bar the doj (or special prosecutor) from investigating and concluding a sitting president of committing a crime - they just can't indict him

if the doj / barr forced mueller into his not concluding a crime was committed, that would be very bad.  if they didn't, then I don't understand what held mueller back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

You have not refuted shit. You can cry obstruction all you want but  it won't make it true. There has been no charge, there has been no hearing from both sides. There is only a prosecutors report and that's not enough.

No conviction, no crime, eh Dog?  And OJ was innocent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hermetic said:

the olc memos basically say a sitting president can't be indicted for a crime, it's up to the house and senate to impeach and convict.  the olc does not appear to bar the doj (or special prosecutor) from investigating and concluding a sitting president of committing a crime - they just can't indict him

if the doj / barr forced mueller into his not concluding a crime was committed, that would be very bad.  if they didn't, then I don't understand what held mueller back

This is becoming a circular argument. 

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/topic/185749-drip-drip-drip/&page=191&tab=comments#comment-6607561

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like the point was to make it a pointless circular tail-chasing argument. It's like that poster has done that before, and gets off on doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Clove Hitch said:

No conviction, no crime, eh Dog?  And OJ Hillary was innocent. 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clove Hitch said:

No conviction, no crime, eh Dog?  And OJ was innocent. 

No crime, no conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dog said:

No crime, no conviction.

An impeachment requires neither. Any crime can be prosecuted upon leaving office unless he runs to Mother Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see the look on DJT's face if Putin announced he was going to write a tell-all book on their relationship.  Might be in two years or six years but would be an interesting read.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see Trump's face when he learns that his buddy Putin can Write...

"..............................WHAT!? all along you can read? And you pretend like you're like me and have people read stuff for you? And Now I find out you can actually read AND WRITE!?....

I thought we were friends......"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I will give you stuff you already have the right to if you stop being mean to the guy that's breaking the law?"

THAT is their bargaining chip?

DOJ offers House Intel some Mueller materials if Schiff drops Barr threat

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mike G said:

"I will give you stuff you already have the right to if you stop being mean to the guy that's breaking the law?"

THAT is their bargaining chip?

DOJ offers House Intel some Mueller materials if Schiff drops Barr threat

 

 

Is that not Obstruction?

Asking for a friend:)

Have a feeling the smartest cabinet ever assembled is about to do something really stupid as they fall over themselves protecting the Don.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Is that not Obstruction?

Asking for a friend:)

Have a feeling the smartest cabinet ever assembled is about to do something really stupid as they fall over themselves protecting the Don.

Or bribery?  Extortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike G said:

Or bribery?  Extortion?

Well that’s worked for Donnie in the past just ask Cohen and Wexler.

Problem is he thinks he got elected a dictator then those pesky congress critters started ask all those stoopid questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruh roh: House Judiciary committee has subpoenaed Hope Hicks and Anne Donaldson, meanwhile Rex Tillerson spent 7 hours meeting with House Foreign Affairs Committee on the down low.

shits about to start getting real.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Language is so complicated.

Mueller did not conclude Trump is either guilty or innocent is light years away from Mueller concluding Trump is guilty or innocent.

Mueller did not conclude. Simples. His comment about the investigation not exonerating Trump is the crux. The rest is about outing fools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donnies gonna appeal the Judge saying he must comply with supplying financial records to congress.

The sublimely delicious bit..... the appeals court Judge is none other than Merrick Garland!

LMFAO

Oh Mitch someone called Karma is at the door.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Donnies gonna appeal the Judge saying he must comply with supplying financial records to congress.

The sublimely delicious bit..... the appeals court Judge is none other than Merrick Garland!

LMFAO

Oh Mitch someone called Karma is at the door.:D

Are you suggesting that Garland is biased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone here believe that the Democrat's interest in Trump's tax returns and financial records is to aid them in crafting legislation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are you suggesting that Garland is biased?

Garland will be fair. However, if he decides against Trumps’ interests, there will be claims of bias.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dog said:

Does anyone here believe that the Democrat's interest in Trump's tax returns and financial records is to aid them in crafting legislation?

“Crafting legislation” is not the sole purview of Congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

Garland will be fair. However, if he decides against Trumps’ interests, there will be claims of bias.

Yeah, probably true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sean said:

“Crafting legislation” is not the sole purview of Congress. 

But it's the justification used to go after the tax and financial records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dog said:

Are you suggesting that Garland is biased?

Any more than an R loaded supreme answering an abortion issue no.

I'm sure his jurisprudence will rise above the partisan skulduggery that is sure to be put in play by the r shit stirring apparatus

I can imagine the talking point " well we did consider him for a senior position but we had our concerns.............and now he is being asked to rule upon a very sensitive subject we would much prefer one of our boys to do that......".

He'd be tarred and feathered and run out of town by lunchtime if mitch has anything to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dog said:

Does anyone here believe that the Democrat's interest in Trump's tax returns and financial records is to aid them in crafting legislation?

Plausible deniability is a double edged sword. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Navig8tor said:

Any more than an R loaded supreme answering an abortion issue no.

I'm sure his jurisprudence will rise above the partisan skulduggery that is sure to be put in play by the r shit stirring apparatus

I can imagine the talking point " well we did consider him for a senior position but we had our concerns.............and now he is being asked to rule upon a very sensitive subject we would much prefer one of our boys to do that......".

He'd be tarred and feathered and run out of town by lunchtime if mitch has anything to do with it.

Ok...It sounded like you were impugning Garland's character.

Share this post