maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1084 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 109  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 2:01 pm 
Online
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15813
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18937
chijohnaok wrote:
Quote:


The federal judge who ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before Congress is temporarily delaying the effect of her ruling.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said Wednesday in a brief order that she needs time to consider the legal issues raised by the Trump administration’s Justice Department in seeking a longer halt.

Jackson ruled Monday that McGahn must comply with a subpoena for his testimony from the Democrat-led House Judiciary Committee. She rejected the administration’s argument that the president´s top aides should be shielded from congressional questioning.

Democrats want to question McGahn about whether President Donald Trump tried to obstruct former special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... poena.html

Democrats want to question McGahn about whether President Trump tried to obstruct something that never happened (Russian collusion).


Cannot imagine how McGahn is going to have much of any real value that he will be behooved to disclose under oath. I would guess this move is a delaying tactic on the part of the New Totalitarian Tribalists Witch Hunters, and a counter-delaying tactic on the part of the Trump administration. The NTTs need to keep the thing going in the silly hope that any "momentum" they have gathered isn't lost if the current witch hunt trial fades out; this of course, is a silly strategem stacked on top of an insanely stupid strategem, stacked on top of 3 years of preposterously idiotic strategems. But it seems likely the point with McGahn isn't so much to go for a touchdown but to keep the witch hunt in motion. Given all of that, taking away their initiative and forcing additional delays on the delay was likely a sound response.

Unless anyone can specify what or why McGahn would have something particularly juicy to disclose which he would be behooved to under oath?

. . . meanwhile . . . was it December 9th which was stated as the day the initial report on the DOJ investigation of 2016 "FISA" abuses would be released?

Anyone who denies Trump is a clever opponent is a fool.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:14 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 36901
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Anthropoid wrote:
chijohnaok wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... poena.html

Democrats want to question McGahn about whether President Trump tried to obstruct something that never happened (Russian collusion).


Cannot imagine how McGahn is going to have much of any real value that he will be behooved to disclose under oath. I would guess this move is a delaying tactic on the part of the New Totalitarian Tribalists Witch Hunters, and a counter-delaying tactic on the part of the Trump administration. The NTTs need to keep the thing going in the silly hope that any "momentum" they have gathered isn't lost if the current witch hunt trial fades out; this of course, is a silly strategem stacked on top of an insanely stupid strategem, stacked on top of 3 years of preposterously idiotic strategems. But it seems likely the point with McGahn isn't so much to go for a touchdown but to keep the witch hunt in motion. Given all of that, taking away their initiative and forcing additional delays on the delay was likely a sound response.

Unless anyone can specify what or why McGahn would have something particularly juicy to disclose which he would be behooved to under oath?

. . . meanwhile . . . was it December 9th which was stated as the day the initial report on the DOJ investigation of 2016 "FISA" abuses would be released?

Anyone who denies Trump is a clever opponent is a fool.


Quote:
Unless anyone can specify what or why McGahn would have something particularly juicy to disclose which he would be behooved to under oath?

From what I read McGahn would have little to nothing to contribute to the "Ukraine" issue, since his time as White House Counsel ended October 17, 2018, which was long before the Trump Zelensky phone call.

What I have read the Dems are attempting to get get out of him is any evidence that Trump "obstructed" the Mueller investigation.

Here is what the Wikipedia entry for the Mueller Report has regarding "obstruction":

Quote:
Obstruction of justice

Regarding obstruction of justice, the report stated that the investigation "did not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference", but investigators wrote that obstruction of justice could still occur "regardless of whether a person committed an underlying wrong".[93][94] Trump, Barr, Rudy Giuliani and others have persistently and incorrectly maintained that an individual cannot obstruct justice unless the individual committed an underlying crime.[further explanation needed][95][96][97][98]

On obstruction of justice, the report "does not conclude that the President committed a crime, [and] it also does not exonerate him". Since the special counsel's office had decided "not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment", they "did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct". The report "does not conclude that the president committed a crime",[25] as investigators decided "not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the president committed crimes".[17][36][18] Investigators did not make a judgment about whether to charge Trump with a crime, for two main reasons: Firstly, the investigation abided by DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion written in 2000 that a sitting president cannot be federally indicted, a stance taken from the start of the investigation.[20][21][99] Secondly, investigators did not want to charge Trump because a federal criminal charge would hinder a sitting president's "capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional process for addressing presidential misconduct",[100] with a footnote reference to impeachment.[101] Even if charges were recommended in a secret memo or a charging document sealed until Trump's presidency ended, the information could still be leaked.[18][21][65] In addition, the special counsel's office rejected the alternative option of accusing Trump of committing a crime without bringing a charge. Investigators felt that this alternative option would be unfair to Trump, as there would be no trial in which Trump could clear his own name.[20][21][33]

The special counsel's office did not exonerate Trump on obstruction of justice because they were not confident that Trump was clearly innocent, after examining "evidence [they] obtained about the President's actions and intent".[27][28][29][38] The "investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations".[102] The report noted that once Trump was aware that he was personally being investigated for obstruction of justice, he started "public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the president, while in private, the president engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation."[33] However, President Trump's "efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." This prevented further obstruction of justice charges "against the President's aides and associates beyond those already filed".[103][33][34][104]

The report notes that Congress has the authority to decide if Trump obstructed justice, and then take further action if obstruction occurred, with investigators writing: "The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president's corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law." This phrase was interpreted as a possible reference to Congress potentially initiating impeachment proceedings against President Trump.[18][33][36][38][105]

Episodes of alleged obstruction

Some sources such as FactCheck.org, PBS NewsHour, and The New York Times describe the report as detailing eleven episodes where Trump could have possibly obstructed justice; one episode as a presidential candidate or president-elect, and ten episodes while Trump was president:[31][32][106]

Attorney General William Barr stated that there are ten episodes of potential obstruction.[107] Other sources such as The Washington Post and The Hill also report ten episodes; both omit the episode when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[27][108] CBS News counts ten episodes, omitting the one involving Corey Lewandowski.[109]

Quinta Jurecic, the managing editor of Lawfare, created a chart to simplify and summarize Mueller's analysis of these episodes in the report. Jurecic does not analyze the episode that occurred when Trump was a presidential candidate or president-elect.[110]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_R ... of_justice

My bold and underlined emphasis above.
I do not opine on whether those claims are valid, I am merely pointing them out.

Quote:
was it December 9th which was stated as the day the initial report on the DOJ investigation of 2016 "FISA" abuses would be released?


Yes, it is my understanding that the FBI Office of the Inspector General's (FBI OIG) report was to be released on that date.

John Durham, a US Attorney (one of the DOJ's District Attorneys) is also conducting a (now allegedly criminal) investigation along similar lines as the FBI OIG and may have received some referrals from the OIG.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:55 pm 
Online
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 15813
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 18937
Meuller finished his report. He didn't seem to feel that his investigation had been "obstructed."

Just based on those facts, seems to me that rifling through the closet for some shred of a hint of evidence of 'obstruction' is pretty pathetic. I mean sure, let 'em get down in the gutter and sort through the turds looking for the juiciest one! :lol:

Don't think it is going to either (a) change how the Senate votes (which ultimately is all that really matters as far as removing Trump from office); nor (b) change how the House votes (which they could have just done a year ago after the so-called Democrats won their house majority. Seems they would have netted just about as many votes for impeachment then BEFORE any investigation was complete as they will now with the Meuller complete and more nonsense in re-runs . . .); nor (c) how the two parties will fare in next years Congressional elections nor (d) how Trump will fare in 2020.

They've been on their last ditch hope from the start, so it seems they are down in the surf by now! :P

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:11 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 36901
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
Intelligence Committee to begin circulating draft Ukraine report Monday

I would speculate that this means no more "impeachment hearings" for Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.

Of course Nadler may still do so in the House Judiciary Committee.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:55 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 32350
Reputation points: 20000
The House may write an obstruction of justice charge (or charges) in their articles .....and the Senate and then the voters will tell them to go fuck themselves.

By ra way, Barr and Rosenstein essentially closed the door on any later criminal charges on the matter.

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 8:21 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 20241
Reputation points: 682
Tomorrow the show goes on.

In the mean time Judge Napo explains few details.


_________________
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:20 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 32350
Reputation points: 20000
You do realize Judge Nap has been ordered to say things to boost Fox ratings among Trump opponents? :lol:

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:35 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm
Posts: 32350
Reputation points: 20000
Nance once said she would not proceed with impeachment without a "bipartisan vote in the House". I don't think she has one fucking vote. :lol:

_________________
I haven't figured out how to the block thingy works but if anyone alters my posts I will become really, really angry and throw monkey poop out of my cage.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:50 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 36901
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
jack t ripper wrote:
Nance once said she would not proceed with impeachment without a "bipartisan vote in the House". I don't think she has one fucking vote. :lol:



The belated vote to open up the impeachment inquiry didn’t have one Republican vote.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Impeachment Watch
PostPosted: Tue Dec 03, 2019 9:58 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 20241
Reputation points: 682
chijohnaok wrote:
jack t ripper wrote:
Nance once said she would not proceed with impeachment without a "bipartisan vote in the House". I don't think she has one fucking vote. :lol:



The belated vote to open up the impeachment inquiry didn’t have one Republican vote.

Only one ex-republican vote. One can call it bi-partisan though. ;)

Nancy was reluctant to initiate the impeachment but could not resist the low hanging fruit of Ukraine drug deal. Women...


_________________
A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses. -- Carlo M. Cipolla

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens. -- Friedrich Schiller


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1084 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 ... 109  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group