You have to wonder what their legal team was thinking. You know they're smart enough to know this.

aggiehawg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Zemira said:

---

Not sure what I think about that yet.

---

You mean beyond that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of not getting tossed?

---

Yeah, it will be tossed.

---

So why even bring suit at this juncture?

aggiehawg said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

Zemira said:

---

Not sure what I think about that yet.

---

You mean beyond that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of not getting tossed?

---

Yeah, it will be tossed.

---

Just curious/uninformed...is Libel not against the law anymore? If it cannot be proven why is it still on the books?

No idea. Maybe Trump just wants the talking point? Everytime the Times prints a story that he disagrees with, he tosses out, "I sued them and they are still doing this crap!"

It's been awhile

aggiehawg said:

---

No idea. Maybe Trump just wants the talking point? Everytime the Times prints a story that he disagrees with, he tosses out, "I sued them and they are still doing this crap!"

---

I think that's the reason...at one point a while ago (probably first year in office) there was a talking point that if the media wasn't telling the truth why hasn't Trump sued us. This way he can show he has been doing it and they won't stop.

Prosperdick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

No idea. Maybe Trump just wants the talking point? Everytime the Times prints a story that he disagrees with, he tosses out, "I sued them and they are still doing this crap!"

---

I think that's the reason...at one point a while ago (probably first year in office) there was a talking point that if the media wasn't telling the truth why hasn't Trump sued us. This way he can show he has been doing it and they won't stop.

---

Plus Palin's case was tossed by the federal district court but was reinstated upon appeal. Her case was based on a news story and not an op ed, though.

aggiehawg said:

---

No idea. Maybe Trump just wants the talking point? Everytime the Times prints a story that he disagrees with, he tosses out, "I sued them and they are still doing this crap!"

---

This just strikes me as giving the left another chance to scream "see! he wants to be a dictator and get rid of the free press!" before this gets tossed, and some judge the chance to chastise Trump for trying to do just that.

Other than his base getting their jollies at the idea of Trump suing the Times, I don't see what this gets him. His base is locked down.

As with other stuff he does, it ain't about the base, it's about the middles, the undecided, the un- and under-informed.

I'm continually amazed by his political instincts.

I agree, it'll probably be tossed based on Sullivan, and when it does, he will get to deride the courts again -- which is the issue conservatives care about most.

MooreTrucker said:

---

As with other stuff he does, it ain't about the base, it's about the middles, the undecided, the un- and under-informed.

---

This.

The real target is than less 5% of voters in key swing states.

2 minute video.

unmade bed said:

---

More criminal referrals? Any update on the ones that have already been sent to DoJ that you guys were all excited about several months ago? Barr sitting on them until right before election? Barr compromised? Barr just gonna let Durham take down everyone?

---

We probably won't learn how Barr/Durham handled these criminal referrals until the early part of Trump's 2nd term.

will25u said:

---

---

Where the hell has this guy been?

will25u said:

---

---

I'm sure Lindsay Graham will soon claim that he will hold hearings to listen to this guy "and get to the bottom of what was going on".

pagerman @ work said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Where the hell has this guy been?

---

Solomon? Probably laying low since the President's campaign is trying to set the precedent that opinion pieces can constitute defamation

Probably NOT Solomon.....

MASAXET said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Where the hell has this guy been?

---

Solomon? Probably laying low since the President's campaign is trying to set the precedent that opinion pieces can constitute defamation

---

Quote:

---

Probably NOT Solomon

---

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of the ex-FBI unit chief.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1233174367778955264.html

initial article here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html

Interesting thread about CrowdStrike. Remember Trump mentioned it in his telephone call with the new Ukrainian President?

I have been saying all along that as an United States Attorney, Durham will only write internal DOJ reports that will not be made public. DOJ policy. Unless there is an indictment they don't reveal the subjects of investigation.

Now as to drcrium's post about CrowdStrike, any investigation into whether CrossFire Hurricane was properly predicated of course will involve CrowdStrike's report about the DNC hack and whether the FBI scrutinized their report according to procedure and guidelines.

But one more point about them making changes to their reporting about the DNC hack is that they could be facing an SEC issue on errors or omissions related to their IPO, as opposed to legal jeopardy from the DOJ over the Mueller Report. IOW, Durham could have discovered some facts that were not dealt with in a forthright manner on all of their disclosure statements when filing for their IPO.

She is saying that Durham has convened a grand jury but nobody in DC knows this -- this is the so-called breaking news. But Joe diGenova said that Durham had already convened a grand jury last May.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/john-durham-already-used-a-grand-jury-in-russia-origins-probe-joe-digenova-says

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1233174367778955264.html

initial article here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-russia-mueller-ukraine-zelensky-a9181641.html

Interesting thread about CrowdStrike. Remember Trump mentioned it in his telephone call with the new Ukrainian President?

---

Notice there founder and CTO left this month

No testimony from McGahn.

That was the basis for one of the articles of impeachment, wasn't it? The Dems called it 'Obstruction of Congress'.

drcrinum said:

---

That was the basis for one of the articles of impeachment, wasn't it? The Dems called it 'Obstruction of Congress'.

---

Sorry, darlin' but I am not following you here.
Context???

I think he's talking about McGahn not testifying was part of the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment.

drcrinum said:

---

That was the basis for one of the articles of impeachment, wasn't it? The Dems called it 'Obstruction of Congress'.

---

Not really. The court held in this case that Congress doesn't have standing to sue to use the court to enforce the subpoena. By doing so, they didn't have to address either sides issues with regard to the subpoena. The court said that Congress has other ways to enforce their subpoenas, but we (the courts) aren't going to do it for you.

Quote:

---

The absence of a judicial remedy doesn't render Congress powerless. Instead, the Constitution gives Congress a series of political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel. See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1004 (1979) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (noting that the "coequal branches of our Government" have "resources available to protect and assert [their] interests"). Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President's nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President's legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers.
Chafetz, supra, at 1152-53; see also H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong., at 6 (2019) (impeaching President Trump for "obstruction of Congress").

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

That was the basis for one of the articles of impeachment, wasn't it? The Dems called it 'Obstruction of Congress'.

---

Not really. The court held in this case that Congress doesn't have standing to sue to use the court to enforce the subpoena. By doing so, they didn't have to address either sides issues with regard to the subpoena. The court said that Congress has other ways to enforce their subpoenas, but we (the courts) aren't going to do it for you.

Quote:

---

The absence of a judicial remedy doesn't render Congress powerless. Instead, the Constitution gives Congress a series of political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel. See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1004 (1979) (opinion of Rehnquist, J.) (noting that the "coequal branches of our Government" have "resources available to protect and assert [their] interests"). Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President's nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President's legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers.
Chafetz, supra, at 1152-53; see also H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong., at 6 (2019) (impeaching President Trump for "obstruction of Congress").

---

---

An important implication of this...the House is not co-equal to the President. The House and Senate combined are co-equal to the President.

Quote:

---

Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt,

---

Doesn't this mean either the House OR the Senate separately?

drcrinum said:

---

That was the basis for one of the articles of impeachment, wasn't it? The Dems called it 'Obstruction of Congress'.

---

not specifically him, but yes.

Quote:

---

The House of Representatives has since passed two articles of impeachment against the President. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019). The first article charges the President with "abuse of power"; the second with "obstruction of Congress." Although the second article does not mention McGahn expressly, it alleges that the President unlawfully directed officials "not to comply with" congressional subpoenas...

---

key takeaway from me on the court's thinking was that were looking ahead to "what if"

Quote:

---

The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress's lawyers to make the trip often.

---

So in a way, DC circuit says obstruction of congress can be impeachable