There's more at stake in the "absolute immunity" court battles and rulings than just McGahn's testimony. It affects other potential witnesses who can't hide behind executive privilege. Hth.aggiehawg said:Well I'm slow here. Just had an epiphany that the "absolute immunity" claim was a dilatory tactic to kick this down the road for awhile. Thought it was a weird argument but as a legal strategy, effective.MouthBQ98 said:
They can make him appear, but he is still subject to Trumps' executive privilege claims regarding certain information and communications and so there's some things he wouldn't be able to talk about unless he is released to do so.
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
1,018,550 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by 197361936
MetoliusAg said:There's more at stake in the "absolute immunity" court battles and rulings than just McGahn's testimony. It affects other potential witnesses who can't hide behind executive privilege. Hth.aggiehawg said:Well I'm slow here. Just had an epiphany that the "absolute immunity" claim was a dilatory tactic to kick this down the road for awhile. Thought it was a weird argument but as a legal strategy, effective.MouthBQ98 said:
They can make him appear, but he is still subject to Trumps' executive privilege claims regarding certain information and communications and so there's some things he wouldn't be able to talk about unless he is released to do so.
This wasn't a hearing on executive privilege. Expect McGahn to assert that privilege whenever this subpoena gets through the courts. This ruling just makes him sit there and assert that privilege on the record.
Hey SA, I know how much you just love to stalk me and prove me wrong but I'm here to admit that I was wrong about the legal strategy being employed here.Quote:
There's more at stake in the "absolute immunity" court battles and rulings than just McGahn's testimony. It affects other potential witnesses who can't hide behind executive privilege. Hth.
duce snapped to it before I did. This decision today may technically be a win for the Dems but timewise it is a defeat. Legal strategy, for the win here.
This question is on topic, but is a tangent.
Finton and Solomon seem to file a hell of a lot of FOIA suits. Filing a suit that many times can't be cheap, especially when it seems like the FEDS lose about 80% of them. Who ends up paying court fees in these situations? I have no idea how much court fees are, but if it's $1,000 per suit, and you file 15 to 20 per year, that can be kind of expensive.
Finton and Solomon seem to file a hell of a lot of FOIA suits. Filing a suit that many times can't be cheap, especially when it seems like the FEDS lose about 80% of them. Who ends up paying court fees in these situations? I have no idea how much court fees are, but if it's $1,000 per suit, and you file 15 to 20 per year, that can be kind of expensive.
Our government is never coming back from this, is it?
I Have Spoken said:
Our government is never coming back from this, is it?
Sadly. I don't think so. This is the way.
CNN, National Enquirer and a guy named Pecker.
You're right, of those, I'd probably listen to Pecker as well.
You're right, of those, I'd probably listen to Pecker as well.
hairloom said:
your takes are worse than reading the headlines of the national enquirer.
If people don't quote him, many of us won't have to read it.
Guess again, dear. See Article 3 of Nixon's impeachment if you require a hint.aggiehawg said:Hey SA, I know how much you just love to stalk me and prove me wrong but I'm here to admit that I was wrong about the legal strategy being employed here.Quote:
There's more at stake in the "absolute immunity" court battles and rulings than just McGahn's testimony. It affects other potential witnesses who can't hide behind executive privilege. Hth.
duce snapped to it before I did. This decision today may technically be a win for the Dems but timewise it is a defeat. Legal strategy, for the win here.
Better not. You like to flag people who dare call you out b
backintexas2013 said:
Better not. You like to flag people who dare call you out b
Only poster I've ever blocked. I can deal with a differing opinion, but copy / pasting talking points is Sean Hannity level annoying.
The 18 minutes of missing tape you mean???MetoliusAg said:Guess again, dear. See Article 3 of Nixon's impeachment if you require a hint.aggiehawg said:Hey SA, I know how much you just love to stalk me and prove me wrong but I'm here to admit that I was wrong about the legal strategy being employed here.Quote:
There's more at stake in the "absolute immunity" court battles and rulings than just McGahn's testimony. It affects other potential witnesses who can't hide behind executive privilege. Hth.
duce snapped to it before I did. This decision today may technically be a win for the Dems but timewise it is a defeat. Legal strategy, for the win here.
MetoliusAg said:
You were saying?
You do realize that no one needs disinformation to make them hate liberals. Liberals idiotic and deranged rhetoric directly from their mouths is enough to make any reasonable human being despise their agenda. What's the point of lying about people who have truly rotten souls and bad intentions? It's not like they try to hide it.
I Have Spoken said:backintexas2013 said:
Better not. You like to flag people who dare call you out b
Only poster I've ever blocked. I can deal with a differing opinion, but copy / pasting talking points is Sean Hannity level annoying.
He blames moderators for not responding to others. He actually caught the ban for calling Fox News viewers racist. He actually used to be fine. TDS has broken him. He had high hopes for Mueller, CPL, BJ Ford and others but has been let down so much.
Just flag the troll and move along. It's not worth it.
You don't post contrarian views. You post pre-made talking points, usually with a comment designed to do nothing but agitate and try to get someone to attack you so you can flag them.
Your only response to is play the victim card, or throw out another talking point. When people call out your BS, or destroy your talking points, you disappear, or switch to a new topic and set of talking points.
Your only response to is play the victim card, or throw out another talking point. When people call out your BS, or destroy your talking points, you disappear, or switch to a new topic and set of talking points.
Half your posts are attempted mind reading of the president. The others are inconsequential fantasies.
Your posts are about as interesting as bucket of spit.
Polls have shown a massive shift against impeachment, especially among independent voters, and the polls that showed major support, often polled 50% or more Democrat.
Of course you know this, but you gotta keep up your shtick and earning that paycheck.
Polls have shown a massive shift against impeachment, especially among independent voters, and the polls that showed major support, often polled 50% or more Democrat.
Of course you know this, but you gotta keep up your shtick and earning that paycheck.
Wow. Trump supporter / rightwing Fox News tv show host Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel tonight:
Will Trump publicly denounce Tucker Carlson tonight or tomorrow? Jmho, Trump has to, even if he privately agrees with Tucker.
And:Quote:
Why do I care what's going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I'm serious, why do I care? And why shouldn't I root for Russia, which I am.
Putin couldn't have written a pro-Kremlin / anti-NATO / anti-Ukraine script for Tucker any better.Quote:
I don't live in Western Europe, I live in DC and I don't care.
Will Trump publicly denounce Tucker Carlson tonight or tomorrow? Jmho, Trump has to, even if he privately agrees with Tucker.
Ugh no he doesn't. You don't go around denouncing everything anyone that supports you says that you disagree with. That is just silly.
Odds bets:
Trump brags about the ratings during the impeachment trial where he's the star. The Apprentice never got 70% share.
Trump brags about the ratings during the impeachment trial where he's the star. The Apprentice never got 70% share.
It's 9:41 PM on November 25, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS...
and Jeffrey Epstein still didn't kill himself.
and Jeffrey Epstein still didn't kill himself.
Covidians, Communists, CNN, FOX, and all other MSM are enemies of the state and should be treated as such.
I certainly hope you have visited the General Board and signed up with Secret Santa to get some new batteries for your weak trolling motor.
And he will be until early 2025.Spotted Ag said:
It's 9:41 PM on November 25, 2019 and Donald J. Trump is STILL the POTUS...
and Jeffrey Epstein still didn't kill himself.
And no one seems to want to wager that won't be the case ...
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
MetoliusAg said:
Wow. Trump supporter / rightwing Fox News tv show host Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel tonight:And:Quote:
Why do I care what's going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I'm serious, why do I care? And why shouldn't I root for Russia, which I am.Putin couldn't have written a pro-Kremlin / anti-NATO / anti-Ukraine script for Tucker any better.Quote:
I don't live in Western Europe, I live in DC and I don't care.
Will Trump publicly denounce Tucker Carlson tonight or tomorrow? Jmho, Trump has to, even if he privately agrees with Tucker.
The 1980s wants its foreign policy back
You actually quoted that? Tucker even then went on to say it was a trap phrase that would be mis-used by the Left. Bait. Hannity even joked about it as they cut to his segment. Happened to see it tonight because Tucker was talking about the Syria gas possibly being a fraud (which is something suspected)MetoliusAg said:
Wow. Trump supporter / rightwing Fox News tv show host Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel tonight:And:Quote:
Why do I care what's going on in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia? And I'm serious, why do I care? And why shouldn't I root for Russia, which I am.Putin couldn't have written a pro-Kremlin / anti-NATO / anti-Ukraine script for Tucker any better.Quote:
I don't live in Western Europe, I live in DC and I don't care.
Will Trump publicly denounce Tucker Carlson tonight or tomorrow? Jmho, Trump has to, even if he privately agrees with Tucker.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ron-paul-exposes-real-bombshell-impeachment-hearings
Quote:
The most shocking thing to come out of the hearings thus far is confirmation that no matter who is elected President of the United States, the permanent government will not allow a change in our aggressive interventionist foreign policy, particularly when it comes to Russia.
Even more shocking is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are bothered in the slightest!
Take Lt. Colonel Vindman, who earned high praise in the mainstream media. He did not come forth with first-hand evidence that President Trump had committed any "high crimes" or "misdemeanors." He brought a complaint against the President because he was worried that Trump was shifting US policy away from providing offensive weapons to the Ukrainian government!
He didn't think the US president had the right to suspend aid to Ukraine because he supported providing aid to Ukraine.
According to his testimony, Vindman's was concerned over "influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency."
"Consensus views of the interagency" is another word for "deep state."
Vindman continued, "While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Let that sink in for a moment: Vindman did not witness any crimes, he just didn't think the elected President of the United States had any right to change US policy toward Ukraine or Russia!
Likewise, his boss on the National Security Council Staff, Fiona Hill, sounded more like she had just stepped out of the 1950s with her heated Cold War rhetoric. Citing the controversial 2017 "Intelligence Community Assessment" put together by then-CIA director John Brennan's "hand-picked" analysts, she asserted that, "President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter US foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine."
And who gets to decide US foreign policy objectives in Europe? Not the US President, according to government bureaucrat Fiona Hill. In fact, Hill told Congress that, "If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention."
Who was Fiona Hill's boss? Former National Security Advisor John Bolton, who no doubt agreed that the president has no right to change US foreign policy. Bolton's the one who "explained" that when Trump said US troops would come home it actually meant troops would stay put.
One by one, the parade of "witnesses" before House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff sang from the same songbook. As US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland put it, "in July and August 2019, we learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression."
Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans in large majority voted to continue spying on the rest of us by extending the unpatriotic Patriot Act. Authoritarianism is the real bipartisan philosophy in Washington.
Featured Stories
See All
27:33
1d ago
11k
14:13
16h ago
2.0k
Efficiency, coaching experience trends point to A&M's true capabilities
by Luke Evangelist
9:44
19h ago
3.8k
El Mero Mero 14
Rich Get Richer - Dick Sports and Texas Athletics
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
13