BANNED posters to "Current Events LIBERALS won't like" can post here...

Centerleftfl said:
This quite literally must be the dumbest TOOL on any board I've ever been engaged on. I don't even get the rationale. Self-congratulatory, insular, exclusionary, don't talk to me? IT IS CHICKENSHIT. Hello! Took me a little while to figure out how it was done but I've never employed it. NO WONDER THEY LOVE TRUMP. Shut down contrary opinions.

As for the post....

Part 1, COVERT ACTIVITIES? You mean like PAYING for Steele Dossiers, 3rd incarnation? The post has no context. (And no link). And who's the Russian?

I don't know which quarter Trump surpassed Democrats in fundraising. But more importantly, we have 21 candidates. Is the sum the total for all? That would be a comparable #. (And NO link)

As for ANTI-FA. Again, no link. Says it's judicial watch. That alone should tell you everything you need to know.

So no links, no fact checking? Is that how we roll here?
Click to expand...

take a line out of the text and cut and paste it into the search line


that will often lead you right to where the text came from



there is a reason they done want to link to their source usually
 
evince said:
which DOJ?
Click to expand...

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers.

This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel.

Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

The President does not waive an adviser’s immunity from compelled congressional testimony by authorizing disclosure of any particular information.

The disclosure’s impact on executive privilege does not ultimately bear on any underlying immunity from compelled testimony.

Because Congress may not constitutionally compel the former Counsel to testify about his official duties, he may not be civilly or criminally penalized for following a presidential directive not to appear.

The same rationale applies equally to an exercise of inherent contempt powers against a senior aide who has complied with a presidential direction that he not provide testimony to a congressional committee.

On April 22, 2019, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, the former Counsel to the President, to testify about matters described in the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

You have asked whether Mr. McGahn is legally required to appear.

We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.

This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President’s independence from Congress.

As Attorney General Janet Reno explained, “subjecting a senior presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to the performance of his constitutionally assigned executive functions.” Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 5 (1999) (“Reno Opinion”).

Congress may no more summon the President to a congressional committee room than the President may command Members of Congress to appear at the White House.


https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1164186/download
 
dukkha said:
evidence for Mueller - who produced the report. /
Evidence is not restricted to one person.
there were no claims for Mueller
Click to expand...
If there are not claims of executive privilege on documents produced by the WH then there is no legal reason to withold them from Congress
incorrect Mueller reports to the AG and the AG can release or not release
Click to expand...
You seem to be a little misinformed. The AG can decide on public release. Release to Congress is a different matter. That is controlled by relevant laws and court rulings. The AG doesn't get to decide.
Congress cannot investigate unles it's an impeachment - so either impeach or get off the pot.
Click to expand...
Really? So the GOP was violating the law all during Obama's Presidency? You do realize this makes you look stupid, don't you? Congress can investigate anything that may have a legislative purpose. The Courts have upheld that several times. Congress is also to be given the benefit of the doubt according to the USSC. It's why Mnuchin has little legal standing for his refusal to turn over Trump's tax returns. It's why the judge ruled so quickly on Trump's accounting firm having to abide by the subpoena.
Mueller is not the final word, but i tend to agree - but there were no charges of Obstruction
Click to expand...
You should read the report.
these are not impeachment hearings
neither can witness be bagdered after a case is closed. The Mueller report is over, CONGRESS IS NOT AN "INVESTIGATOR" -as THESE ARE NOT IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS
Click to expand...
Were you asleep through the 5 years of over a dozen Benghazi hearings? Once again, are you saying the GOP should have not spent all that time badgering witnesses and reopening hearings after the case was closed? Congress has the power of oversight. There do not need to be impeachment hearings. I assume you weren't alive in the 70's. Congress investigated then before they started impeachment hearings. They did the same thing in the 90's.
whre do you get you elastic definitions from?
Click to expand...
What definition is elastic? I tend to rely on actual court rulings.
Rhodes refused to testify to Congress regarding Iran as well
Click to expand...
Rhodes refused to testify because of executive privilege about discussions with the President about a policy that the President implemented. That would be a very real case of Executive privilege.

The problem for Dems is that Mueller already covered this ground as an investigator.
Now Congress wants to investigater again and is not an investigative body, unless it'sduring Impeachment hearings.
Click to expand...
It's not a problem at all. It gives them a very clear roadmap of what witnesses to call and what documents to request.

Congress needs to impeach if it wants to investigate
Click to expand...
You should really take off that MAGA hat. It seems to be preventing you from seeing reality. Congress has the power to investigate. It did it in the 70's with Nixon. It did it in the 90's with Clinton. It did it ad nauseum when Obama was President. They don't suddenly lose that power because Trump is President. The Constitution still exists. Court rulings still exist. Laws still exist. Congress' power to investigate still exists.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Legion said:
The DOJ says otherwise.
Click to expand...

The DOJ ongoing policy says a current aide to a President has immunity from testifying.
https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

McGhan is no longer an employee at the WH which makes his refusal different from a current aide.

The DOJ also acknowledges that the privilege is not universal but is qualified and that absolute immunity has never been tested in courts.
The DOJ acknowledges that that absolute immunity doesn't extend to documents.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The DOJ ongoing policy says a current aide to a President has immunity from testifying.
https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download
Click to expand...

You're behind the times.

"The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers.

This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel."

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1164186/download
 
Not really since the rationale hasn't changed. I suggest you read the longer version I posted. Much of the same reasoning but it goes far beyond the recent one.
 
Centerleftfl said:
This quite literally must be the dumbest TOOL on any board I've ever been engaged on. I don't even get the rationale. Self-congratulatory, insular, exclusionary, don't talk to me? IT IS CHICKENSHIT. Hello! Took me a little while to figure out how it was done but I've never employed it. NO WONDER THEY LOVE TRUMP. Shut down contrary opinions.

As for the post....

Part 1, COVERT ACTIVITIES? You mean like PAYING for Steele Dossiers, 3rd incarnation? The post has no context. (And no link). And who's the Russian?

I don't know which quarter Trump surpassed Democrats in fundraising. But more importantly, we have 21 candidates. Is the sum the total for all? That would be a comparable #. (And NO link)

As for ANTI-FA. Again, no link. Says it's judicial watch. That alone should tell you everything you need to know.

So no links, no fact checking? Is that how we roll here?
Click to expand...
Do you know why that tool is popular?? It isn't members that added it to vBulletin..

IMHO it is a good tool, most posters don't abuse it & it is effective...

Lets be honest, he prob does that to hide the fact that the vast majority of his trolling threads go unviewed/no replies... Vast majority of folks on the list have no intention of ever viewing, muchless replying to the troll......... Hell prob over half the board has him on ignore anyway......

my 2cents
 
Howard the Duck said:
Legion Fag has been a resident troll of this site since before even Obama was colluding with Russia. Back when leftists didn't try to hide their decades long love affair with the Ruskies. He even used to troll as a leftist.
Click to expand...

Yes, I recall him being left. But then some of the posters here now on the left may actually be him.:dunno:
 
StoneByStone said:
The Deep State putting chemicals in the water to turn the friggin frogs gay!
Click to expand...

:laugh::laugh::laugh:
frogs.jpg
 
dukkha said:
it was a bureaucratic coup -and the Russian collusion ginned up by Brennan and Comey ( et all)
by the ficticous Steele dossier.

Wait for Horowitz on FISA abuse
Click to expand...

Did they come up w/ the plot to turn the frogs gay?? Asking for a friend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top