easyt65
Diamond Member
- Aug 4, 2015
- 90,307
- 61,083
- 2,645
1st he (and Pelosi) demanded that the US AG break the law by exposing / providing him with Grand Jury Information the Mueller team redacted from their report.
Nadler then called Constitutional Law Expert Turley to testify before his House Judicial Committee on the matter. Under oath in front of Nadler and his committee, Turley informed Nadler that it IS indeed ILLEGAL for the US AG to release the Grand Jury information - based on a law NADLER and his fellow Democrats had helped pass.
This had to be embarrassing, that the CHAIRMAN of the Judicial Committee and a member of Congress who helped pass the law he was asking the US AG to violate did not even know what he was asking the US AG to do was illegal.
To make matters even worse, Turley made it clear that what he - Nadler, Pelosi, and his fellow Democrats had just done: Nadler, Pelosi, and the House Democrats voted to hold the US AG in 'Contempt of Congress' for refusing to obey Nadler's demand that he break the law.
Nadler just demonstrated that he hasn't gotten any smarter on the LAW.
Not liking how Mueller's investigation turned out (No collusion, no conspiracy, and no obstruction) and having made such a fool of himself by voting the US AG in 'Contempt of Congress' for not breaking the law, Judicial Committee Chairman Nadler was determined to 'get Trump' yet and proceeded to subpoenaed former WH Counsel Don McGahn to appear and testify before him and his committee.
Once again, however, Nadler's attempts have been thwarted, primarily - again - due to his own ignorance of the law and of Constitutional precedent:
"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. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."
"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 advisors to testify about their official duties."
In light of Nadler's repeated displays of personal ignorance of the law (or either his total partisan disregard for the law), how much longer can Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats allow Nadler to remain Chairman of the Judicial Committee, a position he is so obviously not qualified (or is too partisan) to handle?
DOJ: No, Nadler, Former White House Counsel Is Not Legally Required to Testify For Your Mueller Do-Over
Nadler then called Constitutional Law Expert Turley to testify before his House Judicial Committee on the matter. Under oath in front of Nadler and his committee, Turley informed Nadler that it IS indeed ILLEGAL for the US AG to release the Grand Jury information - based on a law NADLER and his fellow Democrats had helped pass.
This had to be embarrassing, that the CHAIRMAN of the Judicial Committee and a member of Congress who helped pass the law he was asking the US AG to violate did not even know what he was asking the US AG to do was illegal.
To make matters even worse, Turley made it clear that what he - Nadler, Pelosi, and his fellow Democrats had just done: Nadler, Pelosi, and the House Democrats voted to hold the US AG in 'Contempt of Congress' for refusing to obey Nadler's demand that he break the law.
Nadler just demonstrated that he hasn't gotten any smarter on the LAW.
Not liking how Mueller's investigation turned out (No collusion, no conspiracy, and no obstruction) and having made such a fool of himself by voting the US AG in 'Contempt of Congress' for not breaking the law, Judicial Committee Chairman Nadler was determined to 'get Trump' yet and proceeded to subpoenaed former WH Counsel Don McGahn to appear and testify before him and his committee.
Once again, however, Nadler's attempts have been thwarted, primarily - again - due to his own ignorance of the law and of Constitutional precedent:
"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. "This action has been taken in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the Presidency."
"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 advisors to testify about their official duties."
In light of Nadler's repeated displays of personal ignorance of the law (or either his total partisan disregard for the law), how much longer can Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats allow Nadler to remain Chairman of the Judicial Committee, a position he is so obviously not qualified (or is too partisan) to handle?
DOJ: No, Nadler, Former White House Counsel Is Not Legally Required to Testify For Your Mueller Do-Over
