Rudy Stands His Ground Says Eff You to Democrats

[jknowgood]

Way to go Rudy!

<< Rudy Giuliani told the Democrats to pound sand and said Tuesday he will not comply with a congressional subpoena. >>

Rudy Giuliani Tells Dems to Pound Sand - Says He Will Not Comply with Congressional Subpoena

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

he did?

hmm
Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

Yes. Didn't read this part didya?

"However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation."

He had to turn them over.

I bet him turned them over as quickly as Hillary turned her emails over.

 

[BlindBoo]

Fascism always begins as a majority placing people in power they did not fully understand.
And that is EXACTLY what Democrats are doing with allowing leftist to take over the party.

The Nazi's never won much more than 30% of the German vote. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

Uh... the Nazi Party was a lot more than just Hitler. It was the largest political party by 1932 and had over 100 seats in Parliament by then.
Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg due to the same kind of thing that is happening to Trump now. Backroom deals, power grabs and Parliamentary laws passed lead to Hindenburg basically losing all of his power.
Sound familiar?

Hitler was the leader since 1921. The Nazi party never had more than 37% support and created a dictatorship by violence and intimidation, not by the consent or approval of the majority. In fact it was a minority of violent Fascist who drove the movement. They just had a great con man to spread their propaganda and lies.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't ignore a supoena. Rudy SHOULD know that. He thinks Dumb Donald will protect him.

How do you go from being one the best prosecuting attorneys in the nation, to being a corrupt power broker, in the thrall of Russia? Just link All The President's men under Nixon ended up in jail, so will Rudy, Pompeo, and Barr.

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

he did?

hmm
Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

Yes. Didn't read this part didya?

"However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation."

He had to turn them over.

I bet him turned them over as quickly as Hillary turned her emails over.

It took about 5 more years to resolve.

But in the end do you know why they didn't find any evidence that Obama or Holder knew what the agents in AZ were doing?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Fascism always begins as a majority placing people in power they did not fully understand.
And that is EXACTLY what Democrats are doing with allowing leftist to take over the party.

The Nazi's never won much more than 30% of the German vote. Hitler was appointed Chancellor.

Uh... the Nazi Party was a lot more than just Hitler. It was the largest political party by 1932 and had over 100 seats in Parliament by then.
Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg due to the same kind of thing that is happening to Trump now. Backroom deals, power grabs and Parliamentary laws passed lead to Hindenburg basically losing all of his power.
Sound familiar?

Hitler was the leader since 1921. The Nazi party never had more than 37% support and created a dictatorship by violence and intimidation, not by the consent or approval of the majority. In fact it was a minority of violent Fascist who drove the movement. They just had a great con man to spread their propaganda and lies.

So yeah...again...sound familiar?

 

[jknowgood]

Holder did, didn't hear you complain.

He lost in court and had to comply with the subpoenas and turn over the requested document. I don't think he ever refused to testify however.

he did?

hmm
Judge declines to hold Holder in contempt

Yes. Didn't read this part didya?

"However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation."

He had to turn them over.

I bet him turned them over as quickly as Hillary turned her emails over.

It took about 5 more years to resolve.

But in the end do you know why they didn't find any evidence that Obama or Holder knew what the agents in AZ were doing?

Because if they did, they would be racist.

 

[kyzr]

How about at least one credible source that backs up that statement?

How about you point out the rule that requires a majority House Vote to start an impeachment inquiry or a rule that requires it start it one certain committee. I'll even give you the rules.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

Showing House Rules that don't support your contention doesn't help your argument.
How about a legal expert opinion like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz?
Opinion | Hamilton Wouldn’t Impeach Trump

Got any links that could trump Dershowitz?

 

[Dragonlady]

Post what? The current House Rules have already been posted.

no dumb ass, the link that says a majority vote sets precedent.

Already answered. There is no current rule requiring either a majority vote or that it originate in the Judiciary committee.

You keep saying that without any proof. How about at least one credible source that backs up that statement? The GOP says that you are wrong, and Nancy isn't taking it to court to settle the issue. So its just another example of dysfunctional government, they can't even agree on what the Constitution says. I used to think that gridlock is a good thing, maybe it is?

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The GOP is passing around a hoax that an impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote. They have provided ZERO evidence for that hoax.

It is a bogus delaying tactic, and Pelosi isn't dancing to their tune.

This isn't Judge Judy's court. The Republicans are not "claimants". Have it your way and see what happens. Nothing will happen when the Republicans call the democrat's work product illegal, because the impeachment inquiry was started illegally. It will be DOA in the Senate. More wasted time by the democrats. You still haven't posted any links proving your assertion. You probably can't.

Here try reading this by Alan Dershowitz, it proves I'm right and you are wrong.
Opinion | Hamilton Wouldn’t Impeach Trump

Dershowtiz lost his mind years ago, and no one takes him seriously, and hasn't since he defended OJ.

 

[BlindBoo]

How about at least one credible source that backs up that statement?

How about you point out the rule that requires a majority House Vote to start an impeachment inquiry or a rule that requires it start it one certain committee. I'll even give you the rules.

https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/116-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

Showing House Rules that don't support your contention doesn't help your argument.
How about a legal expert opinion like Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz?
Opinion | Hamilton Wouldn’t Impeach Trump

Got any links that could trump Dershowitz?

\
Sure, but I can't read the WSJ

"The constitutional text on this issue is spare. The Constitution simply says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Ultimately, if the House wants to impeach someone, it needs to muster a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate. How the House gets there is entirely up to the chamber itself to determine. There is no constitutional requirement that the House take two successful votes on impeachment, one to authorize some kind of inquiry and one to ratify whatever emerges from that inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is not “invalid” because there has been no vote to formally launch it, and any eventual impeachment would not be “invalid” because the process that led to it did not feature a floor vote authorizing a specific inquiry.

Of course, the House’s own rules might require such a vote, and the House must follow its own rules until it chooses to change them. But there is no rule requiring such an authorizing vote, and neither McCarthy nor Cipollone points to one. The House has changed its internal procedures dramatically over time. At one point, the House did not rely on standing committees but instead created select committees to handle many legislative tasks. Through much of its history, the House has limited the investigatory powers of its standing committees and required that those committees go to the floor to receive special authorization to issue subpoenas or spend substantial resources on staff. It no longer does so, and so it no longer needs to take such votes to specially authorize particular investigations. The House might want a select committee to pursue an impeachment inquiry, but it could also choose to rely on its standing committees to do the job with their preexisting jurisdiction and resources—and that is how the Democratic leadership has decided to approach the current impeachment inquiry. It is not up to the target of an impeachment to determine who will compose the committee that will draft the articles of impeachment or who will chair that committee."

Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry?

 

[justoffal]

Brilliant. A former federal prosecutor is flouting the law he used to uphold.

There is no law involved yet....
Not until there is an actual motion by the house.

G'head.... Try to arrest him.... Let's see how fast the Secret Service can make
Three or four obese corpses out of the bouncing bureaucratic buffoon-cops.

Jo

 

[Rambunctious]

Hey Dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lennypartiv]

The burden of proof is on the claimant. The GOP is passing around a hoax that an impeachment inquiry requires a full House vote. They have provided ZERO evidence for that hoax.
It is a bogus delaying tactic, and Pelosi isn't dancing to their tune.

Have it your way. No vote by Pelosi's gang, no cooperation from the White House.

 

[bullwinkle]

Actually, Rudy may be standing his ground on Riker's Island.

Not gonna happen, and even if it did he would get a pardon immediately.

Actually, Rudy may be standing his ground on Riker's Island.

Not gonna happen, and even if it did he would get a pardon immediately.

Actually, Rudy may be standing his ground on Riker's Island.

Not gonna happen, and even if it did he would get a pardon immediately.

"Not gonna happen, and even if it did he would get a pardon immediately."
Like Manafort is pardoned? Ah, len, Rudy's bus is warming up. For what it's worth, I get no pleasure seeing what Rudy has become since the days when he was a giant in my eyes.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[basquebromance]

"Failed mayor...failed presidential candidate...failed White House lawyer...on his way to being a convicted felon!"