It's your area. People wearing MAGA hats, for example, probably don't tend to live where you do but there are parts of the country where you could see them on a daily basis. There are a few places where there actually is a mix, and it is in those areas that the left tends to go unhinged and beat up people wearing the wrong colors.
2nd Impeachment? House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again
- Thread starter EvilEyeFleegle
- Start date
DJT for Life
Gold Member
- Jun 21, 2017
- 3,468
- 899
- 195
It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the ***** was in too much of a hurry.
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020
it has been in the courts - where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
They should have waited...huh?
Now they have to start all over again.
btw...dumb ****...Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were never under subpoena. Any attempted move on them
will result in another round of separation of powers. Without another Impeachment inquiry, no court will overrule
executive blocking of their testimony. A second impeachment inquiry will all but assure that the House flips and the
Donald gets 4 more years.
I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.
lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, *****
cat.
CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?
Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.
On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.
Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.
McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.
Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?
yer welcome.
LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.
.
only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?
This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
oh please, racists be everywhere. some just have more balls wearing their revamped hood... the obvious 'MAGATS' tend to CONgregate openly where they are more accepted.
A second impeachment now just means they're admitting they screwed up the first time.It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the ***** was in too much of a hurry.it will only take 3.
oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a *****?
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020
it has been in the courts - where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
They should have waited...huh?
Now they have to start all over again.
btw...dumb ****...Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were never under subpoena. Any attempted move on them
will result in another round of separation of powers. Without another Impeachment inquiry, no court will overrule
executive blocking of their testimony. A second impeachment inquiry will all but assure that the House flips and the
Donald gets 4 more years.
- Moderator
- #166
Damn, 2 responses to 1 post, should I feel honored? The claim of executive privilege is still in the Article 3 courts. Due process applies in those courts. Also the supreme court has ruled due process applies to house hearings. Perhaps you're just too ignorant to even discuss this with. Go educate yourself commie.
.
You made my point. You tuck Trump people tend to congregate openly where you are more accepted as well.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the ***** was in too much of a hurry.it will only take 3.
oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a *****?
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020
it has been in the courts - where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
They should have waited...huh?
Now they have to start all over again.
btw...dumb ****...Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were never under subpoena. Any attempted move on them
will result in another round of separation of powers. Without another Impeachment inquiry, no court will overrule
executive blocking of their testimony. A second impeachment inquiry will all but assure that the House flips and the
Donald gets 4 more years.
you keep believing that buttercup.
Are you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally? Was it a 'court subpoena', or was it a 'congressional subpoena'?It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the ***** was in too much of a hurry.
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020
it has been in the courts - where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
Be very careful in your answer
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.
lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, *****
cat.
CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?
Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.
On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.
Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.
McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.
Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?
yer welcome.
LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.
.
only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?
This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.
there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #171
It takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
uh-huh. a mall.... walking down the street... at the radiologist................ & it's
TUCK FRUMP.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
Are you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally? Was it a 'court subpoena', or was it a 'congressional subpoena'?It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?They should have used the courts while this was in the House.....but the ***** was in too much of a hurry.it will only take 3.
oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a *****?
Oh well, they had their chance and blew it....like usual. Trump 2020
it has been in the courts - where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
Be very careful in your answer
congress is going thru the courts to rule their enforcement. basically having 2 co equal branches using majority rule.
There are no rules or protocol preventing the WB from being called to testify, none. And in this case, it would be instructive to know who is talking about a private phone call between the president and a foreign leader without authorization. Don't you want full transparency? It seems to me that it's rather selective, because every time someone mentions the WB, the usual suspects go into fullblown turtle mode.I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.
Were is that written, other than left extremist hate sites?
.
lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, *****
cat.
CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?
Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.
On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.
Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.
McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.
Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?
yer welcome.
LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.
.
only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?
This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.
there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
not for the vote on ruling in favor of the factual witness' to appear.
Likewise for MAGA hat wearers. Answer this, is your county or city on the map red or blue? Are the surrounding counties red or blue?
Too lateAre you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally? Was it a 'court subpoena', or was it a 'congressional subpoena'?It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
Be very careful in your answer
congress is going thru the courts to rule their enforcement. basically having 2 co equal branches using majority rule.
The democrats blew it by doing impeachment too early. Now they're stuck.Are you trying to be obtuse or does it come naturally? Was it a 'court subpoena', or was it a 'congressional subpoena'?It's been in the House, not the courts. Pelosi knew they couldn't win in the courts. where you been?
all the defied subpoenas have gone to court mcghan was among the first 8 months ago....& it finally got ruled on a couple weeks ago. he wasn't the first.
Be very careful in your answer
congress is going thru the courts to rule their enforcement. basically having 2 co equal branches using majority rule.
- Moderator
- #179
Wrong again dumbass, three would make it a 50/50 tie, the VP would be called to break the tie. I guess you're too stupid to know the VP is the president of the senate.
.
pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie. that would fall on roberts. m'k... how about 4 then? romney, collins, murkowski, & one more.
Wrong again commie, Pence could participate in a vote on senate rules and possibly on a motion to dismiss if it were a tie. He doesn't participate in the actual impeachment vote that takes a 2/3rds majority of senators. Once again your ignorance is showing. LMAO
.
playtime
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2015
- 65,141
- 57,645
- 3,645
well, we are blue with some deep red pockets. btw - i am the only one i have ever seen with a button. i have seen a few bumper stickers for both sides though.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Was Bolshevik Lenin a German Spy? Germany Sealed Train for the Bolshevik gang- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 3
-
Latest Discussions
-
Ruth Chris Steakhouse enforces their dress code.....Finally- Latest: Concerned American
-
-
-
-
