Dragonlady
Designing Woman
This is great news. Garland is corrupt and should be held to account.
No he's not, and since Garland is the guy who decides whether or not to charge himself, I suggest you hold your breath until he makes that decision.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is great news. Garland is corrupt and should be held to account.
What is absurd about the claim?
They did not waive anything when they handed over the transcript.They waived it when they handed over the transcript.
Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.
The interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.
It doesn't protect the Justice Department’s ‘law enforcement investigations’ because that privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.
The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment. That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification.
This is great news. Garland is corrupt and should be held to account.
Not when you apply a few parlor tricks to make it a federal felony. See how that works?By the legislative branch?
That's a neat trick.
Isn't contempt of Congress a misdemeanor?
It isn't a federal felony, it's a state felony.Not when you apply a few parlor tricks to make it a federal felony. See how that works?
This is great news. Garland is corrupt and should be held to account.
How would the tape cause embarrassment?They did not waive anything when they handed over the transcript.
They cite damage to future law enforcement activities. Specifically, Biden was under no obligation to sit for an interview. If future presidents know the opposing party is going to get ahold of the audio tapes to use against them, they would be reluctant to cooperate in such a manner.
The subpoena is intended to cause embarrassment. It is completely unnecessary for any investigation since they already have the transcript.
No. From "Wiki" because it is a succinct definition that I know to be accurate:Merry Garland is a charged felon.
There are no charges.Merry Garland is a charged felon.
"....but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation.The President's mental state. Hur found Biden was incompetent to stand trial for a reason.
So correctThey waived it when they handed over the transcript.
Mr. Biden conceded that the interview wasn’t privileged, and there’s no legal basis to say that a recording is different from a transcript.
The interview subject didn’t concern his presidential duties or White House deliberations. It concerned his handling of documents while in the Senate, as Vice President, or as a private citizen.
It doesn't protect the Justice Department’s ‘law enforcement investigations’ because that privilege typically attends to a continuing investigation, but Mr. Hur’s work is complete. He has filed his report and closed up shop.
The White House claim of privilege over the recordings isn’t intended to protect executive power. It’s intended to avoid presidential embarrassment. That’s a political goal, not a legitimate legal justification.
Specifically it would show he cannot take and respond to a question, and then the next and the nextHow would the tape cause embarrassment?
Be specific.
ContemptThere are no charges.
They did not waive anything when they handed over the transcript.
Equally absurdThey cite damage to future law enforcement activities. Specifically, Biden was under no obligation to sit for an interview. If future presidents know the opposing party is going to get ahold of the audio tapes to use against them, they would be reluctant to cooperate in such a manner.
The absurd claim of EP is to avoid personal and political embarrassment - which is not a valid claim.The subpoena is intended to cause embarrassment. It is completely unnecessary for any investigation since they already have the transcript.
How would the tape cause embarrassment?
Be specific.
Then where is the leaked audio of Smith interviewing Trump?If it was Trump on tape, it would have been leaked.