Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

That is because the questionability of the validity of the subpoena had not yet been brought up and Schiff and his cronies dropped it like a hot potato in order to make sure it never would.

Look, I'm not here to insult anyone's intelligence but the validity of the subpoena was exactly the focus of the McGhan case that, at the time the Kupperman subpoena was dropped, was about to be ruled on by Judge Jackson. House counsel said at the time that it expected Kupperman and any other executive branch official to take the McGhan ruling as precedent.

Unbelievable.

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated!

EGGzackly --- they just had to find something to hang him with.

[rogue06]

And Jackson's ruling shows not just the lawfulness of the Kupperman subpoena but Congress' legitimate authority to call executive branch officials for testimony. As Jackson ruled, those officials don't have to waive valid executive privilege claims in testimony but they most definitely have to show up.

Nothing got "Mucked up" and you've simply repeated an assertion you cannot legally support.

--Sam

That is because the questionability of the validity of the subpoena had not yet been brought up and Schiff and his cronies dropped it like a hot potato in order to make sure it never would.

[Sam]

Not to state the obvious but anyone reading Judge Leon's ruling would understand that he was responding to Kupperman's request to not dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the House might just re-subpoena him. Leon was responding that House counsel has said Kupperman would not be subpoenaed in the future, not that it was never interested in his testimony.

--Sam

Speaking of Kupperman, the judge said that the fact that Democrats dropped the subpoena suggests that they were never really interested in hearing from the witness in the first place.

As the House and Senate continue their bitter struggle over the coming impeachment trial of President Trump, a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.

The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness. Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...weight-of-time

[Mountain Man]

And Jackson's ruling shows not just the lawfulness of the Kupperman subpoena but Congress' legitimate authority to call executive branch officials for testimony. As Jackson ruled, those officials don't have to waive valid executive privilege claims in testimony but they most definitely have to show up.

Nothing got "Mucked up" and you've simply repeated an assertion you cannot legally support.

--Sam

Speaking of Kupperman, the judge said that the fact that Democrats dropped the subpoena suggests that they were never really interested in hearing from the witness in the first place.

As the House and Senate continue their bitter struggle over the coming impeachment trial of President Trump, a judge in the District of Columbia issued an opinion that was largely lost in the crush of New Years stories. The opinion could loom large in the Senate trial, however, and one line in particular, which states “the House clearly has no intention of pursuing” the witness, may be repeated like a mantra by the Trump defense team.

The witness was Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton. Other than Bolton himself, Kupperman is one of the officials most likely to have direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo on aid to Ukraine. After subpoenaing him last fall, the House withdrew its request before the court could rule on compelling his testimony for the record. The House also decided not to subpoena Bolton or any other key witnesses in the administration. Judge Richard Leon dismissed the case before New Years Eve with a hint of frustration, if not bewilderment, that the House did not seem interested in hearing from a possible eyewitness. Historically, that lack of attention in not only witnesses but also a triable case will remain one of the most baffling blunders of this impeachment.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...weight-of-time

[Sam]

And Jackson's ruling shows not just the lawfulness of the Kupperman subpoena but Congress' legitimate authority to call executive branch officials for testimony. As Jackson ruled, those officials don't have to waive valid executive privilege claims in testimony but they most definitely have to show up.

Nothing got "Mucked up" and you've simply repeated an assertion you cannot legally support.

--Sam

[Sam]

Wait. Do you mean that the House legal counsel didn't say that they were dropping the subpoena because the committee chairman who issued them (Schiff) basically mucked them up? Wow. Who would ever guess?

And Jackson's ruling wouldn't address this unless it was brought up.

Jackson's ruling addresses this exact issue: whether executive branch officials can ignore lawful subpoenas under some umbrella of "executive privilege".

Just yanking those goalposts every which way now.

--Sam

[rogue06]

This wasn't the explanation of the House legal counsel to the courts and it's an opinion that's flatly contradicted by Judge Jackson's ruling.

You're spouting stuff that, ironically, is contradicted by the real world.

--Sam

Wait. Do you mean that the House legal counsel didn't say that they were dropping the subpoena because the committee chairman who issued them (Schiff) basically mucked them up? Wow. Who would ever guess?

And Jackson's ruling wouldn't address this unless it was brought up.

[Sam]

Meanwhile, in the real world Schiff and his gang wanted the subpoenas dropped after Kupperman appealed to the courts (despite having repeatedly declared that his testimony was crucial and threatening him if he didn't testify) because he realized that the subpoenas themselves had serious problems. In his arrogance, Schiff rushed them through without following the proper procedures and this meant that they could end up being dismissed. If that happened then he couldn't claim that Trump was "obstructing" by evoking his legal right to Executive Privilege since the subpoenas had been voided.

This wasn't the explanation of the House legal counsel to the courts and it's an opinion that's flatly contradicted by Judge Jackson's ruling.

You're spouting stuff that, ironically, is contradicted by the real world.

--Sam

[rogue06]

I've addressed Kupperman -- to you -- several times. It bears repeating so please listen this time.

House Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena because Kupperman sued and the presiding judge denied a motion to move the case into McGhan's. That created the potential for cross-rulings and House Democrats, confident that they would be getting a good ruling with Judge Jackson in the McGhan case, reportedly did not want even the small risk of conflicting district court rulings when McGhan's case went to appellate court.

And, as I've said before, House counsel has requested McGhan's case be expedited in August and again in November, at least.

This is yet another example of "If they're serious, why aren't Democrats doing [Thing Democrats are currently doing]?"

--Sam

Meanwhile, in the real world Schiff and his gang wanted the subpoenas dropped after Kupperman appealed to the courts (despite having repeatedly declared that his testimony was crucial and threatening him if he didn't testify) because he realized that the subpoenas themselves had serious problems. In his arrogance, Schiff rushed them through without following the proper procedures and this meant that they could end up being dismissed. If that happened then he couldn't claim that Trump was "obstructing" by evoking his legal right to Executive Privilege since the subpoenas had been voided.

[Sam]

For some strange reason you always leave out how the House quickly dropped their subpoenas on those like Kupperman when they asked for guidance from the courts. The reason stated is because it was just too important to wait -- which of course has been shown to be nothing but a lie by Pelosi's indefinite stalling tactics in refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Yeah, I know you'll bring up McGahn, but tell me Sam, just when did the Democrats file anything asking for the case to be expedited? Again, they are in no hurry which again illustrates that they don't think that there is a rush.

I've addressed Kupperman -- to you -- several times. It bears repeating so please listen this time.

House Democrats dropped the Kupperman subpoena because Kupperman sued and the presiding judge denied a motion to move the case into McGhan's. That created the potential for cross-rulings and House Democrats, confident that they would be getting a good ruling with Judge Jackson in the McGhan case, reportedly did not want even the small risk of conflicting district court rulings when McGhan's case went to appellate court.

And, as I've said before, House counsel has requested McGhan's case be expedited in August and again in November, at least.

This is yet another example of "If they're serious, why aren't Democrats doing [Thing Democrats are currently doing]?"

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

For Ukraine, the House was able to obtain documents and hear witnesses because a number of Trump administration officials -- defying the administration's attempt to block their testimony and document production -- honored lawful subpoenas. A factual case, with underlying testimony and documents, could advance.

For Mueller, Trump has successfully blocked both witness testimony and document production. With McGhan's GJ deposition and the documents from Trump that he reportedly locked away in a safe, it's likely that a House investigation would advance toward impeachment quickly.

You're incapable of that logical throughline but it's there, nonetheless.

--Sam

Mueller had full access to witnesses and documents and said in his testimony that his investigation was never hindered or impeded. His report was a staggering 400-pages of legal minutia, and liberals claim it's damning in and of itself (remember that petition from prosecutors ya'll keep whooping and hollering about? The one that claims they could convict Trump based on the Mueller report alone?). But now Democrats are insisting they need additional grand jury testimony to make it, I dunno, really super damning, I guess? What, do they think Mueller forgot to include crucial evidence in his voluminous screed?

The real goal is not impeachment but getting access to opposition research that they can use against Trump during the 2020 campaign. In fact, some analysts believe that Democrats already have access to the grand jury material supplied to them by leakers within the Department of Justice, and they're just looking for legal cover to make use of it. They further believe that if the courts rule against them, those same leakers will take it to their allies in the liberal media, so either way, it's likely the information is going to get out.

As always, the following site is required reading for anybody who wants to know what's really going on...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...2020-strategy/

[rogue06]

For Ukraine, the House was able to obtain documents and hear witnesses because a number of Trump administration officials -- defying the administration's attempt to block their testimony and document production -- honored lawful subpoenas. A factual case, with underlying testimony and documents, could advance.

For Mueller, Trump has successfully blocked both witness testimony and document production. With McGhan's GJ deposition and the documents from Trump that he reportedly locked away in a safe, it's likely that a House investigation would advance toward impeachment quickly.

You're incapable of that logical throughline but it's there, nonetheless.

--Sam

For some strange reason you always leave out how the House quickly dropped their subpoenas on those like Kupperman when they asked for guidance from the courts. The reason stated is because it was just too important to wait -- which of course has been shown to be nothing but a lie by Pelosi's indefinite stalling tactics in refusing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

Yeah, I know you'll bring up McGahn, but tell me Sam, just when did the Democrats file anything asking for the case to be expedited? Again, they are in no hurry which again illustrates that they don't think that there is a rush.

[Sam]

For Ukraine, the House was able to obtain documents and hear witnesses because a number of Trump administration officials -- defying the administration's attempt to block their testimony and document production -- honored lawful subpoenas. A factual case, with underlying testimony and documents, could advance.

For Mueller, Trump has successfully blocked both witness testimony and document production. With McGhan's GJ deposition and the documents from Trump that he reportedly locked away in a safe, it's likely that a House investigation would advance toward impeachment quickly.

You're incapable of that logical throughline but it's there, nonetheless.

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

As I mentioned to you before the last time you incredulously asked, the reporting is that numerous moderates in Trump-won districts didn't want to vote for impeachment over the Mueller Report and, perhaps more importantly, House counsel believed doing so would complicate the McGahn litigation.

House counsel informed the appellate court two days ago in McGahn oral arguments that the House and Speaker Pelosi were still actively considering articles of impeachment for the Mueller Report and it was therefore important to expedite the McGahn ruling.

And doing so set precedent for Mulvaney, Duffey, Blair and everyone else. It's the House's quickest way to "go through the courts" as y'all have been complaining they should be doing for months.

--Sam

Right... apparently Mueller put together such a damning case against the President that Democrats keep kicking the can down the road almost a year after its release while they rushed through the Ukraine phonecall nothing-burger because of what a danger Trump is.

I love how gullible you guys are.