Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[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.

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

[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.

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

[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.

[Cow Poke]

Democrats were talking about impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated!

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

[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

[rogue06]

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

Did Schiff's committee issue that subpoena or was it Nadler's?

[Sam]

Did Schiff's committee issue that subpoena or was it Nadler's?

Doesn't matter: Judge Jackson made no distinction between congressional committees, since they all have subpoena power.

Source:

B. House Committees Have The Power To Enforce Their Subpoenas In Federal Court When Executive Branch Officials Do Not Respond As Required

© Copyright Original Source

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

Doesn't matter: Judge Jackson made no distinction between congressional committees, since they all have subpoena power.

Source:

B. House Committees Have The Power To Enforce Their Subpoenas In Federal Court When Executive Branch Officials Do Not Respond As Required

© Copyright Original Source

--Sam

They have subpoena power so long as they are acting within their granted authority, which is why Turley suggests that Democrats could have settled the matter once and for all by simply making the impeachment inquiry official with a vote, which they refused to do.

[JimL]

Lets just cut to the chase, we all know, including those here in denial, that the fact of the matter is that all those defending the president are in fear of what a fair trial, i.e. a trial with testimony of direct witnesses and previously blocked documents might expose. That's all there is to it!

[DivineOb]

Lets just cut to the chase, we all know, including those here in denial, that the fact of the matter is that all those defending the president are in fear of what a fair trial, i.e. a trial with testimony of direct witnesses and previously blocked documents might expose. That's all there is to it!

My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?

Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

[JimL]

My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?

Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

The problem is that they can't put the politics aside, that they don't care if Trump did something seriously wrong, and they don't want it revealed if Trump did do something seriously wrong. They pretend to be Constitutionalist, to respect the law, to be moralists, but when it comes down to it they show that they don't respect any of that. Apparently the only thing they respect is winning, regardless of what that says about them or what it might mean for their country, or the world.

[Mountain Man]

We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs").

Why?

[lilpixieofterror]

My question for Trump defenders is this: Putting politics aside for a moment don't you want to know what these witnesses and documents say? Aren't you *curious*? We know Trump doesn't want them to testify so the most likely conclusion is that they will say something damaging (get out of here with "he's just trolling the libs"). Shouldn't we, in an ideal world, turn over every rock if there is even a 1% chance it will reveal that Trump has done something seriously wrong?

We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.

Unrelated, here's an awesome quote from a video game: "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."

[JimL]

We have laws in place for a reason. Democrats need to follow the rules laid out, if they can follow the rules and get proper court approval, I have no problem listening.

So you agree that Moscow Mitch should allow those previously obstructed witnesses and documents be admissable at trial?

[lilpixieofterror]

So you agree that Moscow Mitch should allow those previously obstructed witnesses and documents be admissable at trial?