No announcement yet.

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Story is still developing but a major victory for House Dems...a judge just ordered DOJ to hand over to the House the full unredacted Mueller Report and also the grand jury materials.

    Additionally within her ruling she says the House is in the middle of an official impeachment inquiry: "Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry"

    DOJ has till Oct. 30 to hand over everything the House wants. I imagine they'll appeal?

    Even so...just that one comment delivers a major blow to the Republican argument that this impeachment is "illegal and illegitimate".
    Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; October 25, 2019, 02:40 PM.


    • Here's the full ruling. She has some tough words for the DOJ. See page 70. She practically throws Pat Cipollone's letter to Congress in their face when DOJ had the temerity to protest that the House wasn't trying to cooperate with the Administration.


      • As I understand it, there are a couple of issues involving the House's Impeachment inquiry:

        (1) Can administration officials refuse a congressional subpoena? No, and the endgame for Congress is to have, in this case, House legal counsel file a civil action against any private individual found in contempt. I looked this up and it has happened a couple of times in the recent past with the individuals the subject of such civil filing ultimately complying with the initial request for information. Case dismissed. IOW, the bastards will end up testifying under oath or providing the requested information but they can draw out the process of complying and, in this case, probably will. One other related issue here is that this kind of game plan by the administration provides a Prima facie basis for Obstruction.

        (2) Is the Impeachment Inquiry legal and can the administration contend, and win in a courtroom, that it is not. First, there is no question that the Inquiry is legal. That it is a private hearing may be a compromise of due process. I think the House is nuts to not make the hearings public and head off this distraction being run by the Rs. Challenges to such Inquiries have occurred in the past. They have been all been brought before a Judge and none of those cases were heard. The reason is that the impeachment process according to the Judges is a political and not a legal matter.

        The bottom line on all of this is that the administration is trying to create a public impression that the entire impeachment process is illegal and unfair. It is neither of these and legal precedent demonstrates that. The R's know this. They should be exposed for this wild goose chase. It took me about 30 minutes to look all of this up. The problem is that unless media sources can frame this in terms simple enough for the average American voter to understand it, Trump and his supporters are going to win the messaging battle. Like I said, it's really important for this reason for Pelosi to open the doors and make the Inquiry public ASAP. See Kevin Williamson's NRO piece that I linked to yesterday on this very subject.
        Last edited by Jeff Buchanan; October 25, 2019, 04:16 PM.
        Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time


        • If Team Trump is winning the messaging battle there's no evidence of that. Public support for the inquiry keeps going up.

          Right now they're doing depositions, which are different than hearings. Hearings are the clusterfuck, grandstanding, wastes of time we all know and love. I would love if if they have a way to conduct the open, public hearings the same way the depositions are run: mainly by staff and lawyers.

          They claim public hearings are coming in a few weeks. If they can get John Bolton to come in, I'm assuming he will be one of those. He'd probably be the "star" witness because Republicans cannot credibly claim he's a radical leftist out to destroy the President no matter what.


          • And really, when the Republicans scream about transparency, the Dems just have to respond with "Well order Pompeo and Mulvaney and the OMB Director to testify if you've nothing to hide". Order all the records and emails and texts released if you're a faithful disciple of transparency.


            • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
              ....when the Republicans scream about transparency....
              It is transparent, with all the Repubs sitting on those 3 committees, able to ask questions just like other members.

              This is a feeble and flailing attempt to "force" an inquiry vote. By House rules, once the vote is taken and passed, the GOP will be able to call witnesses, issue subpoenas, etc. Until then, the GOP is unable to put forth their constant stream of unhinged conspiracy theories in an attempt to undermine the investigation in the court of public opinion.

              Pelosi is being shrewd. The articles of impeachment will already be drafted when the inquiry vote is finally taken. It will be nano-seconds between that time and when articles are submitted. Pelosi won't allow the GOP's propaganda machine a sanctioned platform to spew from.

              Where is Nunes? Why isn't he highlighting that those rules were crafted by John Boehner and passed by the Republican controlled House? During the Mueller investigation, didn't he claim to be a "rules guy"?

              “Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx


              • Trump has sent out fresh orders to Kupperman, Bolton, etc. to not cooperate. Do not provide testimony. Our President has nothing to fear from their testimony, of course, but they better not do it. OR ELSE

                Kupperman's lawyer is asking a court to decide...but it seems like this request was filed before the District Court decision yesterday. So the stuff he included about this not being a valid impeachment is almost certainly going to lose. However, because Kupperman and Bolton dealt much more directly with Trump, there's executive privilege questions that may limit what they can say. That's more of an issue for them than many of the other witnesses.


                • Strange, I read that executive and attorney-client privilege don't apply when a subpoena is issued by Congress. I think this has been tested in court and precedent established that a court won't hear the claim because the congressional process is a political one not a legal one.

                  Thanks, Jon, for that explanation. I have found that terms are confusing and important when discussing what applies and what doesn't. I assume there is no "Inquiry" going on right now only documents or testimony being subpoenaed under Congress's authority to do that. Not sure I understand what that authority is.
                  Mission to CFB's National Championship accomplished. JH chased Saban from Alabama and caused Day, at the point of the OSU AD's gun, to make major changes to his staff just to beat Michigan. Love it. It's Moore!!!! time


                  • Attorney-client privilege is one thing but the President's executive privilege is another. I'm not entirely sure a congressional subpoena can overcome that but it being recognized as an official impeachment inquiry probably gives it added weight.

                    The administration may try to keep fishing for an activist judge who has wildly expansive views about the powers of the Presidency and who will agree with them that the Executive Branch or the Judiciary are empowered to tell the House what is and is not a "proper" inquiry. Most judges won't do that because the Constitution and House Rules are pretty damn clear: how Impeachment is run is 100% controlled by the House itself. Also noteworthy in that opinion yesterday is that Judge Howell rejected DOJ's argument that grand jury materials are protected from congressional subpoenas, even related to impeachment. She noted that if that were the case, then the Executive Branch could hide anything they want by simply presenting it to a grand jury once and it's locked away forever.


                    • This article implies that Trump may have been...well...manipulated by the Pentagon. They won him over to leave troops in Syria by asserting they would stay to 'secure the oil', but they quietly plan to use them for more than that.

                      Last edited by Dr. Strangelove; October 26, 2019, 10:01 AM.


                      • As I understand it, Congressional rules allow all standing committees the authority to compel witness testimony and obtain documents for subjects under their jurisdiction.

                        Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

                        For the matter at hand, foreign interference investigation was authorized pre-Mueller. I think the Dems calling Mueller witnesses and the demand for the unredacted report as falls under this and provides legal cover for other requests. Mueller concluded his investigation, but the Congressional investigation continues. This provides "legal sufficiency". The "valid legislative purpose" is to determine if the Constitutionally provided impeachment process is appropriate given the apparent crimes of the president. All the witnesses and documents are clearly pertinent to the matters being investigated. Bottom line - the subpoenas are valid. Trump ordering people to break the law by defying a subpoena just adds to his obstruction count. The unredacted Mueller Report could also be brutal on this one.

                        The most important witnesses will be called behind closed doors. Those that tie up loose ends will be in the public testimony portion, again to minimize the GOP grandstanding and professional victim strategy.

                        Stock up on popcorn.
                        “Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx


                        • Seriously, if this were any other administration, this would be a major scandal. But nowadays we just call it a Monday.

                          * The US has what are called "opportunity zones" in distressed communities. Investors are eligible for huge tax breaks if they attempt to develop property in these "opportunity zones"
                          * Mnuchin personally intervened to get the guidelines changed on how opportunity zones were selected. He did so over the objections of IRS and Treasury officials who worried that the decisio had been made for 'political considerations'
                          * Only one location in the United States has benefited from the revised rules. A 700 acre property outside of Reno, Nevada
                          * Michael Milken (yes, THE Michael Milken who went to prison and got a lifetime ban from the securities industry) is one of the major investors in that property
                          * Milken and Mnuchin are longtime friends
                          * Just days before Mnuchin overruled all staff to clear the way for this Nevada property, Mnuchin spoke on "Opportunity Zones" at a Conference put on by...Michael Milken
                          * Mnuchin denies knowing anything about anything


                          The financier Michael Milken is a major investor in a property that became eligible for a federal tax break — after his longtime friend, Steven Mnuchin, intervened.


                          • SEA ISLAND, GeorgiaWashington Examiner.

                            SEA ISLAND, Georgia — John Kelly warned President Trump that hiring a “yes man” to succeed him as White House chief of staff would lead to impeachment and, in hindsight, regrets his decision to resign.House Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into Trump less than a year after Kelly departed the administration. The retired, four-star Marine


                            • LMAO. This drunkard is rapidly becoming my favorite ring-kisser in the White House


                              • It's like the Emperor's New Clothes but with a twist. The twist is that pointing out the truth has no effect on the townspeople.