Under these cir stances, can Republicans subpoena their own witnesses?
The Senate is considering calling up Rudy as we speak.
I don't know about how much say House Republicans have in issuing subpoenas. Elections have consequences, you know.
Whom do the House Republicans want to subpoena for this completely illegal wirch hunt inquiry?
Biden, obviously, which would be a giant distraction, as Biden isn't the subject of the investigation.
But even that would legitimize the inquiry.
That has nothing to do with what I said. It's a different matter. You can speculate as to why, but what does the transcript say? That's of course if I could even afford your opinion.
The transcript says to talk to his personal lawyer about the Bidens. Look, it doesn't have to be illegal, it just has to be improper. His personal lawyer should be looking after him, not his political opponents.
The optics are bad even if we pretend Rudy has gone rogue and was doing this on his own (but, it would make impeachment more difficult, since there's plausible deniability).
tbh, his lawyer should be the guy telling him not to do this kind of stuff and the risks involved.
nothing wrong with admitting you get real triggered by him tbqh
"the optics are bad"
"it doesnt have to be illegal"
yup nothing burger
called it on page 1
you didn't even read the memo.
I called it.
Yup.
Any updates on your Biden investigation?
yup nothing burger
I called it.
I don't think the perception is that this is an illegitimate inquiry (for now anyways), except for the Trump fanboys, which would likely still think it's illegitimate after a vote.
Ultimately, there will be a vote on the articles of impeachment, if it gets to that.
Also, as the WH counsel pointed out in his letter, the investigation into Nixon started without a vote, which came later on. So this isn't 'unprecedented' or 'uncons utional', nor it precludes having a vote later on if the initial investigation warrants it.
BTW, this one is for Darrin: having a vote doesn't automatically give minority representatives subpoena power. While it historically has been negotiated that they do, there's no rule of law or cons utional requirement for it.
Look at boutons or Qhris for triggered. I don't spend inordinate amounts of time discussing him, or rooting for his ass to be impeached a la djohn.
I just call it as I see it.
Differentiate illegal from improper.
It just sounds like the party line, but it's all moot anyway. Like you said there is no reason to have the vote anytime soon. Might as well just wait for Trump to mistakenly give them more evidence.
Interesting that Graham is toying with the idea of letting Rudy vent his conspiracy spleen in the Senate with like three Democratic presidential candidates ready to question him.
Dishonest behavior might not be illegal, but can certainly be improper.
But politicians are almost always dishonest to some degree.
Aren't the two parties ALWAYS investigating each other? Why does an investigation into yet another improper thing change any of that? If they aren't willing to call a vote on it, then they are basically just playing politics again in an election year (it will drag into next year easily).
, Bill was impeached and went on to have a presidential library afterward. Is this really an issue? Is this going to be what gets the Dems back into the WH?
Last edited by DMC; 10-10-2019 at 12:22 AM.
Let's say TheGreatYatch is the new ambassador to Israel, and he espoused his ideas about zionism and the like. It's not illegal, but in the context of his position, it's certainly improper.
That's why this isn't a process about laws (much like the Kavanaugh confirmation wasn't either), but a political process.
Sure. The question is where the line is, and it's not entirely clear, although we do have some guidance from previous impeachment processes.
For example, in the case of Nixon, political corruption was over the line.
And for the record, I don't think he's going to be removed from office. At least, not with what we know so far.
Not because it's not enough to remove him, but because you need the accuser to also be somebody with the authority to lay out convincingly how this is terrible and dangerous to our democracy.
Pelosi is definitely not it.
Stupid Watergate just got a lot more Watergatey.
TLDR: This Iranian/Turkish dude was laundering money in his stated effort to wage "economic jihad" on behalf of Iran.
Dude was arrested by the FBI and held without bail.
Giuliani wanted him freed.
Trump tried to get his Secretary of State to pressure the DoJ into dropping the case against Iranian/Turkish dude.
I'll give board Trumpistas a few hours to receive their orders on how to spin this.
cool story bro
It was cool when Tillerson referred to it last year.
Time for another subpoena.
Called it on page 1
demo s
If IIRC, the traditional convention was that all committee members voted on a subpoena, but the Repugs as committee heads issued subpoenas without even telling the Dems, and hid do entation from the Dems. Completely legal, just "Cons utional hardball" and anti-Cons utional authoritarianism.
Here's Pelosi in an interview
TWO DAYS IN THE LIFE OF NANCY PELOSI, POLITICAL GRANDMASTER
Interviewer: Many of your members, especially after the Mueller report, were eager to impeach, but you resisted. Why?
Pelosi: There is plenty of grist for the mill in the Mueller report. But not the actual,
“What was the obstruction of justice about?”
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019..._term=VYF_Hive
WTF?
Dear Nancy, Trash's gristy obstruction was "about" hiding the investigation of his, and his mafiya's, collusion with the Russians.
It sounds like Mueller's 9? gristy instances of Trash obstruction won't be in the A of I
At this point it's hard to tell if you're joking or if you're unironically posting a fake headline from a "news" channel with 159 followers.Called it on page 1
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote