Politicspolitics

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 07:54 PM

The country needs a GD civics lesson

Separate but equal means exactly that. Putting aside the fact that the House of Representatives is not the congress, the legislative branch has no authority over the executive branch. By authority I mean lawfully order the executive branch to take some action.

They can investigate, impeach, or withhold funds. That's it.

The executive branch has no legal or moral obligation to cooperate with any inquiry or investigation. That's why Holder was held in contempt, for refusing to turn over documents related to Fast and Furious.

The branches have been at each others throats since GW was President. Intentionally set up that way.

The way it's supposed to work is the HoR subpoenas (not these stupid demand letters) an official in the executive branch. Said official either complies or refuses. Which BTW, we all have the right to refuse to comply with a subpoena. Yeah, prosecutors can engage in illegal activities too.Upon refusal the only remedy the HoR has is to go into federal court.

The court will determine if the subpoena is legal and if so craft a remedy. That's why Nixon turned the tapes over not because he had to obey the HoR.

GD it, the WH isn't defying congressional authority, they don't have any.

65 replies, 534 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 65 replies Author Time Post
Reply The country needs a GD civics lesson (Original post)
def_con5 Wednesday OP
Salaam Wednesday #1
D26-15 Wednesday #2
Salaam Wednesday #12
Qukid Wednesday #6
RCW2014 Wednesday #3
def_con5 Wednesday #4
RCW2014 Wednesday #5
def_con5 Wednesday #8
Trevor Wednesday #7
def_con5 Wednesday #9
Trevor Thursday #26
def_con5 Wednesday #11
Trevor Thursday #27
Nostrings Thursday #22
Trevor Thursday #29
Nostrings Friday #30
Trevor Saturday #33
Nostrings Saturday #34
Trevor Saturday #35
Nostrings Saturday #36
Trevor Saturday #37
kevlar Saturday #38
Trevor Saturday #40
kevlar Saturday #41
Trevor Saturday #46
kevlar Saturday #48
Trevor Saturday #49
kevlar Saturday #50
Nostrings Sunday #54
Trevor Sunday #55
Nostrings Yesterday #57
Trevor 7 hrs ago #58
kevlar 7 hrs ago #59
Nostrings 6 hrs ago #61
Trevor 6 hrs ago #62
Nostrings 5 hrs ago #63
Trevor 5 hrs ago #64
Nostrings 4 hrs ago #65
Oldgeezer Thursday #25
Trevor Thursday #28
Carl Friday #31
Trevor Saturday #32
kevlar Saturday #42
Trevor Saturday #43
kevlar Saturday #44
Trevor Saturday #45
Carl Saturday #47
Grumpy Pickle Wednesday #15
RCW2014 Wednesday #16
Grumpy Pickle Thursday #19
kevlar Saturday #39
oflguy Wednesday #10
rampartb Wednesday #13
RCW2014 Wednesday #17
rampartb Thursday #21
bfox74 Thursday #23
Independent.mind Thursday #24
Grumpy Pickle Wednesday #14
RCW2014 Wednesday #18
Grumpy Pickle Thursday #20
jh4freedom Saturday #51
def_con5 Saturday #52
jh4freedom Sunday #56
def_con5 6 hrs ago #60
Squeek Saturday #53

Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:01 PM

1. and the country won't get it by reading this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:10 PM

2. So, why did you respond?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to D26-15 (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:57 PM

12. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Salaam (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:56 PM

6. I suspect you think that's a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:14 PM

3. Fact of the matter is, the House has the authority to impeach just like a "grand jury" has

the ability to indict.

This is what is going to happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:19 PM

4. I said they can impech

They can't order the WH to cooperate. They can subpoena and go to court.

I'm tired of the "it's unprecedented that the WH won't cooperate". It's rare that the WH cooperates with a congressional investigation. Furthermore, they are under no obligation to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 08:26 PM

5. The courts are soon to bare the burden of sorting it all out...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:40 PM

8. Not true

The GD has nothing to do with the HoR. Why was Holder held in contempt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:35 PM

7. Past presidents cooperated in general

Bill Clinton even agreed to submit to questioning at the grand jury. There were some exceptions but nothing like Trump. Trump just flat out denied Congress has any oversight power at all.

Going to court isn't useful because the most that can be won is a court order. Suppose Trump refused to follow it? The only ones who can arrest anybody is the DOJ, and under this tyrant they would most likely refuse.

That leaves impeachment as the only avenue left. It would be hard to get GOP votes in the Senate but its possible some won't want to set the precedent where the legislative branch has its power so diminished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:43 PM

9. Sorry, I replied to tje wrong person

Not true,

The GJ has nothing to do with the HoR. Why was Holder held in contempt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:33 PM

26. Holder was one of the exceptions I thought of.

Although the courts did eventually get everything or nearly everything ordered. I don't remember Obama saying Congress had no right to subpoena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:49 PM

11. Their only option

is to issue subpoenas, and go to court to enforce it. That's what got Nixon. They have no authority to compel the Executive branch to do anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:34 PM

27. That's why impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 07:37 AM

22. "this tyrant"

Who wants to let people keep more of their money than dems would...who respects the first and second amendments where dems don't.

Much like with your use of the word "debunked", you use the word 'tyrant' with some strange and selective definition.

The dems are much worse tyrants than President Trump shows any signs of being.

"Trump just flat out denied Congress has any oversight power at all."

This, like so many other things you claim, is simply not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:43 PM

29. Trump: Were fighting all the subpoenas from House Democrats

"Several legal scholars have since noted that the lawsuit against the accounting firm is a long shot and appears to be more of a delay tactic than anything else. In their justification for why the courts should block the release of the president’s taxes, Trump’s lawyers cite case law from an 1880 ruling as their precedent. In 1927, that precedent was replaced with a much broader reading of congressional powers, which has set the legal standard ever since, although Trump’s lawyers do not mention this.

“They’re seeking ... to overturn the entire modern case law that the courts have put together to respect Congress’ investigative power,” University of Baltimore law professor Charles Tiefer told The Washington Post. “These suits look like an act of desperation by the Trump lawyers.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/trump-were-fighting-all-the-subpoenas-from-house-democrats.html


TRUMP: MY CRIMES CAN’T BE INVESTIGATED WHILE I’M PRESIDENT

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/09/donald-trump-tax-returns-lawsuit

Those who claim absolute power are tyrants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #29)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 02:30 AM

30. Calling them subpoenas doesn't make them subpoenas trevy.

"Those who claim absolute power are tyrants."

Those who claim that others claim absolute power when they haven't are dumbasses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #30)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 06:38 AM

33. They try the easy way first.

If that doesn't work, and with Trump it usually doesn't, they issue subpoenas. Those ARE subpoenas.

Trump has taken the position that he can't even be investigated. That's claiming extraordinary power. Like a tyrant would.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #33)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 07:49 AM

34. Its just like a modern day leftist to characterize it that way.

The truth, however, is that dems are playing games and everyone with a functioning brain knows it.

Again, dems are more tyrannical in every way.

The operative message from your dems, is that Biden can't be investigated because he is running for president.

You're projecting. Again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #34)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 08:07 AM

35. Republicans play the same games, only dirtier.

Everybody with a functioning brain knows it.

What tyrannical thing did Dems do? Nobody said Biden can't be investigated. We do object to using U.S. resources to pressure an ally into running a frame up job on him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 08:19 AM

36. Repubs concocted a dossier and spied on dems using it as justification?

Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

"What tyrannical thing did Dems do?"

Wanting to eliminate and/or neuter the first and second amendments is very tyrannical.

Wanting to take peoples guns is tyrannical.

Threatening SCOTUS is tyrannical.

Running a fake inquiry and issuing fake subpoenas, and changing procedural rules to avoid due process, that's damn tyrannical.

The BS attempted against Kavanaugh was tyrannical.

I could list them all day...

Were you asleep? Watching a sporting event perhaps? Or were you just being a dumbass again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #36)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:15 PM

37. Mostly if not all BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #37)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:19 PM

38. No sir.

More of YOUR bovine excrement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #38)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:25 PM

40. No

Its a very valid observation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #40)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:29 PM

41. Not at all.

It's biased and convenient.

Had you asked for clarification and received none you may of had a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #41)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 01:03 PM

46. Clarification?

His intent was very clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 06:35 PM

48. You called bullshit

without any specifics for some items.

You called BS on the others when they are factual.

What does intent have to with it? You asked the question.

Shades of you claiming "DEBUNKED" based on your hack opinion collection.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #48)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 07:03 PM

49. Bullshit sets the stage

for a debate about whether they are true or not. Same with debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #49)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 07:46 PM

50. No.

Your explanation is bullshit as well.

Its a tactic, a scam. A fraud.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

The opposite of a "wrap up smear"

Your games are transparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #37)

Sun Oct 13, 2019, 08:02 AM

54. Then it should be a simple matter for you to disprove them, one by one.

Except you can't, and we both know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #54)

Sun Oct 13, 2019, 07:12 PM

55. OK.

We'll start with the first one. Democrats didn't spy on Republicans. The FBI got warrant to wiretap an individual who happened to be a Republican. They probably had more than the dossier to do it with too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #55)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 01:29 AM

57. Your characterization isn't proof trevy, its an assertion. An unsubstantiated assertion at that.

Lets talk about some of the players involved:

Lisa page and peter strzok, clearly dem voters. Bruce and nelly orr, clearly dem voters. Andy mccabe, clearly a dem voter. Rybicki is a dem voter. Comey, clearly a dem voter.

Those are most of the principle players, trevy.

Feel free to point out any *genuine* republicans in that mess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #57)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 06:27 PM

58. Comey was a Republican.

He's learned the hard way to make a better choice. I don't think Strzok was a Democrat. In his E-mails he praised that GOP governor from Ohio. I don't know where you got party affiliations for Bruce and Nelly Orr, or Rybicki.

It doesn't matter how these people were registered since politics played no role in the operation. Your characterization of Democrats spying on Republicans remains debunked. It was nothing but an assertion anyway, and an unsupported one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 06:29 PM

59. DUBUNKED

You are a fucking joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #58)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 08:13 PM

61. In name only. He carried dem water the whole time.

"He's learned the hard way to make a better choice."

You're so niave its silly.


" I don't think Strzok was a Democrat. In his E-mails he praised that GOP governor from Ohio."


LOL, Kasich. Another RINO.



"I don't know where you got party affiliations for Bruce and Nelly Orr, or Rybicki."

From their behavior.


"It doesn't matter how these people were registered since politics played no role in the operation."

You're assuming facts not in evidence and using them to draw a conclusion which you can not know.


"Your characterization of Democrats spying on Republicans remains debunked."

Nope. It stands unassailed by you.



"It was nothing but an assertion anyway, and an unsupported one."


It is the truth, and there is nothing you can do to make it go away.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #61)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 08:18 PM

62. Your feelings are not facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #62)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 08:27 PM

63. No, my facts are facts. Your feelings are feelings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nostrings (Reply #63)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 09:12 PM

64. Then you can't tell the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #64)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 09:54 PM

65. You're the one that sees an attempted frame job where none exists.

You're the one that can't tell the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:16 AM

25. "Bill Clinton even agreed to submit to questioning at the grand jury." In a criminal case.

Vastly different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oldgeezer (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 10:35 PM

28. Trump is a criminal case too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 11, 2019, 06:56 AM

31. Name the law and crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Carl (Reply #31)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 06:28 AM

32. Which law was broken?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3093

"(f) Prohibition on covert actions intended to influence United States political processes, etc.
No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:31 PM

42. You again forgot to cut and paste the exclusions section

that renders your assertion moot.

By lefty standards this is a LIE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #42)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:48 PM

43. Which exclusion applies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #43)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:52 PM

44. Cut and paste the entire statute

if you read it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kevlar (Reply #44)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:58 PM

45. I'd rather call attention to the relevant parts.

Once again you fail to come up with an answer. That's because there are no exclusions in the law that apply. You were just throwing mud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trevor (Reply #32)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 06:06 PM

47. So you just indicted Hillary.

As well as numerous democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:20 PM

15. NO, they don't..... You don't impeach a sitting President in small. behind-closed -doors hearings.

The Senate will refuse to proceed on this flimsy basis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:32 PM

16. That's why the Founders of the Constitution passed the conviction stage to the Senate.

Just as a grand jury but not quite as bad. At least in this situation, we know those that vote to impeach until a grand jury, who remain anonymous.

I've always thought personally a grand jury is unconstitutional but the courts rule otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:23 AM

19. I'm telling ya, the Senate will NOT cooperate with the illegitimate impeachment bullshit.

Pelosi is just wasting every ones' time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #3)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 12:21 PM

39. A single dem led comitte is not "the House".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 09:47 PM

10. Democrats make up their own rules

or at least they try to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 10:56 PM

13. a second grade civics lesson might teach you that there are checks and balances

and that the executive branch only has money to do what the legislature authorizes.

while the house of representatives is not the entire legislative branch, it does have several specific constitutional duties.

and, I am certain, that the executive branch does not make rules governing the processes of congress.

i'm not sure what the federalist papers say about subpoenas, is legal length paper required in a blue construction paper folder? a simple "demand letter" from appropriate authority might be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #13)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:35 PM

17. Did you no "legal length" paper for such purposes has been outlawed years ago?

Don't even think one can buy the stuff any more...

Many a file cabinet became obsolete with that ruling...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 05:42 AM

21. lol thanks for that info

I always wondered why my house papers and such would not fit on a copying machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #17)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 08:07 AM

23. "Did you no..."?

Don't put too much trust in your voice dictation app.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 08:22 AM

24. Alerted as a personal attack

Bad faith.

Does the alerter have the courage to explain their reasoning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:10 PM

14. Thanks for posting this.

The House Has NO AUTHORITY to impeach anyone unless they take a FULL House vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grumpy Pickle (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 9, 2019, 11:36 PM

18. Who said otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RCW2014 (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 10, 2019, 12:25 AM

20. Pelosi, Schitt, Nadler.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 08:20 PM

51. So I guess the House Oversight Committee had no constitutional authority

To issue subpoenas to the Obama Administration for:
1) Fast and Furious
2) Solyndra, Inc. solar panel manufacturing government loans
3) Benghazi attacks
4) IRS Targeting of Conservative 501c4 non-profit organizations.
And the Contempt of Congress citation for Eric Holder for failure to produce documents in a timely manner was inappropriate?
And the Obama administration didn’t need to show up to several hundred hearings?
Who knew?

Here’s an opposing viewpoint:
“Investigations of Conduct of Executive Department”
For many years the investigating function of Congress was limited to inquiries into the administration of the Executive Department or of instrumentalities of the Government. Until the administration of Andrew Jackson this power was not seriously challenged. During the controversy over renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, John Quincy Adams contended that an unlimited inquiry into the operations of the bank would be beyond the power of the House. Four years later the legislative power of investigation was challenged by the President. A committee appointed by the House of Representatives “with power to send for persons and papers, and with instructions to inquire into the condition of the various executive departments, the ability and integrity with which they have been conducted, . . .” called upon the President and the heads of departments for lists of persons appointed without the consent of the Senate and the amounts paid to them. Resentful of this attempt “to invade the just rights of the Executive Departments,” the President refused to comply and the majority of the committee acquiesced. Nevertheless, congressional investigations of Executive Departments have continued to the present day. Shortly before the Civil War, contempt proceedings against a witness who refused to testify in an investigation of John Brown’s raid upon the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry occasioned a thorough consideration by the Senate of the basis of this power. After a protracted debate, which cut sharply across sectional and party lines, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to imprison the contumacious witness. Notwithstanding this firmly established legislative practice, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of the power in Kilbourn v. Thompson. It held that the House of Representatives had overstepped its jurisdiction when it instituted an investigation of losses suffered by the United States as a creditor of Jay Cooke and Company, whose estate was being administered in bankruptcy by a federal court.198 But nearly half a century later, in McGrain v. Daugherty, it ratified in sweeping terms, the power of Congress to inquire into the administration of an executive department and to sift charges of malfeasance in such administration.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/05-congressional-investigations.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 10:02 PM

52. That's not what I said

The HoR had no authority to compel the executive branch. They can subpoena and go to court, that's all the authority they have. Nixon did not turn over the tapes because the HoR forced him to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #52)

Sun Oct 13, 2019, 07:31 PM

56. A congressional subpoena COMPELS testimony or the production of documents.

The Executive Branch can claim executive privilege and the courts then get to decide who’s right on a case by case basis.
For example: President Clinton asserted executive privilege 14 times. In 1998 he became the first president since U.S. v Nixon to have his use of the power struck down in court.

Clinton sought to invoke executive privilege to bar independent counsel Kenneth Starr from questioning his aides, including deputy counsel Bruce R. Lindsey and communications adviser Sidney Blumenthal, in connection with Clinton’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Chief U.S. District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson ruled that Starr’s need to collect evidence trumped Clinton’s interest in keeping the conversations confidential, using the same rationale as in U.S. v. Nixon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jh4freedom (Reply #56)

Mon Oct 14, 2019, 08:02 PM

60. No one has to obey a subpoena

Subpoenas, can be illegal, invalid, etc. If someone believes the subpoena is illegal, they go into a court.

A court can compel someone to testify or submit documents. The HoR can not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Original post)

Sat Oct 12, 2019, 11:48 PM

53. and it should start

at the top with a "president" who doesn't know shit from shineola about Civics or have intellectual curiosity enough to find things out before he runs his big mouth.

He wants to impeach Schiff and Pelosi?????

He wants to sue them for doing what they're constitutionally allowed to do???


He's a moron of the lowest order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics