LaxPower Back-Up Stick

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:55 pm You missed this part:

The Obama administration also drew criticism for going after reporter records, including a move to subpoena Associated Press journalists’ phone records and seize records for several Fox News phone lines as part of leak investigations.

Seems like an easy problem to fix for reporters. Stop using email or phones when you obtain leaked classified government intel, you idiots.

Meet in a parking garage. Worked just fine for Woodward.

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:16 am

The only chance she has of getting there is to actually follow through on getting the most direct testimony and documents relevant to proving that Trump himself directly ordered the hold on aid and that he was clear that he wanted the Ukrainians to know that it would not be released until they announced an investigation(s) into his political adversaries. Nixon doesn't go down without the tapes...until you have the tapes or their analogue don't take the vote. Grind it out.

On winning in court, lord help us if these cases aren't won.

You misunderstand what the current cases are about.

The current litigation is just about the ridiculous "absolute immunity" claims being advanced by Trump. Those cases are proceeding and will very likely eventually hold in favor of Congress.

But once those bad faith claims are swept aside, then a whole other round of litigation then commences. Which would be over narrower claims of executive privelege. Those cases have already been litigated and decided. Everyone, including Judge Jackson, agrees that exec privelege does exist in certain appropriate cases. There's no unresolved legal principle involved there. And if exec privelege exists, senior advisors like Bolton, Mulvaney etc. are the types of folks who would likely have it.

So what would remain to be done would be the detailed court slogs about whether this specific document or that specific topic is/is not appropriate for a claim of privelege. That kind of slog would likely drag on through most/all of 2020. And to what end? To get a bunch of evasions and "I don't recalls" from reluctant/hostile witnesses like Bolton or Pompeo? Congress is free to drill those dry holes during a second Trump term if it occurs.

I can see the argument that you might want to let these proceedings marinate a little bit in 2020 to let the public take it in. But there's really no prospect of getting meaningful additional testimony until Q3 of 2020 at the earliest. So you shouldn't choose a slower pace in order to get more info.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:00 pm Just imagine if then Chairman Nunes had subpoenaed private citizen Sidney Blumenthal's ph records, then published them.

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:05 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:00 pm Just imagine if then Chairman Nunes had subpoenaed private citizen Sidney Blumenthal's ph records, then published them.

Why would he do that? To what end?

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:02 pm I'd still like to be sure this absolute immunity nonsense gets resolved once and for all...are you confident those cases continue to proceed even beyond the impeachment vote?


BTW, I think putting Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton, and even ole Rudy under oath would be quite revealing, regardless of whether any of them come clean. And I darn sure think there's gold in the documents.

I think the only absolute immunity case in the works is the McGahn case. I am confident it will continue even after impeachment concludes.

old salt wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:22 pm To track down Blumenthal's contacts with State Dept officials when Sid was peddling the Steele dossier.
Comparable to what Rudy's doing as a private citizen & political operative.
There'd be howls for an ethics investigation of Nunes.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:07 pm Pelosi flies off at reporter over question of her "hating" Trump.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/1 ... /23874868/

Reporter obviously hit a nerve.

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:33 pm So this was just Pelosi calling out a bad reporter/journalist?

I found it interesting because a lot of people around here hate when the Trumpster shoots back at reporters he disagrees with and talks to reporters that way.

Carry on.

ggait wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:01 pm

I think the only absolute immunity case in the works is the McGahn case. I am confident it will continue even after impeachment concludes.

I think there's a hearing coming up in the Kupperman case too. TBD if that one continues or not. The House (feeling good about Judge Jackson on the McGahn front) has withdrawn the subpoena and is arguing the case is moot. Kupperman's lawyer (who is also Bolton's lawyer) is arguing that the case still should proceed.

You'd think a DC Circuit or SCOTUS decision on McGahn is all that needs to be decided.

LandM wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:54 pm Kram,
As a practicing Catholic who has endured my fair share of criticism for being such......I am wondering when the elites out here are going to start bashing Nancy for being a practicing Catholic - loves everybody, even little boys? This will be interesting as to who can or will try to defend that comment. Come on elites. Maybe the Gilman smart guy can help us with that argument.

Speaking of little boys, the fact that an educated snot nosed white person, picks on a 12 year old kid..........that is way below the belt man and then some of you out here like the audience applauded....... After, she then states she is so unhinged that she has to walk across the street from a building. Really? Love to see her in a hostile environment and finally when making an apology she cannot even do it graciously. That was the best witness......sad and laughingstock.

BTW, what inner city person names their kid Noah.......this should get fun when the Senate takes over and the IG gets their mitts involved.

LandM wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:54 pm Speaking of little boys, the fact that an educated snot nosed white person, picks on a 12 year old kid..........that is way below the belt man and then some of you out here like the audience applauded.......

LandM wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:54 pm Kram,
As a practicing Catholic who has endured my fair share of criticism for being such......I am wondering when the elites out here are going to start bashing Nancy for being a practicing Catholic - loves everybody, even little boys? This will be interesting as to who can or will try to defend that comment. Come on elites. Maybe the Gilman smart guy can help us with that argument.

Speaking of little boys, the fact that an educated snot nosed white person, picks on a 12 year old kid..........that is way below the belt man and then some of you out here like the audience applauded....... After, she then states she is so unhinged that she has to walk across the street from a building. Really? Love to see her in a hostile environment and finally when making an apology she cannot even do it graciously. That was the best witness......sad and laughingstock.

BTW, what inner city person names their kid Noah.......this should get fun when the Senate takes over and the IG gets their mitts involved.

LandM wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:54 pm Speaking of little boys, the fact that an educated snot nosed white person, picks on a 12 year old kid..........that is way below the belt man and then some of you out here like the audience applauded....... After, she then states she is so unhinged that she has to walk across the street from a building. Really? Love to see her in a hostile environment and finally when making an apology she cannot even do it graciously. That was the best witness......sad and laughingstock.

BTW, what inner city person names their kid Noah.......this should get fun when the Senate takes over and the IG gets their mitts involved.

LandM wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:54 pm
As a practicing Catholic who has endured

3rdPersonPlural wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 4:06 pm 2 questions. These aren't rhetorical or set-ups, I just trust this group of pasty old white guys (who all love lacrosse and claim to also all love dogs) to offer up some informed answers for me.

I'm thinking about what happens if the R wins the Electoral College with Trump but loses the Senate and doesn't regain the House. Maybe the Senate is 55% Dem......

1. Can Trump get re-impeached? No double Jeopardy?

2. If Trump is re-elected, will any of the financial shenanigans he's liable for prior to his election become un-prosecutable due to the Statute of Limitations?

Thanks
Now this pasty faced old white guy is questioning whether his dog still loves him.