LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Problem? What problem?

Any Trump defenders care to explain why Trump's personal lawyer was anywhere near the Ukraine?

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:13 pm Problem? What problem?

Any Trump defenders care to explain why Trump's personal lawyer was anywhere near the Ukraine?

The President can do whatever he wants; says so in the Constitution. Executive power Dude!!

Trump still owns his business, which means POTUS has a private set of customers, debts, problems and partners. Trump (or his family) knows what these are. We often don’t.
So how can we understand his presidency, if we don’t know what we’re missing?

David Farenthold WashPo

Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against every single Republican elected President since Dwight Eisenhower was President. They did it to Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump. They almost seem like sore losers...Get over it Trump isn’t getting impeached you losers!!! Sucks to suck democrats

Back to Earth. Democrats withdraw the Kupperman subpoena, with no plans to reissue. Sounds like they think there is enough without him.

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 3:13 pm Problem? What problem?

Any Trump defenders care to explain why Trump's personal lawyer was anywhere near the Ukraine?

Maybe he heard that the Popeyes there still was selling chicken sandwiches? From what I understand they are THAT good. I have heard it said that they are to die for.

I still haven't had one of those things!

(need to get on that)

a fan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 6:11 pm I still haven't had one of those things!

(need to get on that)

They are pretty dog gone tasty according to my wife. I don't understand why most of their establishments keep running out of chicken and or rolls to make them.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:56 pm Back to Earth. Democrats withdraw the Kupperman subpoena, with no plans to reissue. Sounds like they think there is enough without him.

Interesting. Will that moot the lawsuit? I would think so.

njbill wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 7:52 pm

seacoaster wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:56 pm Back to Earth. Democrats withdraw the Kupperman subpoena, with no plans to reissue. Sounds like they think there is enough without him.

Interesting. Will that moot the lawsuit? I would think so.

They have asked the court to drop it...

House lawyers say that Kupperman (and presumably Bolton) should be guided by the outcome of the Mcgahn case. That case is further along with a decision expected by 11/30.

So K and B presumably would get new subpoenas if/when the court rules that Mcgahn has to testify.

Still tbd if K and B will withdraw their suit or continue with their case on the slower track.

Have no clue why Pelosi hasn't taken up Graham's feigned rage over "the President not being able to defend himself"


That's an open invitation to call Trump to the stand. Or better still, take a deposition under oath.


The biggest fear of any Trump fan, obviously. Imagine what a practiced lawyer would do with a Trump that's under oath.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lindsey-grah ... 22727.html

What the heck happened to Lindsay Graham? This is Batsheit crazy stuff, unlikely to be seen by all but the most delusional among us as an effective counterpoint to Sondholm's revised testimony.

Bandito wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:24 pm Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against every single Republican elected President since Dwight Eisenhower was President. They did it to Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump. They almost seem like sore losers...Get over it Trump isn’t getting impeached you losers!!! Sucks to suck democrats

Snopes calls BS. Nothing new here. Trumps been tweeting again. We could thrown in Clinton was actually impeached and 57% of republicans wanted to impeach Obama.

Yes Trump will be impeached.

ggait wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 8:35 pm House lawyers say that Kupperman (and presumably Bolton) should be guided by the outcome of the Mcgahn case. That case is further along with a decision expected by 11/30.

So K and B presumably would get new subpoenas if/when the court rules that Mcgahn has to testify.

Still tbd if K and B will withdraw their suit or continue with their case on the slower track.

Sounds like some palace intrigue going on here. I wondered why the House lawyers didn’t seek to get the Kupperman case (W appointee) assigned/transferred to the McGahn judge (Obama appointee) as a related case. Maybe that happened, and the request was denied. They sure seem related to me. Essentially the same issue.

I would be interested in seeing the transcript of last Thursday‘s hearing in the Kupperman matter. As I understand it, the hearing was essentially a scheduling conference, but sometimes judges make some comments that may suggest how they view the merits.

Given the schedule the judge set in that matter, there was not going to be any realistic chance Kupperman was going to be deposed by the House. Perhaps the House lawyers were concerned that judge would issue an adverse ruling. So why go forward when the witness wasn’t going to testify anyway?

While the House lawyers might try to argue the Kupperman matter is controlled by a ruling in the McGahn case that McGahn must testify, there is no way Kupperman’s lawyers would agree to that. For one thing, the Kupperman judge is not bound by the McGahn judge’s ruling. He might follow it, of course, but he isn’t required to. Clearly Kupperman’s game is to stall, and even if a judge ultimately agreed Kupperman was bound by the McGahn ruling, the lawyers could drag that out for at least weeks, not to mention further delays on appeal.

I think the House has to accept the fact that Trump has effectively won this round as to McGahn/Kupperman and probably Bolton by employing the rope-a-dope. These guys don’t want to testify. You have to be very, very careful with adverse witnesses. Yes, if you trap them in a corner, they can help you, but they are much more likely to hurt you a million ways to Sunday. The House has more than enough evidence to impeach Trump. They should stick with what they have.

Now why would Barr not want to go to bat for Orange Duce on this?

jhu72 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 10:11 pm

Bandito wrote: ↑Wed Nov 06, 2019 5:24 pm Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against every single Republican elected President since Dwight Eisenhower was President. They did it to Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and now Donald Trump. They almost seem like sore losers...Get over it Trump isn’t getting impeached you losers!!! Sucks to suck democrats

Snopes calls BS. Nothing new here. Trumps been tweeting again. We could thrown in Clinton was actually impeached and 57% of republicans wanted to impeach Obama.

Yes Trump will be impeached.

And the other fact that the majority of them actually committed impeachable offenses, some almost as bad as wearing a tan suit. Seems to be a common thread among R Presidents of recent.

Or that Republicans introduced articles of impeachment or resolutions considering impeachment against every Democratic president since Dwight Eisenhower was president except for Jimmy Carter.

Conway's got a point.

So when do we get to find out who the whistleblower/disgruntled is? Is it really a former Biden campaign/office staffer?

I think it’s just a matter of time till their identity is leaked or released.

Given the questions from congress, probably sooner than later.