2nd Impeachment? House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

[hadit]

Were is that written, other than left extremist hate sites?

.

lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, pussy

cat.

CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?

Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.

Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.

McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.

Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?

yer welcome.

LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.

.

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

 

[OKTexas]

lol...i don't use obviously biased sites, pussy

cat.

CAN TRUMP USE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO BLOCK MCGAHN’S TESTIMONY?

Legal experts said that conversations between a president and the White House counsel were exactly the sort of thing that executive privilege is intended to keep private.

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that Trump long ago forfeited, or waived, his right to make an executive privilege claim over his conversations with Don McGahn, said Michael Stern, a former congressional lawyer in Washington.

Much like the attorney-client privilege, executive privilege is intended to keep conversations private. Generally speaking, once third parties are told about such conversations, they are no longer secret and the privilege has been waived, legal experts said.

McGahn, then the White House counsel, was allowed to sit for several interviews with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and McGahn’s testimony was cited 157 times in Mueller’s 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and Trump’s attempts to impede that inquiry. That means any executive privilege claim has likely been waived, Stern said.

Explainer: Can Trump use executive privilege to block congressional probes?

yer welcome.

LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.

.

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

 

[hadit]

LMAO, there are too many caveats in that BS to make it credible. "could", "likely", sounds like questions for the courts, doesn't it? Also much of McGahn's testimony was to a grand jury, which is secret.

.

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

I've seen no reason whatever to keep the identity secret. Leads me to think perhaps he/she doesn't really exist or was just set up as a pretense to launch the impeachment.

 

[Meister]

 

[OKTexas]

only secret cause donny instructed barr to keep it that way. if barr petitions the court to open it up - then it would happen. why won't tinkles let barr do it?

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

I've seen no reason whatever to keep the identity secret. Leads me to think perhaps he/she doesn't really exist or was just set up as a pretense to launch the impeachment.

There's not, because he isn't a legit WB, he was nothing but an individual the contents of a classified phone call was leaked to. My question is if he had a need to know that information. If not the folks that talked to him violated the espionage act and should be prosecuted. There are many questions that haven't been answered.

.

 

[bripat9643]

WTF? Another impeachment? We are now entering the Twilight zone:

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

"The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals about whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House Counsel Don McGahn following the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
"If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment," Letter wrote."

Dims are bent on becoming a laughingstock.

 

[bripat9643]

so if new intel or docs or factual witness' testify that donny is knee deep in putin's shit, he should get a pass because of the current shit he is knee deep in?

We already know that's a fantasy.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Can someone explain why the house needs new testimony?

 

[hadit]

I'm sure you think you already know the answer, so while you're chewing on it, answer why Schiff didn't let the WB testify.

This is politics and legal manuvering, and you can twist yourself in knots trying to second guess any of them. Rarely are the reasons what you think they are.

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

I've seen no reason whatever to keep the identity secret. Leads me to think perhaps he/she doesn't really exist or was just set up as a pretense to launch the impeachment.

There's not, because he isn't a legit WB, he was nothing but an individual the contents of a classified phone call was leaked to. My question is if he had a need to know that information. If not the folks that talked to him violated the espionage act and should be prosecuted. There are many questions that haven't been answered.

.

That's a door they won't go close to.

 

[bripat9643]

Can someone explain why the house needs new testimony?

So the Dims can turn the trial into a circus and drag it out as long as possible.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

DUE PROCESS APPLYS IN CRIMINAL COURTS -

an impeachment isnt criminal its strictly political.

obviously, youre too big of a dumbass to look it up.

Take your incompetent ass back to fucking LAW SCHOOL!!!



.

 

[bripat9643]

If there was anything there, then they should and would have included it in the first impeachment.

The very idea of holding back charges from the first impeachment, so that they can be used as a basis for subsequent impeachments when the first fails, pretty much proves what everyone already knows—that this was never about any legitimate legal complaints against the President, but merely an abuse of the process for the purpose of harassing and undermining him.

no dummy - they wanted mcghan 8 months ago - only NOW is it possible because they went to the courts & finally got a ruling in their favor. but you are saying that now isn't a good time? oh well, homey don't play that.

Yet, it's still in court. Go figure.

.

why would that be little kitty? cause donny is appealing it. my my my.... that really makes him look innocent............................. oh did i say innocent? lol...

It's called due process, look it up.

.

DUE PROCESS APPLYS IN CRIMINAL COURTS -

an impeachment isnt criminal its strictly political.

obviously, youre too big of a dumbass to look it up.

Thanks for admitting that the House "inquiry" was a Stalinist show trial lacking any semblance of due process.

 

[bripat9643]

They might try to hold them back from the Senate till after the election to try to take the Senate back....

doubtful. i think pelosi is holding back just long enough for a few (R) senators to vote on the rules to allow witness', & with this latest email by one of the dudes fighting a subpoena, telling the OMB to hold back funds but keep it hush just help that happen or if more info comes out in the coming days.

What makes you think anyone in the senate will cave to the bitches extortion?

.

it will only take 3.

oooOOOOOOooooo.....you calling nancy a bitch?

Wrong again dumbass, three would make it a 50/50 tie, the VP would be called to break the tie. I guess you're too stupid to know the VP is the president of the senate.

.

pence is 'president of the senate' but i don't think he can participate in breaking any tie. that would fall on roberts. m'k... how about 4 then? romney, collins, murkowski, & one more.

I believe the vice president is the official tie breaker.

Constitution of the United States - We the People

"4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided."​

 

[lantern2814]

um, no. there was no impeachment inquiry or trial regarding mueller's investigation.

If there was anything there, then they should and would have included it in the first impeachment.

The very idea of holding back charges from the first impeachment, so that they can be used as a basis for subsequent impeachments when the first fails, pretty much proves what everyone already knows—that this was never about any legitimate legal complaints against the President, but merely an abuse of the process for the purpose of harassing and undermining him.

no dummy - they wanted mcghan 8 months ago - only NOW is it possible because they went to the courts & finally got a ruling in their favor. but you are saying that now isn't a good time? oh well, homey don't play that.

You are wrong as always. You can’t compel McGahn to do anything now because you rushed your bullshit through, nullifying that subpoena. The courts will NOT force anybody to testify as the Senate and McConnell have SOLE control over the trial in that body. They can’t interfere. What an idiot........

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, if a person commits a crime and is convicted of it, does that mean that person can never be convicted of another crime again? Because if you say that Trump shouldn't be impeached again, you are basically saying that.

If Trump does something that violates the Constitution, or if he abuses his powers while in office to enrich himself, violating his oath, I want him held to account each an every time. Otherwise, you are giving him free reign to do whatever he wants.

Besides......................aren't Republicans fond of saying that we are a nation of laws? If laws are violated, then the person violating them needs to be held to account.

 

[bripat9643]

DUE PROCESS APPLYS IN CRIMINAL COURTS -

an impeachment isnt criminal its strictly political.

obviously, youre too big of a dumbass to look it up.

Take your incompetent ass back to fucking LAW SCHOOL!!!



.

It's impossible to believe what astounding hypocrites these snowflakes are.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, if a person commits a crime and is convicted of it, does that mean that person can never be convicted of another crime again? Because if you say that Trump shouldn't be impeached again, you are basically saying that.

If Trump does something that violates the Constitution, or if he abuses his powers while in office to enrich himself, violating his oath, I want him held to account each an every time. Otherwise, you are giving him free reign to do whatever he wants.

Besides......................aren't Republicans fond of saying that we are a nation of laws? If laws are violated, then the person violating them needs to be held to account.

Who cares what you want? If the Dims try to impeach him again, they will be the laughing stock of the entire planet. They will lose control of the House, and Trump will get funding for his wall approved. Adolph Schiffler will end up wearing an orange jump suit.

 

[Meister]

Can someone explain why the house needs new testimony?

So the dems can muddy the water and confuse the low IQ'd. Make a gain in public opinion of an illegitimate impeachment.

 

[Olde Europe]

Besides......................aren't Republicans fond of saying that we are a nation of laws? If laws are violated, then the person violating them needs to be held to account.

Yep. Once upon a time they were also fond of saying, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." These they are rather fond of keeping the nation in the dark, and pretend that crimes committed under cover of this self-created darkness don't count. Anyway, bringing up these long-forgotten principles, you will not make very many friends among their ranks.

 

[OKTexas]

there are rules & protocol regarding the WB & there's a reason for it to be enforced... the WB was the caller who called in about a fire. the players that lit the fire is where the crime is & the fire dept doesn't need the caller to put it out.

Please cite the rule that prevents a WB from being called to testify.

There is no WB it's all a fraud. The ICIG didn't have the authority to even entertain the complaint, much less act on it.

.

I've seen no reason whatever to keep the identity secret. Leads me to think perhaps he/she doesn't really exist or was just set up as a pretense to launch the impeachment.

There's not, because he isn't a legit WB, he was nothing but an individual the contents of a classified phone call was leaked to. My question is if he had a need to know that information. If not the folks that talked to him violated the espionage act and should be prosecuted. There are many questions that haven't been answered.

.

That's a door they won't go close to.

Hopefully Barr will. We'll see.

.