"immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.”

[easyt65]

So snowflakes can't actually post a link to the law Adam Schiff insists exists that affords un-qualified Whistle Blowers anonymity and immunity....

Got it.

Next you'll be trying to tell us this was just another one of his 'parodies'...

 

[BlindBoo]

The President is not a King with unlimited power over the government.

Snowflakes should have spoken up and told Barry this....

Democrats joined Republicans to block funding for one of Obama's first EO's and his plan to close down Gitmo.

Furthermore, President Obama never issued anything like blanket immunity against Congressional subpoena's. I don't believe he ever demanded anyone in his administration not obey a Congressional subpoena. Not once during the multiple Benghazi investigations did he refuse to turn over requested documents.

Trumpublicans love to cite AG Holder's refusal to turn over a set of documents after turning over thousands of pages after multiple requests in which they voted him in Contempt of Congress. One instance of refusing, verses refusing all instances of requests. Only a moron would believe that comparison, and only a propagandist would try to continuously peddle it.

Oh, yes documents were withheld. And in the fast and furious case were only turned over in 2017.
White House cites executive privilege, keeps Obama aide from testifying about Iran nuclear deal
Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com
More Than 10,000 Days of Delays: Obama Admin’s Delays of Benghazi Documents Equivalent to Over 27 Years
The Facts Behind Obama’s Executive Privilege Claim — ProPublica
Congress Rips Obama on Cover-up of Fast and Furious Gun Running
Obama asserts executive privilege over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents
Obama used executive privilege to shield Holder emails
- The Administration’s Latest Abuse: Impeding IGs and Hiding the Truth From the American People
Attorney General Lynch 'Pleads Fifth' on Secret Iran 'Ransom' Payments
Obama guilty of real Hillary Clinton obstruction, Fmr. US AG Mukasey says

I stand corrected in that they forced the House to go to court in some instances on document request

 

[Oddball]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

 

[BlindBoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

 

[Oddball]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

Oh piss off....You know as well as I that everyone in the orbit of your dear Mulatto Messiah got a total pass for their criminal behavior.....But nobody with an (R) by their name can so much as double park without you freaks shitting yourselves.

You're a fucking hack and you always will be.

 

[depotoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

You are so wrong.
True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal - California Political Review
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
[URL="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-conservative-idUSKBN1CV1TY"]Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny[/URL]
[URL="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-lerner-pleads-the-fifth-again-doesnt-testify-on-irs-targeting/"]Lois Lerner pleads the fifth again, doesn't testify on IRS targeting[/URL]

 

[BlindBoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

You are so wrong.
True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal - California Political Review
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny
Lois Lerner pleads the fifth again, doesn't testify on IRS targeting

"United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed a Consent Order that included the IRS admission of wrongdoing and affirmed that prejudice on the basis of an applicant’s name, association, or political viewpoint is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights."


Trumpybear is more than willing to agree to anything that appears to give Obama a black eye.

 

[BlindBoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

Oh piss off....You know as well as I that everyone in the orbit of your dear Mulatto Messiah got a total pass for their criminal behavior.....But nobody with an (R) by their name can so much as double park without you freaks shitting yourselves.

You're a fucking hack and you always will be.

Aww you's just pissed that after 6 year of endless investigations, Republicans in the House proved Obama was either clean as a whistle, or that they were simply not competent enough in the xxx number of fruitless investigations to catch him. Compared to now, with less than a year in Democrat control, the House already has enough to impeach poor old "Mafia Mouth" Trumpybear.

 

[Flash]

...unless you are one of Obama's lackeys.

 

[depotoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

You are so wrong.
True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal - California Political Review
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny
Lois Lerner pleads the fifth again, doesn't testify on IRS targeting

"United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed a Consent Order that included the IRS admission of wrongdoing and affirmed that prejudice on the basis of an applicant’s name, association, or political viewpoint is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights."


Trumpybear is more than willing to agree to anything that appears to give Obama a black eye.

Your point? They admitted to it and issued an apology before Trump became president.

 

[depotoo]

Lois Lerner was unavailable for comment.

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

Oh piss off....You know as well as I that everyone in the orbit of your dear Mulatto Messiah got a total pass for their criminal behavior.....But nobody with an (R) by their name can so much as double park without you freaks shitting yourselves.

You're a fucking hack and you always will be.

Aww you's just pissed that after 6 year of endless investigations, Republicans in the House proved Obama was either clean as a whistle, or that they were simply not competent enough in the xxx number of fruitless investigations to catch him. Compared to now, with less than a year in Democrat control, the House already has enough to impeach poor old "Mafia Mouth" Trumpybear.

Clean as a whistle? You have got to be joshing.

 

[BlindBoo]

Lois plead the 5th as is her right and was advised to do so by her lawyer. Did President Obama order her not to appear? What crime was she accused of?

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

You are so wrong.
True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal - California Political Review
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny
Lois Lerner pleads the fifth again, doesn't testify on IRS targeting

"United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed a Consent Order that included the IRS admission of wrongdoing and affirmed that prejudice on the basis of an applicant’s name, association, or political viewpoint is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights."


Trumpybear is more than willing to agree to anything that appears to give Obama a black eye.

Your point? They admitted to it and issued an apology before Trump became president.

That came out when the story broke.

"So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected.

Which is what happened. The was no direction from the President to Ms. Lerner. (or if there was they were competent enough to keep it on the DL) He did not claim blanket immunity for her or the other IRS employees to keep her or them from testifying.

 

[depotoo]

So you're saying there's precedent to tell confess to shove it....Good.

She was accused of violation numerous IRS regs, which are in place to prevent political weaponizing of the agency, which was later admitted that it did did happen......But as long as your team benefits, it's all good.

Hogwash. The problem is there was no rules written on how to take a focused sample of the applications for verification for those type of tax-free organizations. In other government programs the procedure for selecting applications (for government benefits) for verification are very detailed. The rule is an organization can't use more than 50% of it's resources for political action. So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected. She would have been better of throwing them all in a hopper and blindly pulling out the number needed blindly. Not one conservative group was denied tax-free status.

The real scandal neither party will admit to is that the law says no, zero amount of political activity. Somebody made a rule change at the IRS to allow these PACs to use up to 50% toward politics. It's a cash cow neither side wants to out, or give up. So it quietly went away.

You are so wrong.
True the Vote Wins Stunning Court Ruling Against IRS in Lois Lerner Scandal - California Political Review
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...6a0ada-b987-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html
Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny
Lois Lerner pleads the fifth again, doesn't testify on IRS targeting

"United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed a Consent Order that included the IRS admission of wrongdoing and affirmed that prejudice on the basis of an applicant’s name, association, or political viewpoint is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights."


Trumpybear is more than willing to agree to anything that appears to give Obama a black eye.

Your point? They admitted to it and issued an apology before Trump became president.

That came out when the story broke.

"So Lois decided to base her selection criteria on politically sounding names which gave her a loopsided sample that had more conservative groups selected.

Which is what happened. The was no direction from the President to Ms. Lerner. (or if there was they were competent enough to keep it on the DL) He did not claim blanket immunity for her or the other IRS employees to keep her or them from testifying.

You are so blind. This isn’t just about the IRS. And you failed to note she plead the fifth in her testimony.
I gave you a link to his using executive privilege. and no-one given immunity? Please.
The Immunized Five: Meet The People Covering For Hillary
Ooops 3 more
Three More Hillary Clinton Witnesses Were Given Immunity by FBI
Oh, and by the way-
WHAT TIGTA FOUND
The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management: 1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months,
2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and 3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

 

[Dragonlady]

Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony, judge says

The judge rules Trump's absurd assertion of blanket immunity, a claim never before made by any prez because...........ridiculous...........is total bullshyte.

Clearly, the ruling has implications for the impeachment inquiry.

The mind boggling aspect of the ruling is................Billy the Bagman is contesting it. The guy who is supposed to be the people's lawyer is working in Trump's interest, not the country's. Imagine my surprise.

If House Liar / Leaker Schiff can declare a non-qualifying whistle blower is afforded the protections of anonymity & immunity found in no existing law ... If Nadler can punish / Censure the US AG, the leading law enforcer in the United States, for NOT breaking US laws HE helped Congress pass...if Dr.ocrats can conduct coup attempt after contempt disguised as investigations during which Constitutional Rights are trampled, the WH and individuals called to testify in front of the 'circus' and its 'ring master' can tell Schiff & the Democrats to 'F* Off'...if by no other way than pleading the 5th immediately & not saying another word.

Well somebody has his knickers in a knot doesn't he?

Trump has lost every one of his stonewalling attempt lawsuits for one very good reason: The Constitution mandates that Congress has a responsibility to conduct investgation and oversight of the Executive Branch. In investigating the President, Congress is simply doing its job. Trump's resistance to oversight is illegal and consititutes an impeachable offence, all on its own.

Trump has never had to answer to anyone for his stupid and wrong headed decisions. He has never had a boss, or even a real board of directors to answer to. He has only every worked as the head of a family owner corporation. Trump refuses to take advice or counsel. That's why his businesses have so frequently failed or gone bankrupt.

Thank you for that emotionally triggered attack on the President and the attempt to justify the conspiracy, sedition, and treason perpetrated by liars, admitted Leakers, and compromised Criminal Dr.ocrats.

Again, my point remains unscathed - after 4 years of back to back to back failed coup attempts the best Democrats could do in their latest attempt was present 3 says of hearsay, disagreement with foreign policy, and hold over 2016 butthurt.

A coup is an illegal insurrection to overthrow a constitutional government. Impeachment is the antithesis of a "coup attempt". Impeachment is a Consitutiionally mandated process to remove a criminal or corrupt President from office. Trump is both and has amply demostrated that to the voting public who are turning on him.

How come Lindsay Graham is now investigating Joe Biden for doing what Lindsay Graham voted for Biden to do: Remove the prosecutor in the Ukraine from office. Republicans were in control of the House and Senate when Biden went to the Ukraine on orders from the US government, including Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader. The House and Senate attached conditions to the release of the funds. Biden got the Ukrainians to comply and fire the prosecutor and released the funds.

Lindsay and Moscow Mitch both cheered and applauded the Vice-President when he did this. Enquiring minds want to know.

Today, I cannot fathom why any decent human being would ever vote for a lying criminal like Trump, or why anyone with any morals or intelligence would continue to support him in the face of the evidence before them. Or why Republicans Senators are willingly promoting Russian propaganda and conspiracy theories in the halls of congress.

On a personal note, you're blithering about me being triggered. I'm not. I'm always bemused by how people are manipulated. You routinely try to claim I've been "triggered" and call my calm cool dissections of your lies and bullshit "emotional", while ranting in bold and caps and screaming lies over and over. But women are always accused of being "emotional". I'm logical, methodical and well organized - as are all good legal professionals.

I made a fine career out of being analytical, methodical, and careful. I'll continue to use those skills to dissect your screams of "coup" "witch hunt" and "hoax", and refute the lie that Democrats are accusing and investigating Trump, when everyone I've seen accusing Trump are his staff and political appointees, as well members of the military, state department and civil service. Even the Republicans thanked every witness that came forward for their "service to the nation", before they called them liars and questioned their loyalty.

 

[easyt65]

"United States District Judge Reggie B. Walton signed a Consent Order that included the IRS admission of wrongdoing and affirmed that prejudice on the basis of an applicant’s name, association, or political viewpoint is an unconstitutional violation of First Amendment rights."

Are you trying to blame President Trump for any part of his criminal administration illegally targeting law-abiding American citizens legally opposing Obama's re-election...admittedly? Or perhaps you seek to blame President Trump for A US District Court Judge using common sense to rule that targeting someone based on a name, group association, or beliefs IS biased Un-Constitutional Violation of Rights?

I wonder how many snowflakes / Democrats would have freaked and run for their pitchforks and torches if the IRS had targeted any group with 'Liberal', 'Black', or 'African American' in the name or associated with BLM or Antifa....

 

[easyt65]

And you failed to note she plead the fifth in her testimony.

Lerner walked into the committee chamber, gave a personal statement, and THEN declared she was pleading the 5th.

Sorry, she and her lawyers were obviously too stupid to realize one can not 'give testimony', even if a prepared written statement, and then plead the 5th. By law, at that point, she could NOT plead the 5th.

After reading her statement and pleading the 5th she and her lawyer got up and proceeded to leave while several Republicans attempted to make the point to the committee. I personally would have told the 'Sergeant at Arms' in the chamber to stop her and escort her ass, with or without her lawyer, to her seat to proceed with her testimony / questioning.

 

[OKTexas]

Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony, judge says

The judge rules Trump's absurd assertion of blanket immunity, a claim never before made by any prez because...........ridiculous...........is total bullshyte.

Clearly, the ruling has implications for the impeachment inquiry.

The mind boggling aspect of the ruling is................Billy the Bagman is contesting it. The guy who is supposed to be the people's lawyer is working in Trump's interest, not the country's. Imagine my surprise.

Claims one judge, it could be reversed.

.

Nixon lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court and had to turn over the tapes.

The President is not a King with unlimited power over the government.

You should have waited to respond to my second post in the tread.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

And you failed to note she plead the fifth in her testimony.
I gave you a link to his using executive privilege. and no-one given immunity? Please.
The Immunized Five: Meet The People Covering For Hillary
Ooops 3 more
Three More Hillary Clinton Witnesses Were Given Immunity by FBI

You realize that is an individual right and not something President Obama ordered her to do. The FBI was not directed by President Obama to offer immunity for testimony to any of those witnesses.

WHAT TIGTA FOUND

Is that Lerner was not acting at the direction of a corrupt president.

 

[easyt65]

A coup is an illegal insurrection to overthrow a constitutional government. Impeachment is the antithesis of a "coup attempt".

Attempting to undermine and eventually overthrow a newly elected President by ordering Federal Agency Directors to use their tools, foreign Intel sources, and any means necessary to make this happen, which is exactly what former NSA Director Clapper declared what Barry did (separate thread with multiple links)....

.....the Director of the FBI leaking details of a confidential privileged conversation through a friend to the media so it would be reported with the intent of affecting the appointment of a pre-coordinated Special Counsel whose job it was to affect the removal of that President from power...

....illegally colluding with and utilizing biased Trump-hating known-untrustworthy spies to acquire Russian-authored Counter-Intel propaganda to use to assist in the removal of the newly elected President from office....

....illegally collaborating with former corrupt Ukraine officials to acquire 'dirt' used to take down a political candidate and his team in an attempt to prevent that candidate from winning the election....

....illegally falsifying records, omitting critical information, and defrauding the FISA Court to acquire warrants to illegally spy on the resident and his team....

...knowingly, falsely declaring to have direct evidence of crimes committed by the President of the United States, using these claims to incite outrage / opposition to the President to affect his removal from office based on lies.....

...attempting to present a personally-authored fictional account of a phone call as 'evidence' in an attempt to validate the necessity to Impeach a President, in another attempt to incite the unwarranted call for the removal of a President from office based on lies.....

....are the very definition of conspiracy, sedition, coup attempt, and treason, lil' snowflake.



'Impeachment' is based on 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors'. High crimes and Misdemeanors' does NOT mean:

- Extreme butt-hurt generated in Democrats / snowflakes by beating their criminally protected handpicked Democratic party candidate.

- Foreign Policy Democrats and snowflakes do not agree with.

- Repeatedly exposing Democrat crimes, their refusal to acknowledge and act upon the evidence of their crimes, and continuing to escape the Democrats' self-destructing coups based - most recently - on hearsay, innuendo, and the necessity to protect a former VP / current Democrat nominee who gave a videotaped confession of extorting the former Ukraine PM.

 

[BlindBoo]

You should have waited to respond to my second post in the tread.

Honestly, I could argue both sides, if McGahn is eventually forced to comply and show up, there's nothing that would prevent him from exerting executive privilege and not answering questions. Executive privilege is recognized by the courts.

Just didn't see it.

He could also plead the 5th. Executive privilege. Here's a long analysis of that very question.

What is “executive privilege”? In the specific context of information disputes between the executive branch and Congress, the Supreme Court has never addressed—let alone answered—that question. Nevertheless, as the Trump administration repeatedly relies on that constitutional doctrine to reject demands for information and testimony, the question has been at the forefront of a spate of journalism and legal commentary.

The Executive’s Privilege: Rethinking the President’s Power to Withhold Information

In sum, the question of “what is executive privilege?” is an enormously difficult one, particularly in the current partisan environment. But it is a vitally important question to try to answer as the conflicts escalate between the executive branch and Congress. I have proposed one definition, but I by no means think it is the only possible one.

Regardless of the answer, however, it should be clear that the privilege does not apply to impeachment. And what has gone unrecognized to date, I think, is that if executive privilege does not apply to impeachment, then these other related prophylactic doctrines disappear along with it, whatever one thinks of their applicability to oversight more generally. The executive’s privilege, in my view, is limited to oversight. An impeachment inquiry—soon to be affirmed by the full House—is now under way. As a result, executive privilege—and all its attendant prophylactic doctrines—should be set aside. The president and executive branch officials must, in Wilson’s words, “appear[] at the bar of the house, to give an account of their conduct.”