Joe The World's Dumbest Politician Biden Says He’d Defy Subpoena to Testify in Trump’s Senate Trial

[CWayne]

Not sure if Biden has a legal case for executive privilege on this.

The current admin certainly does.

 

[CWayne]

It would be cool if the nutbags demanding that Congress go to court to get Mulvaney and others to obey their subpoenaes would accept two facts.

1) These refusals to testify have no legal standing. They will almost certainly end up with the courts ordering that they obey the subpoenaes. In other words, the refusal is a clear attempt to obstruct justice.

2) The courts are under no obligation to hear these cases in a timely manner. They could take a very long time. That's the point.

1. Then why didn't the Democrats go to court? If there was no legal standing, they'd have gotten a ruling inside a week.

2. Correct. The courts are a separate AND EQUAL branch of government. They do not have to jump through any hoop congress sets for them.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

That matter was settled in U.S. v. Nixon, and recently confirmed in Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn. The Trump administration, in its utter corruption, honors these just as much as it honors Congress, or the law, or the Constitution.

Kupperman? McGahn? Yeah, they "declined". You know, dummy, your transparent attempts at helping your Dear Leader to run out the clock don't amount to a fart in a storm. However, your dedicated, slavish subservience is noted.

 

[berg80]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Links?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump is going to expose the DC Money Laundering Operation

That's why Soros's Stalinist democrats are panicked

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

Because Trump has Executive privilege and Biden doesn’t not anymore. Just my guess as I am not a legal expert.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Links?

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

It’s not the post it’s him. And other posts and him using a Jewish surname when he isn’t Jewish to bash people. It’s a tactic frequently used by antisemites on Twitter. They use names like “Silverstein” or “Goldberg” and post hate rhetoric vs America to make Jews look bad. I am no longer on Twitter because it was a cesspool of Jew hatred and was allowed.

 

[danielpalos]

Not sure if Biden has a legal case for executive privilege on this.

The current admin certainly does.

There can be no executive privilege on Impeachment matters. It should be a "market based metric" for public Office.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

It’s not the post it’s him. And other posts and him using a Jewish surname when he isn’t Jewish to bash people. It’s a tactic frequently used by antisemites on Twitter. They use names like “Silverstein” or “Goldberg” and post hate rhetoric vs America to make Jews look bad. I am no longer on Twitter because it was a cesspool of Jew hatred and was allowed.

So, you just do not like him and there was nothing wrong with his post.

Got it.

Thanks

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

It’s not the post it’s him. And other posts and him using a Jewish surname when he isn’t Jewish to bash people. It’s a tactic frequently used by antisemites on Twitter. They use names like “Silverstein” or “Goldberg” and post hate rhetoric vs America to make Jews look bad. I am no longer on Twitter because it was a cesspool of Jew hatred and was allowed.

So, you just do not like him and there was nothing wrong with his post.

Got it.

Thanks

I have asked him to clarify the surname and why he uses it and he always throws some jab out and runs away. Similar to the racists on Twitter. Does that explain it to you or should I dumb it down?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

It’s not the post it’s him. And other posts and him using a Jewish surname when he isn’t Jewish to bash people. It’s a tactic frequently used by antisemites on Twitter. They use names like “Silverstein” or “Goldberg” and post hate rhetoric vs America to make Jews look bad. I am no longer on Twitter because it was a cesspool of Jew hatred and was allowed.

So, you just do not like him and there was nothing wrong with his post.

Got it.

Thanks

I have asked him to clarify the surname and why he uses it and he always throws some jab out and runs away. Similar to the racists on Twitter. Does that explain it to you or should I dumb it down?

Why should anyone need to clarify a log on name to anyone? It never even occurred to me that he was trying to be Jewish with that name. You see things that do not exist.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Your attempt at blatant antisemitism is laughable. Ban this troll.

What was antisemitic about his post?

It’s not the post it’s him. And other posts and him using a Jewish surname when he isn’t Jewish to bash people. It’s a tactic frequently used by antisemites on Twitter. They use names like “Silverstein” or “Goldberg” and post hate rhetoric vs America to make Jews look bad. I am no longer on Twitter because it was a cesspool of Jew hatred and was allowed.

So, you just do not like him and there was nothing wrong with his post.

Got it.

Thanks

I have asked him to clarify the surname and why he uses it and he always throws some jab out and runs away. Similar to the racists on Twitter. Does that explain it to you or should I dumb it down?

Why should anyone need to clarify a log on name to anyone? It never even occurred to me that he was trying to be Jewish with that name. You see things that do not exist.

So why not say “It’s just a name”? He doesn’t do that?

 

[CWayne]

Not sure if Biden has a legal case for executive privilege on this.

The current admin certainly does.

There can be no executive privilege on Impeachment matters. It should be a "market based metric" for public Office.

You have your law degree from where?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Why should he? If it is cool for Trump's people to say "no thanks" then it is cool for him to do so also.

One wrong does not make right what Biden is doing. Either you respect Congress, warts and all, or you don't. The argument, I have no testimony to make on the issues over which Trump was impeached (and should be convicted), doesn't cut it. Neither does, it's just the GOP's attempt to smear me. That also could be used by anybody called to testify. It is not "cool" for Trump's henchmen not to testify. It's deleterious to the Constitutional order.

If Congress calls, you show up and testify. Period.

Nope. The Executive Branch is co-equal, and has the right to question the legality of Legislative Branch requests.

The Democrats could have taken the matter to court. They declined.

Actually, they didn't decline. They went to court in May to force McGahn to comply with a legal subpoena. They won the case in Nov. Now the ruling is being appealed by Trump's lawyer...........Billy the Bagman. Dems are still pursuing McGahn's testimony. But the lengthy process proves the Dem's point.
Moreover, the Bigot-in-Chief's claim of absolute immunity for everyone is unprecedented, has no legal standing, and has been laughed out of court. These are not credible questions of Congress' right to the information they need in their oversight responsibilities......it's a delaying tactic.

Links?

Trump impeachment: Appeals court asks whether McGahn testimony needed

Irrelevant at this point. The Senate will deal with what the House voted on, toot-suite I suspect.

 

[LoneLaugher]

It would be cool if the nutbags demanding that Congress go to court to get Mulvaney and others to obey their subpoenaes would accept two facts.

1) These refusals to testify have no legal standing. They will almost certainly end up with the courts ordering that they obey the subpoenaes. In other words, the refusal is a clear attempt to obstruct justice.

2) The courts are under no obligation to hear these cases in a timely manner. They could take a very long time. That's the point.

1. Then why didn't the Democrats go to court? If there was no legal standing, they'd have gotten a ruling inside a week.

2. Correct. The courts are a separate AND EQUAL branch of government. They do not have to jump through any hoop congress sets for them.

Well. Nobody can ever accuse you of talking out of both sides of your vomit hole. Can they?

 

[CWayne]

It would be cool if the nutbags demanding that Congress go to court to get Mulvaney and others to obey their subpoenaes would accept two facts.

1) These refusals to testify have no legal standing. They will almost certainly end up with the courts ordering that they obey the subpoenaes. In other words, the refusal is a clear attempt to obstruct justice.

2) The courts are under no obligation to hear these cases in a timely manner. They could take a very long time. That's the point.

1. Then why didn't the Democrats go to court? If there was no legal standing, they'd have gotten a ruling inside a week.

2. Correct. The courts are a separate AND EQUAL branch of government. They do not have to jump through any hoop congress sets for them.

Well. Nobody can ever accuse you of talking out of both sides of your vomit hole. Can they?

Not anyone with any intellectual capacity.