Liz Cheney: We're Not Going To Let Trump Testify In Public To The January 6 Committee

[Seymour Flops]

That remains to be seen.

The GOP’s Jan. 6 committee dilemma: Disband it, or turn it on Dems?

Reshaping the Capitol riot probe into a political weapon if Republicans take the majority is an idea with high-profile conservative fans — but an uncertain fate.

www.politico.com

Was thare anything in that article worth reading? The first sentence talked about the possibility of the GOP reshaping the committee into a political weapon. It already is a political weapon. What they actually mean is turn the political weapon against the people who created it.

Can you state in your own words what Politico sees as the drawback for the GOP if they turn the January 6th Committee Against whatever Democrats are still left in the next Congress?

Last time I clicked on a Politico link I started getting flooded with ads for transgender dating sites. No thanks!

 

[Faun]

Like I said, you just deny reality.

Nope, I'm not denying reality. You really didn't produce a quote of Tony Ornato denying he said that to Hutchinson.

 

[Faun]

The problem is that if Trump, testifies it set a precedent that effects the balance of power between the three branches of government. It may also be a matter of principal that Trump can waive if he wishes.

Explainer: Does Trump have to comply with the Jan. 6 committee subpoena?

The congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to subpoena former President Donald Trump, who they say instigated the violence in an attempt to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

www.reuters.com

***snip***

The Republican has urged his associates not to cooperate with the probe and has argued that a former president has a right to keep conversations and material confidential under a legal doctrine called executive privilege.

This link describes the issues involved with executive privilege in more detail.

Executive Privilege and the Jan. 6 Investigation

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is intent on seeking any and all information. However, the amount of information the committee receives depends on a battle between four distinct groups with different legal obligations and authorities.

www.lawfareblog.com

Trump is no longer the Executive. He can no longer invoke Executive Privilege.

Trump Loses Big on Executive Privilege

The former president is in a dramatically weaker position than he was before the latest D.C. Circuit opinion.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[Faun]

Was thare anything in that article worth reading? The first sentence talked about the possibility of the GOP reshaping the committee into a political weapon. It already is a political weapon. What they actually mean is turn the political weapon against the people who created it.

Can you state in your own words what Politico sees as the drawback for the GOP if they turn the January 6th Committee Against whatever Democrats are still left in the next Congress?

Last time I clicked on a Politico link I started getting flooded with ads for transgender dating sites. No thanks!

Of course there was. They literally quoted some Republicans being against reviving such a committee.

 

[Clipper]

Your PREDICTION means nothing.

Trump wants transparency, Nazi Piglosi wants secrecy. If the insists on secrecy Trump should challenge it and refuse to testify. No way he should participate in her sham.

They have zero credibility with their selective leaks of secret testimony and their BOMBSHELL witness who lied under oath.

No, Trump wants to turn his appearance into a three ring circus just like his hate rallies where he goes full retard ranting & raving like a lunatic.

Trump's keepers should inform him that appearing "live" & being the braindead jackass that he is won't go well for him.

 

[Nostra]

No, Trump wants to turn his appearance into a three ring circus just like his hate rallies where he goes full retard ranting & raving like a lunatic.

Trump's keepers should inform him that appearing "live" & being the braindead jackass that he is won't go well for him.

 

[Clipper]

Trump going full retard must be rubbing off on you, CLOWN.

 

[Nostra]

Trump going full retard must be rubbing off on you, CLOWN.

 

[Blaster]

No, Trump wants to turn his appearance into a three ring circus just like his hate rallies where he goes full retard ranting & raving like a lunatic.

Trump's keepers should inform him that appearing "live" & being the braindead jackass that he is won't go well for him.

 

[Batcat]

Trump is no longer the Executive. He can no longer invoke Executive Privilege.

Trump Loses Big on Executive Privilege

The former president is in a dramatically weaker position than he was before the latest D.C. Circuit opinion.

www.lawfareblog.com

The issue will likely be decided in court, possibly the Supreme Court.

Can Donald Trump still assert executive privilege? - Harvard Law School

Former White House Counsel and Harvard Law Lecturer Neil Eggleston explains the legal doctrine, its origins, and how it applies to ex-presidents.

hls.harvard.edu

***snip***

Eggleston: Other than through litigation, I don’t really think there’s much way to get this settled. Even if Congress passed a statute, a former president could always say the statute is unconstitutional because they are the one who should be able to decide. A statute setting this all out would only tell the court how Congress thought about it. But it would still require a court to decide whether the current president or the prior president has the power to make those determinations.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course there was. They literally quoted some Republicans being against reviving such a committee.

"Some Republican?" Not "sources" for once? Sounds legit all right.

Whether it's Jan 6 or the Judiciary Committee, the FBI will have to answer for sending the Proud Boys as "informants" and then disregarding their information.

 

[Blaster]

Trump should wait until January after the committee is disbanded.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump should wait until January after the committee is disbanded.

The committee knew it's days were numbered - as least as currently constituted. Why did they not subpoena Trump at the outset, so legal issues might have been settled before the committee bites the dust?

 

[WEATHER53]

I would love to see Trump testify in front of that kangaroo committee In public. He would likely end the political careers of many on the committee and insure his victory in the 2024 Presidential race.

And they know that.
It’s a witch hunt when it’s a one way street of testimony and question asking and answering

 

[Nostra]

The committee knew it's days were numbered - as least as currently constituted. Why did they not subpoena Trump at the outset, so legal issues might have been settled before the committee bites the dust?

Because they have no interest in his testimony. It's all for show.

 

[WEATHER53]

Lib loons like to hang their hat on the “we know what Trump will say” so they censor him from speaking
Quite the mind readers they are considering they don’t operate with a mind.

 

[Blaster]

The committee knew it's days were numbered - as least as currently constituted. Why did they not subpoena Trump at the outset, so legal issues might have been settled before the committee bites the dust?

They are doing it now so it will benefit democrats in the midterm election.

 

[Faun]

The issue will likely be decided in court, possibly the Supreme Court.

Can Donald Trump still assert executive privilege? - Harvard Law School

Former White House Counsel and Harvard Law Lecturer Neil Eggleston explains the legal doctrine, its origins, and how it applies to ex-presidents.

hls.harvard.edu

***snip***

Eggleston: Other than through litigation, I don’t really think there’s much way to get this settled. Even if Congress passed a statute, a former president could always say the statute is unconstitutional because they are the one who should be able to decide. A statute setting this all out would only tell the court how Congress thought about it. But it would still require a court to decide whether the current president or the prior president has the power to make those determinations.

Holy fuck, did you not read what I posted?

The courts ALREADY decided.

You're literally posting articles that predate the court decision which speculate how the courts will address the issue; while ignoring how the courts actually ruled on the issue.

 

[Faun]

"Some Republican?" Not "sources" for once? Sounds legit all right.

Whether it's Jan 6 or the Judiciary Committee, the FBI will have to answer for sending the Proud Boys as "informants" and then disregarding their information.

Nice strawman. There's no evidence the FBI sent even one informant to the Capitol on Sedition Day.

 

[Faun]

The committee knew it's days were numbered - as least as currently constituted. Why did they not subpoena Trump at the outset, so legal issues might have been settled before the committee bites the dust?

I agree with that. They should have. Seems to me they don't actually want him to testify; they only want America to see him avoid testifying.