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

[Batcat]

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.

Then please explain this article dated Oct 25, 2022.

'Absolutely F—ing Not.' Trump's Team Scrambled to Talk Him Out of Jan. 6 Testimony

Trump wanted to testify on live television in front of the House Jan. 6 Committee. His advisors saw a fast-track to perjury charges

www.rollingstone.com

Or this one dated Oct 23, 2022.



***snip***

THOMPSON: So if he doesn't comply, what are the chances that he would face criminal charges, like his former adviser Steve Bannon, who, as you well know, last week was sentenced to four months in prison and fined for ignoring his subpoena to testify before the committee?

LITMAN: Well, several things have to happen, and they're all in the shadow of a really quickly ticking timeline because the subpoena itself only lasts as long as the Congress that voted it lasts, meaning it expires of its own accord on January, at the end of the term. So here would be the drill. He has refused. Then the committee would have to vote him in contempt. Then the whole House would have to vote him in contempt. Then they would have to refer it to the Department of Justice for a criminal contempt charge. Then the Department of Justice would have to decide to bring that charge, as they did with Bannon, but as they didn't do, for example, with Mark Meadows.

And why not? Probably - I mean, they don't - they didn't give us the reasons, but probably because Mark Meadows had an interesting legal claim that made it less cut-and-dried that he had been just contemptuous. Trump has that kind of claim as well. The courts have never decided whether a former president can be subpoenaed, especially for acts that he undertook during his tenure as president. So that, I think, would weigh against the department's pulling the trigger, but that's already several steps down the line.…emphasis added.

 

[Batcat]

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.

Then please explain this article dated Oct 25, 2022.

'Absolutely F—ing Not.' Trump's Team Scrambled to Talk Him Out of Jan. 6 Testimony

Trump wanted to testify on live television in front of the House Jan. 6 Committee. His advisors saw a fast-track to perjury charges

www.rollingstone.com

Or this one dated



***snip***

THOMPSON: So if he doesn't comply, what are the chances that he would face criminal charges, like his former adviser Steve Bannon, who, as you well know, last week was sentenced to four months in prison and fined for ignoring his subpoena to testify before the committee?

LITMAN: Well, several things have to happen, and they're all in the shadow of a really quickly ticking timeline because the subpoena itself only lasts as long as the Congress that voted it lasts, meaning it expires of its own accord on January, at the end of the term. So here would be the drill. He has refused. Then the committee would have to vote him in contempt. Then the whole House would have to vote him in contempt. Then they would have to refer it to the Department of Justice for a criminal contempt charge. Then the Department of Justice would have to decide to bring that charge, as they did with Bannon, but as they didn't do, for example, with Mark Meadows.

And why not? Probably - I mean, they don't - they didn't give us the reasons, but probably because Mark Meadows had an interesting legal claim that made it less cut-and-dried that he had been just contemptuous. Trump has that kind of claim as well. The courts have never decided whether a former president can be subpoenaed, especially for acts that he undertook during his tenure as president. So that, I think, would weigh against the department's pulling the trigger, but that's already several steps down the line.…emphasis added.

 

[Faun]

Then please explain this article dated Oct 25, 2022.

'Absolutely F—ing Not.' Trump's Team Scrambled to Talk Him Out of Jan. 6 Testimony

Trump wanted to testify on live television in front of the House Jan. 6 Committee. His advisors saw a fast-track to perjury charges

www.rollingstone.com

Or this one dated Oct 23, 2022.



***snip***

THOMPSON: So if he doesn't comply, what are the chances that he would face criminal charges, like his former adviser Steve Bannon, who, as you well know, last week was sentenced to four months in prison and fined for ignoring his subpoena to testify before the committee?

LITMAN: Well, several things have to happen, and they're all in the shadow of a really quickly ticking timeline because the subpoena itself only lasts as long as the Congress that voted it lasts, meaning it expires of its own accord on January, at the end of the term. So here would be the drill. He has refused. Then the committee would have to vote him in contempt. Then the whole House would have to vote him in contempt. Then they would have to refer it to the Department of Justice for a criminal contempt charge. Then the Department of Justice would have to decide to bring that charge, as they did with Bannon, but as they didn't do, for example, with Mark Meadows.

And why not? Probably - I mean, they don't - they didn't give us the reasons, but probably because Mark Meadows had an interesting legal claim that made it less cut-and-dried that he had been just contemptuous. Trump has that kind of claim as well. The courts have never decided whether a former president can be subpoenaed, especially for acts that he undertook during his tenure as president. So that, I think, would weigh against the department's pulling the trigger, but that's already several steps down the line.…emphasis added.

At least those links come after the courts ruled former presidents no longer enjoy executive privilege; unlike your others which stupidly came before then.

But your first link isn't even about executive privilege and your second link, which also doesn't mention executive privilege, is talking about whether or not a former president can be subpoenaed.

Still, the courts weighed in on the matter of executive privilege for former presidents.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/913002F9EFB94590852587A60075CC4F/%24file/21-5254-1926128.pdf

 

[Clipper]

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

The committe's days may be numbered but DOJ will still be there to rattle trump's cage for being a traiterous pile of shit. He's already soiling himself & he hasen't even been indicted yet.

 

[Nostra]

The committe's days may be numbered but DOJ will still be there to rattle trump's cage for being a traiterous pile of shit. He's already soiling himself & he hasen't even been indicted yet.

 

[Seymour Flops]

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

Oh?

Then who sent this one:

Is the New York Times lying?

Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant (Published 2021)

A member of the far-right Proud Boys texted his F.B.I. handler during the assault, but maintained the group had no plan in advance to enter the Capitol and disrupt the election certification.

www.nytimes.com

A Proud Boys member and FBI informant was texting his handler during the January 6 Capitol riot, report says

The informant was texting the FBI updates as the pro-Trump mob entered the Capitol, but his handler didn't appear to understand it was breached.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

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.

But that is backfiring with Trump's offer to testify in front of the American people.

You telling me the American people would not watch that? It may be the only thing that pulls the Jan 6 committee's rating above the Gilligan's Island reruns on the oldies cable network.

 

[Batcat]

At least those links come after the courts ruled former presidents no longer enjoy executive privilege; unlike your others which stupidly came before then.

But your first link isn't even about executive privilege and your second link, which also doesn't mention executive privilege, is talking about whether or not a former president can be subpoenaed.

Still, the courts weighed in on the matter of executive privilege for former presidents.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/913002F9EFB94590852587A60075CC4F/%24file/21-5254-1926128.pdf

That’s an Appeals Court decision. Has the Supreme court ruled on Trump’s executive privilege?

Apparently Trump’s advisors feel he doesn’t have to testify. I have this feeling they know what they are talking about.

I still would love to see Trump testify as I imagine he would make the committee look like the partisan fools and RINOs they are.

Liberals always underestimate Trump.
.

 

[Faun]

Oh?

Then who sent this one:

View attachment 716085
Is the New York Times lying?

Among Those Who Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6: An F.B.I. Informant (Published 2021)

A member of the far-right Proud Boys texted his F.B.I. handler during the assault, but maintained the group had no plan in advance to enter the Capitol and disrupt the election certification.

www.nytimes.com

A Proud Boys member and FBI informant was texting his handler during the January 6 Capitol riot, report says

The informant was texting the FBI updates as the pro-Trump mob entered the Capitol, but his handler didn't appear to understand it was breached.

www.businessinsider.com

The NYTimes does not appear to be lying; but you do.

Quote that NYTimes article stating the FBI sent him to the Capitol...

 

[Faun]

But that is backfiring with Trump's offer to testify in front of the American people.

You telling me the American people would not watch that? It may be the only thing that pulls the Jan 6 committee's rating above the Gilligan's Island reruns on the oldies cable network.

Trump made no such offer. He made an off the cuff remark to people close to him of something like, I'd love to appear before that committee if I could do it on live TV. He's made no formal statement to the committee.

And of course people would watch it. Trump is good for TV.

And by more than Gilligan's Island, when did that show ever get 20 million viewers?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The NYTimes does not appear to be lying; but you do.

Quote that NYTimes article stating the FBI sent him to the Capitol...

If he was communicating with his FBI handler, who do you think sent him there?

If they FBI didn't want him there, why didn't they tell him to leave after he texted them he was there?

 

[Seymour Flops]

What I admit happened was he took showers with his daughter. Anything you fantasize beyond that is on you.

Here is how Biden's daughter described it:

https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/ashleybdiarytranscribed.pdf

I guess you're cool with it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Trump made no such offer. He made an off the cuff remark to people close to him of something like, I'd love to appear before that committee if I could do it on live TV. He's made no formal statement to the committee.

And of course people would watch it. Trump is good for TV.

And by more than Gilligan's Island, when did that show ever get 20 million viewers?

Fair enough.

He suckered them into turning down his offer without even officially making it. Goes along with what I've been saying about Dems trying to outsmart Trump.

 

[Nostra]

Why hasn't Nazi Piglosy taken Trump on his offer to testify publicly?

Why hasn't Nazi Piglosy called Ornato and the other SS agent who called her "BOMBSHELL" witness a liar to testify?

What is Nazi hiding?

 

[Faun]

If he was communicating with his FBI handler, who do you think sent him there?

If they FBI didn't want him there, why didn't they tell him to leave after he texted them he was there?

He says he followed the Proud Boys. The FBI said they weren't even aware at first he had gone inside the Capitol.

Didn't you read the NYTimes article you posted?

 

[Faun]

Here is how Biden's daughter described it:

View attachment 716109

https://bidenlaptopreport.marcopolousa.org/ashleybdiarytranscribed.pdf

I guess you're cool with it?

You don't even realize that confirms what I said, do ya? All she said about Biden was, "showers w/my dad (probably not appropriate);" Anything you read into that beyond that is rooted in your own imagination.

 

[Nostra]

You don't even realize that confirms what I said, do ya? All she said about Biden was, "showers w/my dad (probably not appropriate);" Anything you read into that beyond that is rooted in your own imagination.

Keep defending your pedophile hero, Perv.

 

[Faun]

Fair enough.

He suckered them into turning down his offer without even officially making it. Goes along with what I've been saying about Dems trying to outsmart Trump.

Yet another lie. It was never formally denied. The committee is still open to him testifying live. Nothing has been set in stone on either side.

 

[Faun]

Keep defending your pedophile hero, Perv.

LOL

A pity you failed to prove he's a pedophile.

 

[Faun]

Why hasn't Nazi Piglosy taken Trump on his offer to testify publicly?

Why hasn't Nazi Piglosy called Ornato and the other SS agent who called her "BOMBSHELL" witness a liar to testify?

What is Nazi hiding?

For one, Pelosi isn't chairing the committee.