Political Roundtable Part XXV

[JWizmentality]

Washington Post

...and with this, we are officially living under a Dictatorial government, enabled by a feckless party.

No. We are officially living under a Constitutional Republic where an independent judiciary is called upon from time to time to adjudicate differing interpretations of law. The courts will decide what is required under the law on this issue just as they have been doing on other related issues for past 200 plus years.

You cannot compel a former employee to keep his mouth shut. There is no attorney/client privilege. You have a very corrupted view of the law.

[TGW]

I need my wisdom teeth pulled, when can I make an appointment bud?

Are you willing to come to Russia, comrade?

In mother Russia, we pull teeth with our bare hands. I don't think a puny American like you could handle it.

[JWizmentality]

I need my wisdom teeth pulled, when can I make an appointment bud?

Are you willing to come to Russia, comrade?

In mother Russia, we pull teeth with our bare hands. I don't think a puny American like you could handle it.

Good thing I'm not an American.

[popper]

...and with this, we are officially living under a Dictatorial government, enabled by a feckless party.

No. We are officially living under a Constitutional Republic where an independent judiciary is called upon from time to time to adjudicate differing interpretations of law. The courts will decide what is required under the law on this issue just as they have been doing on other related issues for past 200 plus years.

You cannot compel a former employee to keep his mouth shut. There is no attorney/client privilege. You have a very corrupted view of the law.

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

[TGW]

I need my wisdom teeth pulled, when can I make an appointment bud?

Are you willing to come to Russia, comrade?

In mother Russia, we pull teeth with our bare hands. I don't think a puny American like you could handle it.

Good thing I'm not an American.

LOL so you're another version of Pointgod.

Where are you from JWiz?

[Pointgod]

No. We are officially living under a Constitutional Republic where an independent judiciary is called upon from time to time to adjudicate differing interpretations of law. The courts will decide what is required under the law on this issue just as they have been doing on other related issues for past 200 plus years.

You cannot compel a former employee to keep his mouth shut. There is no attorney/client privilege. You have a very corrupted view of the law.

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

Do you believe that Trump should be free to commit crimes without consequences?

[Pointgod]

So Biden is actually going for it. Interesting to see how him Bernie and Buttigieg split voters because there’s a lot of cross over there.

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

So Biden is actually going for it. Interesting to see how him Bernie and Buttigieg split voters because there’s a lot of cross over there.

Not to mention Beto and Harris as well. I guess you also have Sanders, Warren, Yang and (Booker?).

It is a very crowded field for sure.

[FAH1223]

Stoller is very critical on the Obama administration and it is with merit. With that said, Dem primary voters have a romanticized view of Obama years but Biden's record in the Senate has huge red flags for a primary and a general election. He voted for NAFTA, Iraq War, Bankruptcy bills to help credit card companies and student debt lenders, Wall Street deregulation, authorised the 1994 Crime Bill, etc..

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dobrojim]

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

What DJT is doing, saying the WH will ignore all subpoenas, is unprecedented in recent history.
The 'request' for tax returns isn't even a supoena, it's a law with no wiggle room.
Trump is basically saying any oversight is a partisan operation and therefore he can ignore it.

All Americans should be both terrified and horrified by this behavior.
Saying oversight is not appropriate because you, the requestors of documents
and/or testimony, are partisan is beside the point.

I'm glad you can admit Trump is a liar but that's really only the beginning.
You have levels of corruption not seen since Teapot dome. You have
an ongoing threat to Natl security with a POTUS who would rather believe
Putin than the heads of US intelligence, who gives high level security clearances
to relatives who would otherwise never obtain them, who is almost completely
ignorant of much of the Constitution, who thinks ethical restraints are for other
people, not for him. Gracious!

[popper]

You cannot compel a former employee to keep his mouth shut. There is no attorney/client privilege. You have a very corrupted view of the law.

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

Do you believe that Trump should be free to commit crimes without consequences?

Of course not. Presumably the special counsel and his army of prosecutors would have made any criminal referrals they deemed appropriate. It looks like they didn’t find anything prosecutable regarding Trump so the investigation ended and now it’s in the political arena pending D decisions on impeachment.

[popper]

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

What DJT is doing, saying the WH will ignore all subpoenas, is unprecedented in recent history.
The 'request' for tax returns isn't even a supoena, it's a law with no wiggle room.
Trump is basically saying any oversight is a partisan operation and therefore he can ignore it.

All Americans should be both terrified and horrified by this behavior.
Saying oversight is not appropriate because you, the requestors of documents
and/or testimony, are partisan is beside the point.

I'm glad you can admit Trump is a liar but that's really only the beginning.
You have levels of corruption not seen since Teapot dome. You have
an ongoing threat to Natl security with a POTUS who would rather believe
Putin than the heads of US intelligence, who gives high level security clearances
to relatives who would otherwise never obtain them, who is almost completely
ignorant of much of the Constitution, who thinks ethical restraints are for other
people, not for him. Gracious!

I don't think it's unprecedented. As I mentioned, we have a legal system in place to sort things out.

Nov 5, 2011
WH rejects subpoena request for Solyndra docs
byPhilip Klein Senior Editorial Writer

President Obama's attorney sent a letter to Congressional investigators on Friday, saying the White House would not cooperate with a subpoena requesting documents related to its doling out a $535 million loan guarantee to now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.

"I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation," Obama's counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee. (Read Ruemmler's full letter here).

https://247sports.com/college/usc/Board/59419/Contents/Obstructionist-Obama-refuses-subpoena-6322568/


More Congressional Subpoenas Ignored by the Obama Administration

Washington D.C., September 11, 2014

This week in a House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Doug Lamborn grilled the Department of the Interior's Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall. Deputy IG Kendall has failed to fully respond to lawful Congressional subpoenas and has misled the committee in previous testimony.

https://lamborn.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=899


McCain Slams Obama for Ignoring Subpoenas

By Dan Weil | Tuesday, 18 June 2013 01:28 PM


Sen. John McCain blasted President Barack Obama Monday for allowing administration officials to ignore congressional subpoenas for information and for setting up private email accounts to conduct government business out of public view.

"Your administration’s disdain towards congressional authority and its failure to disclose public records feeds into its adversarial relationship with Congress and fuels public distrust in government," the Arizona Republican wrote in a letter Monday to the president.


https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain-subpoenas-obama-emails/2013/06/18/id/510535/

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[gtn130]

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

Do you believe that Trump should be free to commit crimes without consequences?

Of course not. Presumably the special counsel and his army of prosecutors would have made any criminal referrals they deemed appropriate. It looks like they didn’t find anything prosecutable regarding Trump so the investigation ended and now it’s in the political arena pending D decisions on impeachment.

This is not an accurate reading. Mueller declined to make any prosecutorial judgments and left it to congress.

[popper]

Do you believe that Trump should be free to commit crimes without consequences?

Of course not. Presumably the special counsel and his army of prosecutors would have made any criminal referrals they deemed appropriate. It looks like they didn’t find anything prosecutable regarding Trump so the investigation ended and now it’s in the political arena pending D decisions on impeachment.

This is not an accurate reading. Mueller declined to make any prosecutorial judgments and left it to congress.

So if Mueller declined to make any prosecutable judgements doesn’t that mean he was not confident that a crime was committed by Trump. Otherwise wouldn’t he have made a criminal referral to the AG. Obviously I’m no expert on the special counsel laws but it would seem to me if he discovered criminal activity by Trump he would report that conclusion to the AG.

[gtn130]

Of course not. Presumably the special counsel and his army of prosecutors would have made any criminal referrals they deemed appropriate. It looks like they didn’t find anything prosecutable regarding Trump so the investigation ended and now it’s in the political arena pending D decisions on impeachment.

This is not an accurate reading. Mueller declined to make any prosecutorial judgments and left it to congress.

So if Mueller declined to make any prosecutable judgements doesn’t that mean he was not confident that a crime was committed by Trump. Otherwise wouldn’t he have made a criminal referral to the AG. Obviously I’m no expert on the special counsel laws but it would seem to me if he discovered criminal activity by Trump he would report that conclusion to the AG.

From what I understand he didn't think it was his role to make prosecutorial decisions. He outlined the events that could constitute obstruction, and left it for congress to decide.

[popper]

This is not an accurate reading. Mueller declined to make any prosecutorial judgments and left it to congress.

So if Mueller declined to make any prosecutable judgements doesn’t that mean he was not confident that a crime was committed by Trump. Otherwise wouldn’t he have made a criminal referral to the AG. Obviously I’m no expert on the special counsel laws but it would seem to me if he discovered criminal activity by Trump he would report that conclusion to the AG.

From what I understand he didn't think it was his role to make prosecutorial decisions. He outlined the events that could constitute obstruction, and left it for congress to decide.

Gotcha.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Pointgod]

So if Mueller declined to make any prosecutable judgements doesn’t that mean he was not confident that a crime was committed by Trump. Otherwise wouldn’t he have made a criminal referral to the AG. Obviously I’m no expert on the special counsel laws but it would seem to me if he discovered criminal activity by Trump he would report that conclusion to the AG.

From what I understand he didn't think it was his role to make prosecutorial decisions. He outlined the events that could constitute obstruction, and left it for congress to decide.

Gotcha.

Popper.

Overall the report outlined 11 episodes involving Trump and legal questions about obstruction of justice.

“The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgement,” the report said. “At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

Mueller pointedly wrote in the introduction to the section of the report dealing with obstruction that the report did not “exonerate” Trump. Mueller also wrote that he didn’t try to come to a conclusion about the president’s innocence or guilt because of a longstanding Justice Department policy that prevents a sitting president from being charged and put on trial — which he saw himself as bound by.

The authority to prohibit a president’s corrupt use of power, the report finds, is essential to “our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

All this is detailed and laid out in Mueller’s report. This is literally Congress’ job to investigate what Mueller couldn’t. Trump ignoring subpoenas or blocking people from testifying is saying he’s above the law and like clogs said that’s no different from a dictator.

[closg00]

No. We are officially living under a Constitutional Republic where an independent judiciary is called upon from time to time to adjudicate differing interpretations of law. The courts will decide what is required under the law on this issue just as they have been doing on other related issues for past 200 plus years.

You cannot compel a former employee to keep his mouth shut. There is no attorney/client privilege. You have a very corrupted view of the law.

I’m not really qualified to judge what may or may not be legal on this issue. I’m not a lawyer and that’s why I posted that the courts will determine the outcome (assuming it goes that far). As a general matter, people are frequently constrained from speaking freely either through NDA’s, confidentiality laws, court orders, etc.

The main point of my response was to highlight closg’s hyperbole with regard to “dictatorial government.”

The current government, at the direction of Donald Trump, has sent the word out to NOT comply to LAWFUL requests by a co-equal branch of the government, they are essentially lawless and unaccountable to no one. The few left with any principles (Don McGahn) resign rather than do Trumps dirty-work. Mob Boss Presidency