WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:58 am 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:06 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
Gotta get sarcafont.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:21 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.
I'll help you out with the sarcafont.

That's why Congressional Republicans abandoned any efforts to investigate either of the Clintons.

The Mueller Report put Don McGahn in the room when actions occurred that constitute obstruction of justice. The American people need to hear from him. Not what someone -- neither Mueller nor Barr -- say he said. We need to hear from him, directly and under oath. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:29 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.
I'll help you out with the sarcafont.

That's why Congressional Republicans abandoned any efforts to investigate either of the Clintons.

The Mueller Report put Don McGahn in the room when actions occurred that constitute obstruction of justice. The American people need to hear from him. Not what someone -- neither Mueller nor Barr -- say he said. We need to hear from him, directly and under oath. --Bob


Missed my point. John Dean. Interestingly Nussbaum advised Clinton not to appoint independent prosecutor, whose advice he rued not taking.

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 22489
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
Beebs52 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.
I'll help you out with the sarcafont.

That's why Congressional Republicans abandoned any efforts to investigate either of the Clintons.

The Mueller Report put Don McGahn in the room when actions occurred that constitute obstruction of justice. The American people need to hear from him. Not what someone -- neither Mueller nor Barr -- say he said. We need to hear from him, directly and under oath. --Bob


Missed my point. John Dean. Interestingly Nussbaum advised Clinton not to appoint independent prosecutor, whose advice he rued not taking.

Former Nixon aide John Dean testifies of ‘remarkable parallels’ to Watergate, as GOP mocks appearance
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/former-nixon-aide-john-dean-testifies-of-remarkable-parallels-to-watergate-as-dems-ramp-up-trump-probes

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm
Posts: 6411
Location: Great White North
One of the many things I don't understand, is why all these people, ignoring subpoenas, are not being arrested and marched into the chambers. Aren't subpoenas legal demands to appear?

_________________
Lover of Soft Animals and Fine Art
1st annual international BBBL Champeeeeen!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 2:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Atlanta, GA
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.
I'll help you out with the sarcafont.

That's why Congressional Republicans abandoned any efforts to investigate either of the Clintons.

The Mueller Report put Don McGahn in the room when actions occurred that constitute obstruction of justice. The American people need to hear from him. Not what someone -- neither Mueller nor Barr -- say he said. We need to hear from him, directly and under oath. --Bob


I believe there has to be 30 hours of video from McGahn's testimony to Mueller, (of which he probably used about one minute of in his report). Let them have that. And let us have it so we can be sure the cong-dems don't do the same thing as I suspect Mueller's team did.

_________________
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:11 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: By the phone
a1mamacat wrote:
One of the many things I don't understand, is why all these people, ignoring subpoenas, are not being arrested and marched into the chambers. Aren't subpoenas legal demands to appear?
Congress does have "intrinsic authority" to enforce its own subpoenas by having the sergeant at arms take people into custody and bring them to the hearing. The House has made a decision instead to use the alternative method of using the court system to enforce its subpoenas. I'm guessing they believe that enforcing a subpoena that has been "blessed" by the courts will be less controversial than the former alternative. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:14 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.
I'll help you out with the sarcafont.

That's why Congressional Republicans abandoned any efforts to investigate either of the Clintons.

The Mueller Report put Don McGahn in the room when actions occurred that constitute obstruction of justice. The American people need to hear from him. Not what someone -- neither Mueller nor Barr -- say he said. We need to hear from him, directly and under oath. --Bob


I believe there has to be 30 hours of video from McGahn's testimony to Mueller, (of which he probably used about one minute of in his report). Let them have that. And let us have it so we can be sure the cong-dems don't do the same thing as I suspect Mueller's team did.
The Justice Department has apparently agreed today to release to Congress the evidence Mueller had. As long as releasing that material doesn't compromise an ongoing investigation, I have no problem with making it public. But it's been the Justice Department, not Congress, that's been insisting on secrecy. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 5:54 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
So why not have Nussbaum testify?

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 18457
Location: By the phone
Beebs52 wrote:
So why not have Nussbaum testify?
Because as far as I can tell he hasn't served in government for 25 years so there's no reason to think he knows anything about whether Donny did or didn't obstruct justice or whether he did or didn't knowingly accept help from the Russian government to get elected. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:17 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
Bob78164 wrote:
Beebs52 wrote:
So why not have Nussbaum testify?
Because as far as I can tell he hasn't served in government for 25 years so there's no reason to think he knows anything about whether Donny did or didn't obstruct justice or whether he did or didn't knowingly accept help from the Russian government to get elected. --Bob


But Dean does?

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 6:18 pm 
Offline
Queen of Wack
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:38 am
Posts: 10393
Location: Location.Location.Location
Are you retarded?

_________________
Oh please.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 4879
Location: Atlanta, GA
Beebs52 wrote:
Are you retarded?

He suffers from the same brain injury as polly does.

_________________
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Posts: 5279
Location: Charlotte, NC
a1mamacat wrote:
One of the many things I don't understand, is why all these people, ignoring subpoenas, are not being arrested and marched into the chambers. Aren't subpoenas legal demands to appear?


They are for you and me, in the sense that if we did not appear, we would be held in contempt of court or Congress, and punished. On TV, this always means going to jail, but my guess is that sometimes it is a fine or something less telegenic.

The president says that Congress does not have the authority to compel him or his people to appear. It's an interesting notion, one that we don't run up against all that much. Of course, plenty of times, people don't appear when subpeonaed, but it's not out of principle, but because they know they have done something wrong, and don't want to be punished.

_________________
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 10672
Location: In Texas of course!
Ritterskoop wrote:
Of course, plenty of times, people don't appear when subpeonaed, but it's not out of principle, but because they know they have done something wrong, and don't want to be punished.


I compare this to an unlawful search. Many times people refuse to be searched or allow their property to be searched without a warrant, not on principle but because they have something to hide. But that is their right. On the other hand, many times a search warrant is not available because there is not enough enough evidence. "I'm pretty sure he's hiding something illegal" is not enough reason. The same should go for subpoenas. The Mueller investigation is a good case in point. Most of the indictments from the investigation were due to the investigation. Pretty much nothing was found other than wrongful actions resulting from investigation. That is hope of the testimonies being requested. Ask enough questions enough ways over enough time and someone is bound to conflict something they said somewhere sometime. Its rather pathetic and concerning.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 16698
BackInTex wrote:
On the other hand, many times a search warrant is not available because there is not enough enough evidence. "I'm pretty sure he's hiding something illegal" is not enough reason. The same should go for subpoenas.


A subpoena is not a search warrant. A person can't refuse to testify on general principles. They can invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer particular questions.

Our legal system of subpoenas in both civil and criminal cases has worked well for over 200 years. If it's inconvenient or embarrassing for Donald Trump, that's his problem, not the system's.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: WH counsel testimony
PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:31 am
Posts: 6764
Location: Montana
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
On the other hand, many times a search warrant is not available because there is not enough enough evidence. "I'm pretty sure he's hiding something illegal" is not enough reason. The same should go for subpoenas.


A subpoena is not a search warrant. A person can't refuse to testify on general principles. They can invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer particular questions.

Our legal system of subpoenas in both civil and criminal cases has worked well for over 200 years. If it's inconvenient or embarrassing for Donald Trump, that's his problem, not the system's.


I know, right? So much better to delete tens of thousands of emails after having them subpoenaed. :roll:

_________________
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. -Thomas Paine


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.