WWTBAM Bored

So...why not Nussbaum? Or Foster? Oh. That's right, one is 80 plus, one is deceased.
Gosh.

Gotta get sarcafont.

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

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.

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 ... ump-probes

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?

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.

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

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

So why not have Nussbaum testify?

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

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?

Are you retarded?

Beebs52 wrote:Are you retarded?

He suffers from the same brain injury as polly does.

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.

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.

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.

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.