So if he's scared and wants to quit does that make him a chicken Schiff?
Law Nancy Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry over President Trump's Ukraine phone call -
- Thread starter HTTP Error 404
- Start date
Also Beto set the gungrabbers back 10 years, minimum, 20 or 30 more likely.
Arkancide Pact
kiwifarms.net
Oh, right, good point. He was embarrassing for saying the quiet part out loud. He might, in fact, be the main reason for the new phenomenon of 2nd amendment sanctuary counties.
With that in mind, Ralph Northram. Reelected despite multiple instances of actual blackface. Said, out loud, on air, under his proposed law a baby could be aborted post birth. That shocked some fence sitters away from the "unlimited abortions" side. Gonna make it pretty hard for Dems to yell racism at the repubs while sticking with that guy.
Nice meme, in reality Northam finally has control of the legislature and is cracking down on certain elements in the state, telling Trump that the state is ready for more refugees, and has announced that Virginia is now a blue state. His political future is looking bright and you're still stuck calling him racist while he is getting ready to use his new political power to change the state forever.
Arkancide Pact
kiwifarms.net
So he won the election, now his embarrassments don't count? How does that dispute any of what I said?
But you're totally not a lefty. You just cheerlead Northram and the Dems taking control of va...
Anyway, his election despite a history of blackface makes it hard for Dems to claim the moral high ground on racism. His insane statements on abortion are being weaponized by the pro life movement.
It doesn't matter if you have the high moral ground, you are losing politically in the long term.
It doesn't matter if he is racist, he was voted in anyway because he had a D next to his name.
But sure, lets see the pro life movement make a few more videos to own the libs and watch as every other state shares the fate Virginia did.
Arkancide Pact
kiwifarms.net
What are you on about? I was making a list of embarrassing Dems. Why are you so triggered by me considering Northram part of that list? What the fuck do you want from me here?
Just admit all these moral victories you brag about don't actually go anywhere.
The Dems are years beyond caring about being embarrassed; They are raping my State's laws as you speak and you brag about """"moral victories"""".
Arkancide Pact
kiwifarms.net
You're clearly hysterical, try to find an adult to slap you until the condition abates.
What you're doing is called "lashing out", or, less charitably, acting like a exceptional monkey flinging shit everywhere. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing besides making a fool of yourself...
Ok Corb(in)oomer.
Conservatives need to start evangelizing again and stop this sjw on its tracts. Maybe they will get it "right" this time.
That would be hubris and would certainly backfire.
If the GOP didn't lose on the road they're certainly not going to lose at home.
Should have gone full impeachment and then gone home and fucked their wives or watching their wives getting fucked by the BBC. Either way, democrats should have just voted for impeachment months ago rather than letting this drag on. Was it Moore or that bald black guy on CNN, that screamed white lash, that neoliberals keep wavering while the far left was already on the impeachment bandwagon.
In Botched Impeachment Attempt, Dems Accidentally Elect Donald J. Trump as President for Life
I think the Dems are starting to realize that while quitters never win and winners never quit, those who never win and never quit are just exceptional.
Except that was never the goal.
It can't be said enough, Trump releasing the transcript ruined everything they had lined up, but they went ahead anyway.
What was supposed to happen was Schiff would start his closed-door hearings (they had to be secret to protect the whistleblower from the trolls and Nazis) and heading into 2020, every time Drumpf had a good speech, or an inconvenient gaffe or scandal subsumed a Democratic candidate....
Presto! Another bombshell leak from the Trump impeachment hearings about what's REALLY in that phone call is released by the MSM to drown it all out....
Trump saw this coming and decided to cut them off at the start and released everything and said "If you've got evidence otherwise, I wanna see it in the Senate NOW!"
This ruined it all, just like how a AAA game studio's big monetization plans and staggered microtransaction/DLC release "roadmaps" get torpedoed by an awful buggy initial release and gamer pushback.
They never wanted to vote on it, they wanted it hanging over his head for all of the 2020 campaign.
Trump ruined it.
And rather than admit he beat them, they made it worse by going through with it anyway, just swapping "Collusion/quid pro bono!/bribery!" for those "leaks" , hoping to salvage that cloud over his head for 2020 by other means, and it just is not going to work.
Impeachment was never the goal, it was always about ensuring the faithful that they had him at last!
XtrmGamr719
kiwifarms.net
They're losing a checkers match against Trump and he's not even in the same state as them.
Have hope, Resistance! Cry in anguish, Trumptards! Because a heroic federal judge has stepped up, to remind Trump that he isn't a king!
A recent court ruling could open the floodgates and let Congress haul in all of Trump's allies who have refused to testify in the impeachment inquiry
President Donald Trump.Reuters/Yuri Gripas
This week, a federal judge came down with a momentous ruling that may throw a wrench in Trump's efforts and allow Congress to haul in all the firsthand witnesses who have so far refused to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling on Monday was related to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to Don McGahn, the former White House counsel who was a star witness in the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
McGahn refused to comply with the subpoena at the White House's direction, and the House committee took him to court to compel his testimony. Congressional lawyers argued that they had a legitimate right to call Trump's aides to testify, as part of Congress' oversight powers. The White House argued that McGahn and other current and former White House and executive-branch officials had "absolute immunity" from testifying.
There is no legal concept called "absolute immunity." And though the Justice Department said it would appeal, Jackson's ruling on Monday dropped a hammer on the White House's argument, making it that much more difficult for Trump to keep stonewalling Congress in its impeachment inquiry.
Don McGahn.Associated Press
'Presidents are not kings'
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings," Jackson's ruling said. "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."
She continued: "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
"Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life."
Though Jackson's ruling was made in McGahn's case specifically, it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the president. This is because it creates a precedent for Congress to rely on as it weighs whether to call other key witnesses with knowledge about matters related to the impeachment inquiry.
House Democrats are examining whether the president abused his power by using his public office for private gain with respect to Ukraine. Specifically, they're looking into Trump's efforts to strongarm Ukraine into launching investigations that would benefit the president politically while he held up vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukraine's president desperately sought.
Trump and his allies have maintained that there was no quid pro quo, but a cascade of witness testimony has painted a damning picture of the president's months-long pressure campaign of leveraging US foreign policy while soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election.
Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in New York in September.AP Photo/Evan Vucci
House Judiciary Committee signals it may use Jackson's ruling to haul in all the top executive-branch officials who have refused to testify
Over a dozen witnesses have so far testified before Congress. But the president has defended himself in recent weeks by saying - falsely - that none of the people who have spoken with lawmakers has "firsthand" knowledge of the events under investigation.
It's certainly true that some of the witnesses don't have firsthand information. Trump could easily solve that problem, however, by reversing his directive to top executive-branch officials at the center of the Ukraine scandal not to comply with Congress' subpoenas.
Like in McGahn's case, Trump and White House lawyers have argued that these witnesses are immune from testifying in what they characterized as a partisan and unconstitutional inquiry.
Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John Bolton, the former national security adviser, are three of the witnesses who have refused to appear before Congress on Trump's orders.
Bolton's lawyer has said he'll testify if a judge rules that the subpoena overrides the White House's orders, and Mulvaney and Pompeo have unilaterally refused to show up, out of deference to Trump.
But Jackson's ruling could open the door for Congress to haul in all these witnesses - and more.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled this week that he may well go down that route.
"I am pleased the court has recognized that the Trump Administration has no grounds to withhold critical witness testimony from the House during its impeachment inquiry," he said in a statement after Jackson's ruling was made public.
Nadler added: "Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and the Administration's claim that officials can claim 'absolute immunity' from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today."
NOW WATCH: Popular Videos from Insider Inc.
Also Sondland is getting thrown under the bus. I wonder why.
www.nydailynews.com
A recent court ruling could open the floodgates and let Congress haul in all of Trump's allies who have refused to testify in the impeachment inquiry
A federal judge ruled that the former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify in the impeachment inquiry, adding that "presidents are not kings."
amp.businessinsider.com
A recent court ruling could open the floodgates and let Congress haul in all of Trump's allies who have refused to testify in the impeachment inquiry
- Sonam Sheth
- Nov 28, 2019, 12:09 PM
- A federal judge this week threw a wrench into President Donald Trump's strategy of stonewalling Congress by ordering witnesses not to comply with subpoenas.
- That strategy is based on a nonexistent legal theory claiming "absolute immunity" from legislative oversight.
- In ruling that the former White House counsel Don McGahn must comply with a congressional hearing in the impeachment inquiry, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings."
- The Justice Department said it would appeal Jackson's ruling.
- But as of now, the decision not only means McGahn will have to testify, but allows Congress to haul in the multitude of firsthand witnesses who have refused to comply with subpoenas at Trump's orders.
- Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled that he may very well go down that route.
- "I am pleased the court has recognized that the Trump Administration has no grounds to withhold critical witness testimony from the House during its impeachment inquiry," Nadler said after the ruling.
- Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.
This week, a federal judge came down with a momentous ruling that may throw a wrench in Trump's efforts and allow Congress to haul in all the firsthand witnesses who have so far refused to testify in the impeachment inquiry.
US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling on Monday was related to a House Judiciary Committee subpoena to Don McGahn, the former White House counsel who was a star witness in the special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation.
McGahn refused to comply with the subpoena at the White House's direction, and the House committee took him to court to compel his testimony. Congressional lawyers argued that they had a legitimate right to call Trump's aides to testify, as part of Congress' oversight powers. The White House argued that McGahn and other current and former White House and executive-branch officials had "absolute immunity" from testifying.
There is no legal concept called "absolute immunity." And though the Justice Department said it would appeal, Jackson's ruling on Monday dropped a hammer on the White House's argument, making it that much more difficult for Trump to keep stonewalling Congress in its impeachment inquiry.
'Presidents are not kings'
"Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings," Jackson's ruling said. "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."
She continued: "Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the people of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
"Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life."
Though Jackson's ruling was made in McGahn's case specifically, it is likely to have far-reaching consequences for the president. This is because it creates a precedent for Congress to rely on as it weighs whether to call other key witnesses with knowledge about matters related to the impeachment inquiry.
House Democrats are examining whether the president abused his power by using his public office for private gain with respect to Ukraine. Specifically, they're looking into Trump's efforts to strongarm Ukraine into launching investigations that would benefit the president politically while he held up vital military aid and a White House meeting that Ukraine's president desperately sought.
Trump and his allies have maintained that there was no quid pro quo, but a cascade of witness testimony has painted a damning picture of the president's months-long pressure campaign of leveraging US foreign policy while soliciting foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election.
House Judiciary Committee signals it may use Jackson's ruling to haul in all the top executive-branch officials who have refused to testify
Over a dozen witnesses have so far testified before Congress. But the president has defended himself in recent weeks by saying - falsely - that none of the people who have spoken with lawmakers has "firsthand" knowledge of the events under investigation.
It's certainly true that some of the witnesses don't have firsthand information. Trump could easily solve that problem, however, by reversing his directive to top executive-branch officials at the center of the Ukraine scandal not to comply with Congress' subpoenas.
Like in McGahn's case, Trump and White House lawyers have argued that these witnesses are immune from testifying in what they characterized as a partisan and unconstitutional inquiry.
Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, and John Bolton, the former national security adviser, are three of the witnesses who have refused to appear before Congress on Trump's orders.
Bolton's lawyer has said he'll testify if a judge rules that the subpoena overrides the White House's orders, and Mulvaney and Pompeo have unilaterally refused to show up, out of deference to Trump.
But Jackson's ruling could open the door for Congress to haul in all these witnesses - and more.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled this week that he may well go down that route.
"I am pleased the court has recognized that the Trump Administration has no grounds to withhold critical witness testimony from the House during its impeachment inquiry," he said in a statement after Jackson's ruling was made public.
Nadler added: "Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and the Administration's claim that officials can claim 'absolute immunity' from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today."
- Read more:
- Think Trump will get impeached? Gambling sites say the odds are in your favor
- Trump could be impeached and removed from office but still win reelection in 2020
- Over half of the House of Representatives support the impeachment inquiry against Trump - see all of them here
- Everything you need to know about Trump's impeachment process: What's happened, who the players are, and what comes next
NOW WATCH: Popular Videos from Insider Inc.
Also Sondland is getting thrown under the bus. I wonder why.
Key Trump impeachment witness Gordon Sondland accused of sexual misconduct, retaliation
Gordon Sondland, the Trump-appointed European Union ambassador at the center of the House impeachment inquiry, is facing accusations that he forcibly kissed and exposed himself in front of three women over a decade ago.
- Tags
- None