Jump to content
WillFranklin

Why Didn't Trump Allow Bolton, Giuliani And Mulvaney To Testify?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, neilcar said:

No they have not. You just made that up. 

 

The law itself allows the committees to subpoena in that instance.

 

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

 

It was important for the House to enhance the judiciary committee’s subpoena powers in 1974 and 1998 because of the state of the chamber’s rules at the time. In 1974, only a few House committees had subpoena power under the rules of the House—though other committees, including the judiciary committee, were granted subpoena authority through separate investigative authorizing resolutions reported from the House Committee on Rules in each Congress. As part of broader reforms to the committee system that took effect in 1975, the House provided all committees with subpoena power as part of the rules. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, kfools said:

 

 

That is called an illegal cover-up.

 

After your vacuum cleaner video we all knew you had no shame though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

 

That is called an illegal cover-up.

 

After your vacuum cleaner video we all knew you had no shame though.

Man, you are talking about the video I shot from my massive house that I own, even though I am half your age? That video? 

 

Hey you should make a video and compare your house to mine. That might be fun lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kfools said:

Man, you are talking about the video I shot from my massive house that I own, even though I am half your age? That video? 

 

Hey you should make a video and compare your house to mine. That might be fun lol. 

 

Mine is five minutes to the Atlantic Ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 9:54 AM, WillFranklin said:

Why didn't Trump allow Bolton, Giuliani, and Mulvaney to testify?

 

I don't know about the other guys BUT Bolton borrowed Trump's golf clubs and never returned them.

 

Understandably Trump is still pissed off about it.

 

BTW: Without sorting thru everything...(if you don't have me on shun) can you tell me how Trump forced them not to testify ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 9:54 AM, WillFranklin said:

As we vote on impeachment, and Republicans claim there is no evidence, then the question arises:

 

Why didn't Trump allow Bolton, Giuliani, and Mulvaney to testify?

 

I know the answer.

 

 

We don't need any more potheads voting on impeachment than we already have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, laton said:

 

Mine is five minutes to the Atlantic Ocean.

Great, the coldest craptiest ocean ever. Good job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 7:35 AM, benson13 said:

Allow me to spell it out for you;

 

GUILTY

 

AS SIN💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, fourputt said:

AS SIN💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀

 

Let's get one thing straight.

The GOP Tribe...….can whip......The Dem Tribe.

 

Are we clear?                  👨‍✈️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I think it will be better for Republicans to vote against witnesses so everyone can see what they were blocking when Bolton's book comes out since they obviously will note vote to remove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

 

The subpoenas were valid. The federal courts have already ruled on that precedent.

Better check again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/18/2019 at 9:54 AM, WillFranklin said:

As we vote on impeachment, and Republicans claim there is no evidence, then the question arises:

 

Why didn't Trump allow Bolton, Giuliani, and Mulvaney to testify?

 

I know the answer.

 

Trump-Impeach.jpg

Executive privilege 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, WillFranklin said:

The second reason why executive privilege does not apply in the impeachment context flows from the Supreme Court’s 1974 decision in United States v. Nixon. There, the court considered the question whether the privilege protected from disclosure information sought in connection with an ongoing federal criminal proceeding

 

Does not apply to the Trump impeachment.  There is no "ongoing federal criminal proceeding".  Fact is, the federal courts have never ruled on a claim of executive privilege when the ONLY investigation is impeachment.  Besides, that process has concluded...we are in the Senate trial phase of the process.  Executive privilege has never been claimed related to an impeachment TRIAL.  Trump can make it, leaving it up to the Senate to challenge his claim in court if they so choose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Does not apply to the Trump impeachment.  There is no "ongoing federal criminal proceeding".  Fact is, the federal courts have never ruled on a claim of executive privilege when the ONLY investigation is impeachment.  Besides, that process has concluded...we are in the Senate trial phase of the process.  Executive privilege has never been claimed related to an impeachment TRIAL.  Trump can make it, leaving it up to the Senate to challenge his claim in court if they so choose.

 

 

The precedent itself was from an impeachment.

 

You are a desperate idiot that will do anything to cover up corruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

The precedent itself was from an impeachment.

 

You are a desperate idiot that will do anything to cover up corruption.

 

Did you even read what YOU posted.  It said the ruling decided if executive privilege allowed protection from disclosing information related to an ongoing federal criminal investigation.  Please point to the "ongoing federal criminal investigation" currently underway involving Trump.  Beside, the House investigation has concluded.  Please cite where the court has ruled on an executive privilege claim in a Senate trial.  Even if it did apply, it would be up to the Senate if they challenge an executive privilege claim in court...not the House Managers.

 

Liberals don't seem to understand the responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the Senate when it comes to the impeachment process.  Honestly, I doubt you could tell us what their respective responsibilities are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Did you even read what YOU posted.  It said the ruling decided if executive privilege allowed protection from disclosing information related to an ongoing federal criminal investigation.  Please point to the "ongoing federal criminal investigation" currently underway involving Trump.  Beside, the House investigation has concluded.  Please cite where the court has ruled on an executive privilege claim in a Senate trial.  Even if it did apply, it would be up to the Senate if they challenge an executive privilege claim in court...not the House Managers.

 

Liberals don't seem to understand the responsibilities of the House of Representatives and the Senate when it comes to the impeachment process.  Honestly, I doubt you could tell us what their respective responsibilities are.

 

 

Yes we understand. The federal courts have ruled and the subpoenas are valid from a House committee in ANY impeachment investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Yes we understand. The federal courts have ruled and the subpoenas are valid from a House committee in ANY impeachment investigation.

 

Link to court ruling please.

 

Still don't think you can explain the roles of the two chambers during the impeachment process.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

Link to court ruling please.

 

Still don't think you can explain the roles of the two chambers during the impeachment process.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-judge-rules/2019/11/25/6de26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

 

Former Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena, a federal court ruled Monday, finding that “no one is above the law” and that top presidential advisers cannot ignore congressional demands for information. The ruling raises the possibility that McGahn could be forced to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor forum bitch willfranklin doesn't understand the concept of Executive Privilege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-judge-rules/2019/11/25/6de26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

 

Former Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena, a federal court ruled Monday, finding that “no one is above the law” and that top presidential advisers cannot ignore congressional demands for information. The ruling raises the possibility that McGahn could be forced to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

 

That's NOT a court ruling...that is an article (basically an opinion piece).

 

The other story you linked referenced two court cases (both from the Nixon era).   Even the author of that article conceded that the United States v. Nixon ruling did not set a precedent because there is no ongoing criminal investigation involving the requested information/testimony.  The other case is Senate Select Committee v. Nixon.  The problem is, the Senate Select Committee was NOT conducting the impeachment inquiry (the Senate is not empowered to do that).  They were conducting a separate investigation to determine what, if any, additional laws were necessary related to campaign activities.  That committee did turn over information they gathered to the House.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BatteryPowered said:

 

That's NOT a court ruling...

27 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

 

Dumbass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, WillFranklin said:

 

Dumbass.

 

You still haven't provided a link to a COURT RULING that executive privilege does not apply to ALL impeachment inquiries. 

 

FYI...newspaper articles ARE NOT court rulings.

 

Are you ready to admit defeat?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...