Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1101  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:19 AM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,325
It could be legal strategy, or just politics (or certainly both) - the steadier the flow of evidence of the administration's lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution, the harder it will be for the loyalists to deny it.
  #1102  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:35 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
It could be legal strategy, or just politics (or certainly both) - the steadier the flow of evidence of the administration's lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution, the harder it will be for the loyalists to deny it.
You underestimate the ability of Trump loyalists to deny anything they want to deny, right down to Trump shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.
  #1103  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:41 AM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
It was a set-up both ways. WH lawyer was there to invoke blanket immunity or whatever the fuck they asserted. Dems needed them to do that before they could go take the issue to court.
But I thought they wanted them to invoke executive privilege, which I don't think they actually did. Just some nonsense about blanket immunity. If I were the whatever Dem group is responsible, I would vote for immediate contempt with immediate penalties unless they expressly claim executive privilege.

It's lately seeming to me that Congress is the only branch that doesn't hand out punitive measures to people that deliberately thwart it's will and purview. Executive has the justice department, Judicial has contempt that they make use of, Congress is just a lot of sound and fury. I think a few examples need to be made.
  #1104  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:09 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
It was a set-up both ways. WH lawyer was there to invoke blanket immunity or whatever the fuck they asserted. Dems needed them to do that before they could go take the issue to court.
"Absolute immunity," which I learned is an actual thing— but which (in line with some of the recurring themes of this thread) appears to mean roughly the opposite of what they are using it to mean.
  #1105  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:59 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
"Absolute immunity," which I learned is an actual thing— but which (in line with some of the recurring themes of this thread) appears to mean roughly the opposite of what they are using it to mean.
Well, yeah, absolute immunity from prosecution is a thing.

But the WH is trying to claim absolute immunity from talking, lol.
  #1106  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:11 AM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 995
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
Well, yeah, absolute immunity from prosecution is a thing.

But the WH is trying to claim absolute immunity from talking, lol.
Further, the president has absolute immunity from civil prosecution (Nixon v Fitzgerald). Other positions may have qualified immunity. Even if they were using "absolute immunity" correctly, Hope wouldn't qualify.
  #1107  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:20 PM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
The problem is, they haven't asserted executive privilege yet.

So Dems go get "absolute immunity" thrown out in court and get her back in there.

So maybe she goes back and the WH lawyer asserts executive privilege this time. Round 2.

Or worse:

MR. NADLER: Now Ms. Hicks, if you don't mind, would you state the dates you were employed at The White House?
MR. WHATEVER: Ms, Hicks, don't answer. Mr Nadler, as you know, Ms. Hicks has absolut immunity and chooses not not answer that question.
MR. NADLER: What absolute immunity, we got that thrown out last week.
MR WHATEVER: Not absolute, absolut. We dropped the e at the end. She has absolut immunity.
MR. NADLER: Are you fuckin' shittin' me?
MR WHATEVER: No sir.
  #1108  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:54 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnwittingAmericans View Post
The problem is, they haven't asserted executive privilege yet.

So Dems go get "absolute immunity" thrown out in court and get her back in there.

So maybe she goes back and the WH lawyer asserts executive privilege this time. Round 2.

Or worse:

MR. NADLER: Now Ms. Hicks, if you don't mind, would you state the dates you were employed at The White House?
MR. WHATEVER: Ms, Hicks, don't answer. Mr Nadler, as you know, Ms. Hicks has absolut immunity and chooses not not answer that question.
MR. NADLER: What absolute immunity, we got that thrown out last week.
MR WHATEVER: Not absolute, absolut. We dropped the e at the end. She has absolut immunity.
MR. NADLER: Are you fuckin' shittin' me?
MR WHATEVER: No sir.
I wouldn't put it past the Trump people to pull b.s. of that caliber, but remember we've already seen some examples of federal judges expressing a lack of appreciation for Trump Administration hijinks. And it's entirely possible to being too cute by half will result in one or more Trump associates facing jail time. Ignoring Congressional subpoenas on specious grounds won't result in mere hand-slaps.

Hicks and her fellow-travelers are taking a real risk by going along with Donald's stonewalling instructions.
  #1109  
Old 06-21-2019, 02:53 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I wouldn't put it past the Trump people to pull b.s. of that caliber, but remember we've already seen some examples of federal judges expressing a lack of appreciation for Trump Administration hijinks. And it's entirely possible to being too cute by half will result in one or more Trump associates facing jail time. Ignoring Congressional subpoenas on specious grounds won't result in mere hand-slaps.

Hicks and her fellow-travelers are taking a real risk by going along with Donald's stonewalling instructions.
I don't know...as long as they show up, they're not ignoring the subpoena. I don't think a judge can issue an order that says a witness has to answer every question they're asked, so where does the merry-go-round of non-thing roadblocks end?
  #1110  
Old 06-21-2019, 08:19 AM
UnwittingAmericans is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 374
Interesting. This is immediately following the WH lawyer stopping Hicks from talking and citing absolute immunity.

Chairman Nadler. No, no, I asked are you asserting any specific privilege, like executive privilege or anything else, or are you just simply asserting the absolute immunity that Mr. Purpura just announced?

Mr. Trout (Hicks's personal attorney). Mr. Chairman, if I could say. She is not in a position to -- she's not a government employee, and she's not in a position to exercise any privilege, so she is --

Chairman Nadler. So she is not asserting?

Mr. Trout. She is not asserting privilege. It's not her privilege to assert. And so she is simply following the guidance of the White House.


That's what my original take was - the WH can't shut her up, it's her decision. So they can go and contest absolute immunity if they want to, but they shouldn't really have to. If they want to proceed directly against Hope Hicks for refusing to answer, they can.
  #1111  
Old 06-21-2019, 11:12 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,603
Not that it's directly germane to this line of inquiry, but if you want to get really, really mad over this Hope Hicks inquiry, check out what's happening to a whistle-blower who revealed evidence of American war crimes and is now refusing a grand jury's attempt to make her testify against her allies. It's a bit fucked.
__________________
The United States is currently running a series of concentration camps at the border. If you support or defend this, you're a monster and we cannot be friends.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017