If you are talking about the
Do Do Doo Dah Do Do
in the comic, I assumed that it was hail to the chief.
I agree with The_Other_Waldo_Pepper: The Imperial March, just after 15 seconds. It’s most distinctive. And fitting: Darth Drumpf’s theme is sung out of tune, of course.
Congressional subpoenas and criminal subpoenas are different animals.
I don’t see any value in society in propagating the concept that a criminal subpoena is optional.
More’s the pity.
Exactly. The reason they can ignore Congressional subpoenas is that once their guys are in charge, nothing will come of it. If Arizona issues the subpoena, well, that’s a horse of a different color.
I’m confident that if Arizona felt compelled to subpoena them, they will likewise be eager to get their attention should they need to. And they have guys with guns who know what to do if you ignore the state’s friendly invitation.
That’s only partially true. Congress members also enjoy varying levels of immunity and the whole space of Congressional subpoenas rests on a theorized power that’s not actually written down anywhere; it’s an assumed power from their role as overseers. How can you oversee if you can’t ask questions?
No one ever undersees anything. It’s so confusing!
Undersee is a perfectly cromulent and regularly (though not commonly) used word?
Oversee is to watch over. Undersee, as I understand it, is to do the same but maybe with a bit more personal hands-on involvement.
The only downside I see to encouraging them to ignore criminal subpoenas is the potential of overcrowding in jails.
They will most likely invoke immunity through Article 1 of the Constitution.
They [Senators and Representatives] shall, in all cases except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going from and returning to the same.
From some relatively shallow searching, it appears that the case law is a bit mixed on the extent of this immunity, but Congress generally claims broad immunity, even when complying with subpoenas (“We are complying, but we don’t have to”)
True, I forgot about that. That said, I believe that Lindsey Graham tested this theory and it fell through.
Supreme Court says Lindsey Graham must testify in grand jury Georgia election probe : NPR.
Unless they can come up with an alternative legal argument then, given that it’s the exact same matter as Graham’s case dealt with, I don’t see much wiggle room.
Looking at the Graham case, it looks like they can seek to significantly limit the areas of questioning allowed, though.
Reported by Fox, for chrissakes:
If Hankey fails to collect from Trump in the end, is the forgiven debt taxable income or even a campaign contribution?
I believe forgiven debt is viewed as taxable income, but the campaign contribution question is interesting.
Remember world-class twerp Jacob Wohl? Attorney General Letitia James (and Pepperidge Farm) do, and they want money.
Those two are the idiocy that keeps on giving.
You shouldn’t talk about the future White House Press Secretary like that!
“…focus on their families and careers”
These two jerks still have “careers”???
“Careers” = More grifting opportunities. After all, there have to be some MAGATS out there with some pennies in their pocket that Trump hasn’t gotten to yet.