Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn, described as a “star witness”, has been subpoenaed to testify before Congress. Yesterday on Youtube was posted his recent one-hour address and Q&A with the Oxford Union.
Don McGahn is the new John Dean.
Hell, perhaps we could get 25 countries around the world to each purchase a Republican Senator.
They could even put it on their business cards;
“Senator Smith, (R) representing Finland”
“Senator Jones (R), representing Brazil”
The purpose of the report is to present the evidence, and it does. It’s up to cingress to impeach him or the Attorney General, either of the USA or, as applicable, a state, to press charges.
In any event, they found quite a lot of evidence of obstruction rising well past the point at which an honest person would feel Trump should be impeached - which is an action against high crimes and misdemeanors, not an action against a criminal offense.
Ah, the George Washington effect. (Thanks.)
So Trump can’t be indicted because the DoJ policy is written in stone, BUT the clock can’t be stopped on the basis that the DoJ policy is written in stone, because the DoJ policy is not actually written in stone but instead is purely a matter of custom and tradition.
Nice for Trump!
No, you see, the law says some things that we are expected to adhere to. But the law is effected by the AG, a fleshy thing, who is appointed by the president, another fleshy thing. The AG makes the high-level decisions about how to properly and effectively implement the law, so, no matter what the code says, it must go through the fleshy thing in order to be effected.
If your wife is pulled over for doing 80 in a 50 zone, her citation is based on the judgement of the officer. If he rapports with her, or maybe she flashes a tit or whatever, the officer might decide to just give her a stern lecture about leaving for work a bit earlier so that she does not have to speed. The police are supposed to enforce the law, not decide innocence or guilt, but they have a lot of latitude for the latter, because the law cannot be enforced without them.
So, the president chooses the guy who prosecutes federal crimes, which means he can choose the guy who will be all hands-off wrt him and his friends. It is a sort of honor system, which really does fail when you put a guy in there who thinks “honor” is a sexual position.
In light of this subpoena, and the subsequent claim by the America-hating fuckstick that executive privilege permits him to forbid the testimony, what are the legal repercussions McGahn would face, were he to testify anyway?
Hell, the House could impeach a president because they didn’t like the color of his tie if they wanted to; breaking a law is not necessary. As we found out with Andy Johnson and Bill Clinton, though, without a Senate willing to convict impeachment does not mean a whole lot. With the current Senate I doubt it would convict any impeachment the House charged Donny Two-scoops with.
This could be problematic: Michael Cohen disavows parts of guilty plea in recorded phone call with Tom Arnold
Trump’s own lawyer is so stupid he doesn’t know the HELOC issue is money laundering, not insolvency.
In a few days… maybe hours… we’ll see a story where Cohen’s attorneys filed a motion stating that their client’s comments were “emotional ventings” made to a “personal friend”, and not a statement of fact, that their client is still “deeply sorry…” etc.
The current state of affairs appears to be that Trump obstructed justice, making it impossible to definitely prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia, and is using that lack of definitive prove of an underlying crime to prove that Trump did not obstruct justice.
Awesome.
It was a “soft coup” attempt, no criminal conspiracy with Russia despite many claiming they had evidence of such. Now it’s time to investigate the people behind the “soft coup” and the false “narrative”.
Hail Trump! If Trump says it it must be true! The Mueller report cleared Trump and also the Mueller report is filled with Dem lies! The Mueller report is a full exoneration of Trump and much of it must be kept secret forever!
“Soft coup” isn’t really a term with any meaning. “Coup” normally implies illegitimacy, but when you modify it like this, you soften the implication. I gather by “soft coup” you mean “lawful investigation into suspicious conduct.” So, why should we be starting an investigation of the investigators?
And months or years from now, after the investigation finds no evidence of crimes, I trust you will return to this thread to concede that everyone from Obama to Hillary to Comey down to the lowliest FBI pencil-pusher was completely exonerated of all wrongdoing, and that the investigation was a politically motivated witch hunt, as well as a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Can we mark you down for that?
At that point, based on precedent, we’d have to start investigating those investigators who investigate Obama and Hillary for investigating.
The “investigate the investigators” idea reminds me of a scene involving “sectioning” - committing someone to a psychiatric institution for mental health reasons - from the comedy Peep Show.
Those investigators have been sacked.
I think that needs to be investigated.
It’s investigations all the way down!
Thise who are pushing the “soft coup” narrative, if you believe the Mueller investigation (which, after all, was launched by the Department of Justice) was illegal in some way, feel free to cite the statute or statutes that you believe were violated.