I don't understand the complaints of Sanders being ineffective for a few reasons. First of all, the primary reason he hasn't been effective is because he is far more progressive than the rest of the senate. However, its been thoroughly demonstrated the majority of citizens in the democratic party are far more progressive than are their representatives in congress. Policies like medicare for all, tuition free college, campaign finance reform, and climate change resolutions all enjoy broad support. I certainly wouldn't bet on him accomplishing all of that, not even the majority of it, but he would push the discussion farther left than any other candidate. Additionally, the President is not a Senator. The President's job is not to legislate. The President has the power to provide some direction for the legislators, but that is it. I don't know how successful Sanders would be as President, but I do know that he would apply pressure to move the country in the direction I would like it to go.
The most important thing about Sanders is that in my perception he is the only candidate that has the potential to excite the democratic base. I don't think any other candidate will get voters out to the voting booths and not only get a democrat elected to president, but also potentially allow democrats to recapture the senate.
So?
I haven't had time to read it. I may need to look at it later since it's been invoked a couple of times...
...But did the ruling apply to those other staff, or just to this individual? Obviously it didn't or a large number of headlines would read quite differently.
The contention is whether Democrats are adequately pursuing their subpoenas in court. I claimed they weren't and you took the opposite view. If you were intellectually honest, you'd respect that.
What the GOP learned from Trump is that the Faithful are more easily deceived than they'd ever imagined. Just lie. They'll believe it.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,788
- 6,041
- 136
Of course it was just McGahn, he was the only one in the case. And did he accept it and agree to testify? Nope he appealed and now it goes to appeal and if/when he loses there it'll go to the Supremes probably sometime in 2021.
Any eventual ruling for this will go all the way to the Supreme Court so it will apply to those other staff as well.
Oh look, someone disagrees with you so they are a liar. Lol. The contention was that pursuing those subpoenas will not be fruitful.
Have you given any thought to the multiple examples of Republicans not becoming serious when confronted with factual evidence that disproves their arguments? Does that make you reconsider the wisdom of your position?
Please. The House needs one ruling from the SCOTUS. One. It will resolve all the issues & subpoenas at once, one way or another. The McGahn case is closest to resolution so they'll pursue that & not waste the Courts' time with others.
Okay, apologies. Taken by itself it did look like you were goalpost moving. With your argument regarding the USC that doesn't seem to be the case. Although I will say that you should have made that argument in your previous post, yeah?
My lay understanding of why that may not work is because while the executive privileged theory (which I've just learned has been the prevailing theory of the Office of Legal Counsel since 1971, so maybe it isn't quite as off-the-walls crazy as I originally assumed) is likely to be made invalid by the USC, that doesn't mean that everyone will be compelled to testify afterwards. Don McGahn would be as he's named in the suit, but even then the ruling might be narrow or it might be broad. The White House could still have room to block other staffers from testifying by mounting other defences that aren't proscribed by USC, and then the whole process starts all over again.
But IANAL so I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I've seen a few places, some of which are left leaning, question why the Democrats are half-assedly pursuing their subpoenas. Can you provide a source that explains why your legal theory holds water?
Last edited:
There isn't time. Shit like this can take years, actual years, to work through the court system of appeals after appeals, at which point the witness can just say 'welp, that was a long time ago gents, I don't rightly remember'. Better to let the subpoenas go on the record of yet more obstructions of justice (they were on the order of the WH after all) and press on.
Honestly the obstruction of justice/congress charges should be enough to support impeachment on its own. The president has no right to deny people to submit to congressional subpoenas. 'Executive privilege' is a red herring in this instance.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,617
- 33,336
- 136
I bet a lot of places look left-leaning to you.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,851
- 16,114
- 136
Amusing that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee are so outraged that they can't get Adam Schiff to testify, but they have no problem with Trump refusing to allow any of his people to testify.
Hey, if it weren't for fake outrage they'd have no outrage at all.
Hey, if it weren't for fake outrage they'd have no outrage at all.
Matt Whitaker, former acting Attorney General and pitchman for a special toilet designed for the extra-well-endowed, offers another argument against impeachment:
Whitaker has some very stiff competition for the Hypocrite of the Year crown:
www.mediaite.com
Lol... Somehow, according to Newt's unique calendar, the first week of December in 2019 is "the eve of Christmas" - but December 19, 1998 was just another working day. The dishonesty knows know bounds.
Whitaker has some very stiff competition for the Hypocrite of the Year crown:
Bill Clinton | Mediaite
Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. He served from 1993 to 2001. He was born and raised in Arkansas, where he became the Attorney General in 1976 and the governor in 1978. He was the second president to be impeached, but the Senate found him not guilty.
www.mediaite.com
Lol... Somehow, according to Newt's unique calendar, the first week of December in 2019 is "the eve of Christmas" - but December 19, 1998 was just another working day. The dishonesty knows know bounds.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,617
- 33,336
- 136
And the ill-informed lap it up.Matt Whitaker, former acting Attorney General and pitchman for a special toilet designed for the extra-well-endowed, offers another argument against impeachment:
Whitaker has some very stiff competition for the Hypocrite of the Year crown:
Bill Clinton | Mediaite
Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. He served from 1993 to 2001. He was born and raised in Arkansas, where he became the Attorney General in 1976 and the governor in 1978. He was the second president to be impeached, but the Senate found him not guilty.
Lol... Somehow, according to Newt's unique calendar, the first week of December in 2019 is "the eve of Christmas" - but December 19, 1998 was just another working day. The dishonesty knows know bounds.
Matt Whitaker, former acting Attorney General and pitchman for a special toilet designed for the extra-well-endowed, offers another argument against impeachment:
Whitaker has some very stiff competition for the Hypocrite of the Year crown:
Bill Clinton | Mediaite
Bill Clinton was the 42nd President of the United States. He served from 1993 to 2001. He was born and raised in Arkansas, where he became the Attorney General in 1976 and the governor in 1978. He was the second president to be impeached, but the Senate found him not guilty.
Lol... Somehow, according to Newt's unique calendar, the first week of December in 2019 is "the eve of Christmas" - but December 19, 1998 was just another working day. The dishonesty knows know bounds.
It’s almost as if these people aren’t engaging in good faith.
I’m sure if Democrats present a few more pieces of evidence against Trump though they will stop relentlessly lying and start behaving more responsibly.
Yowza, that's a hell of a read. I encourage everyone to read through that twitter thread.
ch33zw1z
Lifer
- Nov 4, 2004
- 39,838
- 20,433
- 146
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
KMFJD
Lifer
- Aug 11, 2005
- 33,886
- 54,583
- 136
2 for 1 special because we know how much Trump likes a deal
House leaders to charge Trump with 'high crimes and misdemeanors' in two articles of impeachment
Democrats are expected to move swiftly to hold a committee and floor vote before the holiday break.
www.nbcnews.com
I find it very strange that anyone thought the Democrats were not going to move forward on impeachment. As soon as they announced the impeachment inquiry moving forward on articles of impeachment was all but certain.
Not sure that anyone did think that. It was pretty obvious to everyone involved, including republican congresscritters given their rantings over the last couple weeks.
Several people on here said even after the Ukraine business came out that he would not be impeached.
cytg111
Lifer
- Mar 17, 2008
- 26,851
- 16,114
- 136
And now the Senate will call the whistleblower to testify .. and when that doesnt happen, they use that as an excuse to throw it all out.
But its all good... so much more shit has come out during... its good.
Do it again.
But its all good... so much more shit has come out during... its good.
Do it again.
SMOGZINN
Lifer
- Jun 17, 2005
- 14,359
- 4,640
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter