Schiff Issues Subpoena for Whistleblower Complaint Being Unlawfully Withheld

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeh, I'm sure Trump could clear his name just by giving Congress what the law & the Constitution demands he give them. An innocent man has nothing to hide, right?

We know what Trump is, but Pelosi so far has shown no inclination indeed the opposite, on allowing substantial actions outside of talking a lot and doing nothing.

So if more and more information comes out that fits the criteria for impeachment and in a substantial way, will you gallop on your gish to defend her? This is a yes or no question.

 

[HomerJS]

So Acting DNI crimed. Right?

Yes. I say hold him in contempt and begin the arrest. The law is clear in this case.

The IG is trying to do the right thing. The complaint has to be handled by the book.

 

[Moonbeam]

Anybody want to predict what will happen if a Democratic congress goes down the path of arresting compromised Republican appointees?

 

[HomerJS]

Anybody want to predict what will happen if a Democratic congress goes down the path of arresting compromised Republican appointees?

It will show the country Democrats have some balls and follow the law.

 

[glenn1]

No where in the 2nd amendment doe sit say imply or say that military service exempt those people who have served from being called upon to join a well regulated militia!! So your point is actually no5t a point!! There are responsibilities that go with owning a gun and one of them is to be used to join a well regulated militia to fight if called upin!!

Fine, sign me up for whatever militia you want. After my career in the military the idea of playing militia and getting away from the kids for a bit and just being able to turn off my brain and hump a 90 lb ruck and cleaning a weapon instead of a house full of toys strewn about sounds just fine to me.

I guess you lack the self-awareness to realize this line of "argument" doesn't change minds in the 2A discussion but rather just makes you look completely unhinged.

 

[Moonbeam]

Trump won't last forever, one way or another. If it is another year and some change, then return to same so be it. Even if America fractures under his rule, we may yet recover spectacularly. It did not take too long, with a broad enough viewpoint, for Germany to recover from Hitler. Clearly overt evil, genocide, erasure of institutions, etc. does not portend demise. Within America remains a value of freedom and culture with a desire to work together even if it is blocked from operation in the present.

I just hope the planet has more reserve than some predictions say.

Fuck you, Libtard! Hail Trump! May he rule for the rest of his days & his descendants after him!

To whom is the fuck you offered? Are you angry at interchange for his opinion or mirroring the attitude of the folk doing the blocking he mentioned?

I took this as you assuming he was pushing in the direction a passive reaction to Trump rather than to rebut the notion that the conundrum both parties face will lead to some sort of doomsday which is what I thought he was saying. Do you think America has the resilience to overcome Trump as interchange suggests or not? Personally, I don't know but I sure prefer his attitude over the notion that we are in the first days of a new fascist state.

I do have some hope that there will be a decline in income for the 1% in a fascist state and they with the real power won't allow it.

 

[Moonbeam]

It will show the country Democrats have some balls and follow the law.

Or maybe Martial Law and the suspension of House powers.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Or maybe Martial Law and the suspension of House powers.

That would put a quick end to Trump with no doubt in my mind. At that point, he becomes a legitimate domestic enemy as defined by the various Oaths, which are always to the Constitution first without exception. It would be the duty of all to disobey all orders and remove him by force of arms if necessary. The Secret Service would not interfere and probably assist. Some unknown plot of ground or the ocean would contain his remains or he'd go into the deepest hole no one knows about forever.

 

[ewdotson]

Or maybe Martial Law and the suspension of House powers.

Yeah, no. There'd be a lawsuit, protests and possibly even some civil unrest. But there is zero percent chance your proposal would be the outcome. That's the sort of order that would get a president arrested and hauled before Congress in chains.

 

[Moonbeam]

My suspicion is that people underestimate the degree to which humanity is motivated not to experience loss of face, the kind that depends on the safety provided by cult membership. I see republicans as representing the most ego damaged among us, the ones most likely to act out with violence. Just my opinion. Sorry.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

My suspicion is that people underestimate the degree to which humanity is motivated not to experience loss of face, the kind that depends on the safety provided by cult membership. I see republicans as representing the most ego damaged among us, the ones most likely to act out with violence. Just my opinion. Sorry.

They might react with violence but it is what it is. In no case would Trump survive intact if he pulled out martial law to stop the House.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Yeah, no. There'd be a lawsuit, protests and possibly even some civil unrest. But there is zero percent chance your proposal would be the outcome. That's the sort of order that would get a president arrested and hauled before Congress in chains.

The Reich would scream that his rights are being violated and that he should be allowed to declare himself our God-Emporer King.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Reich would scream that his rights are being violated and that he should be allowed to declare himself our God-Emporer King.

Exactly and just imagine a 5,4 decision supporting Martial law. Everything we assume is illegal under Trump is only illegal until it isn't.

 

[HomerJS]

Or maybe Martial Law and the suspension of House powers.

The inherent authority of the House is part of the Constitution. What's the problem here?

 

[Moonbeam]

The inherent authority of the House is part of the Constitution. What's the problem here?

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. The endless 5,4 decisions should tell you that law has lost any pretext of objectivity and become merely political. Why else do you think Republicans will do anything to pack the courts with ideological judges?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Fine, sign me up for whatever militia you want. After my career in the military the idea of playing militia and getting away from the kids for a bit and just being able to turn off my brain and hump a 90 lb ruck and cleaning a weapon instead of a house full of toys strewn about sounds just fine to me.

I guess you lack the self-awareness to realize this line of "argument" doesn't change minds in the 2A discussion but rather just makes you look completely unhinged.

You see with gun nutters like yourself no argument , whether supported by facts or not will change your the gun nutters mind!!

 

[VRAMdemon]

Sadly..I don't sse this moving the needle towards Republicans, Trumps base and Americans in general giving a shit. Its always the same thing. The Democrats wanted him removed when he picked someone's pocket on first avenue, stole a car on second avenue, mugged someone on third avenue, and robbed a bank on 4th avenue. So why should I pay attention to them now that he's shot someone on 5th avenue.

 

[glenn1]

You see with gun nutters like yourself no argument , whether supported by facts or not will change your the gun nutters mind!!

Any particular reason why you want to thread crap OP in a discussion about whistleblowers with completely unrelated gun control/2A discussion when there's an active thread on the issue that you've already posted in dozens of times?

 

[nOOky]

Anybody want to predict what will happen if a Democratic congress goes down the path of arresting compromised Republican appointees?

Trump will order the military to intervene and release them, and then it won't be good?

 

[HomerJS]

The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. The endless 5,4 decisions should tell you that law has lost any pretext of objectivity and become merely political. Why else do you think Republicans will do anything to pack the courts with ideological judges?

Thanks for bumming me out. I guess they could just say the whistleblower law is unconstitutional. At that point maybe good people in this country should buy up tiki torches and surround the Supreme Court.

Based on their last few decision I don't think John Roberts will take the case.

 

[HomerJS]

Article from the Atlantic on a lesson Democrats are not learning from Watergate. Sam Ervin when asked what he will do if Nixon tried to stall his subpoena's in court. He in a more eloquent way said what many of us suggested, START ARRESTING MOTHERFUCKERS

As evidence implicating the White House mounted, the administration displayed no inclination toward negotiation or accommodation with the Senate Watergate Committee. On March 15, 1973, Nixon issued an edict asserting executive privilege, declaring that White House aides and papers were entirely off limits to the committee. If the committee desired to press the issue, the president said, it could pursue a contempt prosecution through the courts.

Pressed for his reaction, Ervin said Nixon’s position was “executive poppycock, akin to the divine right of kings.” Ervin declared that his committee had no intention of submitting to the suggested judicial delays, but would instead utilize the Senate’s sergeant at arms to arrest any recalcitrant White House aide, bring him to the bar of the Senate for trial, and ultimately compel him to testify.

House Democrats Are Ignoring This Key Lesson of Watergate

When I worked in the Nixon White House, I learned what it takes for Congress to exercise effective oversight.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Moonbeam]

Thanks for bumming me out. I guess they could just say the whistleblower law is unconstitutional. At that point maybe good people in this country should buy up tiki torches and surround the Supreme Court.

Based on their last few decision I don't think John Roberts will take the case.

Remember my admonition about going after the messenger when it's the message that is the issue. Anyway, you're safe for the time being. I've taken up my Vorpal blade unhubrously to seek, the Generational Jabbermonkey, his keene and, his creep,. I'll leave it dead, and with its head
galumph my way cheerimooniously on back. What a brillig day.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say imply or say that military service exempt those people who have served from being called upon to join a well regulated militia!! So your point is actually not a point!! There are responsibilities that go with owning a gun and one of them is to be used to join a well regulated militia to fight if called upon!!

I didn't say that it did exempt anyone. I only stated that MANY 2A Supporters Have already fought at the behest of our government and country. You shouldn't call them chicken because they support the 2A.


It also doesn't say that you must join a well regulated militia to bear arms either.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Shall not be infringed is pretty definitive.

 

[nickqt]

It also doesn't say that you must join a well regulated militia to bear arms either.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Well, besides the overuse of commas, the Amendment starting out with "A well regulated militia" kinda provides some context.

I mean, if anyone actually cares about originalism and all that.

If it had modern formatting, it'd probably be a lot closer to

A well-regulated militia - being necessary to the security of a free state - the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Also, note well, the framers of the constitution were into regulations. Gross, right?!

 

[Fenixgoon]

Many 2nd amendment advocates have already joined a well regulated militia and fought at the behest of our country.

many is 3. Or 3,000,000. Then again, many people are saying...

Shall not be infringed is pretty definitive.

shall not be infringed and "shall not be regulated" are two very, very different things. 2A does not mean firearms cannot be (further) regulated.