Democrats subpoena more Trump ex-aides, including Hicks

CharacterAssassin said:
Meh. It's TD. He's perpetually cum-drunk from fellating the spirit of his god, Donnie Moscow.
Click to expand...

He's is actually just another typical immoral, deplorable, Trump supporter, who is feeding off of Trump's corruption.

The truth is, Truth Deflector knows that Donald Trump is a Corrupt President who is also a liar, cheater, racist, and crook- because he voted for him knowing that already, and for those specific reasons.

These lost souls who voted for Donald Trump, and are still supporting him, wanted someone in the White House that best reflected their own flawed personal values, prejudices, human qualities, social behaviors, and personality disorders.

They wanted someone much like themselves, and they hand-selected it!

Much like Putin did!

Don't ever expect these pond-scum to admit a thing!

These ship-of-fools have decided to all go down with their captain!
 
Where's the impeachable crime that Mullet found? What is the
exact CRIME that Mullet recommended for indictment and prosecution?
 
reagansghost said:
Congress has the right to bring anyone before them, except the president who is protected by DOJ policy
Click to expand...

No, they do not. "The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said."

there has to be a legislative purpose. They are NOT the Justice Department.
 
Superfreak said:
No, they do not. "The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said."

there has to be a legislative purpose. They are NOT the Justice Department.
Click to expand...

The immunity of the President’s immediate advisers from compelled congressional testimony on matters related to their official responsibilities has long been recognized and arises from the fundamental workings of the separation of powers.

This immunity applies to former senior advisers such as the former White House Counsel.

Accordingly, the former Counsel is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President.

The President does not waive an adviser’s immunity from compelled congressional testimony by authorizing disclosure of any particular information.

The disclosure’s impact on executive privilege does not ultimately bear on any underlying immunity from compelled testimony.

Because Congress may not constitutionally compel the former Counsel to testify about his official duties, he may not be civilly or criminally penalized for following a presidential directive not to appear.

The same rationale applies equally to an exercise of inherent contempt powers against a senior aide who has complied with a presidential direction that he not provide testimony to a congressional committee.

On April 22, 2019, the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives subpoenaed Donald F. McGahn II, the former Counsel to the President, to testify about matters described in the report of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III.

You have asked whether Mr. McGahn is legally required to appear.

We provide the same answer that the Department of Justice has repeatedly provided for nearly five decades: Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.

This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and derives from the President’s independence from Congress.

As Attorney General Janet Reno explained, “subjecting a senior presidential advisor to the congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to the performance of his constitutionally assigned executive functions.” Assertion of Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op. O.L.C. 1, 5 (1999) (“Reno Opinion”).

Congress may no more summon the President to a congressional committee room than the President may command Members of Congress to appear at the White House.


https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1164186/download
 
Superfreak said:
No, they do not. "The high court has said Congress is not a law enforcement agency, and cannot investigate someone purely to expose wrongdoing or damaging information about them for political gain. A subpoena must potentially further some “legitimate legislative purpose,” the court has said."

there has to be a legislative purpose. They are NOT the Justice Department.
Click to expand...

A district court judge has already ruled there is indeed a legislative purpose.........consideration of laws to prevent crooks like Trump from concealing evidence of wrong doing

try to keep up
 
archives said:
You can answer your own question, tell us specifically, what crimes is Barr supposedly investigating? Has any criminal act been proven committed that justifys Barr investigating? What is the purpose of Barr's investigation that you Trumpkins are so giddy about? Show us the crimes that someone has been found guilty of committing?

Do you need a further explanation?
Click to expand...

You do understand that an investigation comes BEFORE someone has been found guilty of a crime?
 
reagansghost said:
A district court judge has already ruled there is indeed a legislative purpose.........consideration of laws to prevent crooks like Trump from concealing evidence of wrong doing

try to keep up
Click to expand...

LMAO... yeah, that will get over turned. It is obvious the Dems simply want to go fishing... AGAIN. Unless you are saying the IRS is completely inept?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top