Judge rules against Trump in lawsuit to block Democrats’ subpoena......

Yeah, ignore SCOTUS decisions.

On what grounds do donks light their torches in this witch hunt? I mean, besides their hate for Trump?

Here's a factoid: NO ONE has ever been impeached for any act prior to a federal appointment / election. EVER. Smart to not start now.
"In 1873, when the House was considering the impeachment of Vice President Schuyler Colfax for allegedly fraudulent acts that occurred prior to his election, the House Judiciary Committee determined that impeachment under the Constitution “should only be applied to high crimes and misdemeanors committed while in office and which alone affect the officer in discharge of his duties.” Colfax, whose term was set to expire within weeks, was not impeached."

 

As much as I like your spunk in trying to defend the indefensible you are peeing in to a strong breeze.

See Article I, Sec. 8 and Article II, Secs. 2 and 4 of the Constitution.

 

Remember just a few months ago, how you were talking about impeachment? "Only republicans are talking about impeachment." Now it is a constant mantra by MSNBC.

It is a stupid move by the democrats. The house can impeach, but the senate requires a two thirds vote to remove and that is not going to happen. On the other hand, I like Pence and he will just pick a new VP. It is a lose lose from democrats.

 

It might be from the standpoint of the next election. But no matter the outcome, I agree Senate Repubs are far too cowed to impeach, it would be a win for the country. Because allowing this degree of criminal behavior to go unchecked without an impeachment hearing establishes a horrible precedent. It would be saying a prez is not only above the law but he can block further investigation by Congress in to criminal conduct established by the SC.

 

You are very persistent in your perception. Wrong, but persistent. The republicans view the democrats actions towards Trump as being revenge for beating Hilary. It is not about justice. If it was about justice and the rule of law, Hilary would be in prison.

 

"In furtherance of these duties, Congress’s power to investigate is “broad.” Watkins, 354
U.S. at 187. “It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as
proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or
political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them.” Id. In short, “[t]he
scope of the power of inquiry . . . is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact
and appropriate under the Constitution.” Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959)."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view

 

Hmm... Haven't those covenants been interpreted and adjudicated by the SCOTUS?
Oh, gosh, they have!
Was it Watkins v US?
Yes?

Hasn't a Congress interpreted the parameters of impeachment?
Why, yes they have in 1873.

You. Lose. Again. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

#52.

The judge clearly states it is not up to him to rule on Congress' motive for obtaining information within their right to obtain.

"Courts have grappled for more than a century with the question of the scope of Congress’s
investigative power. The binding principle that emerges from these judicial decisions is that courts
must presume Congress is acting in furtherance of its constitutional responsibility to legislate and
must defer to congressional judgments about what Congress needs to carry out that purpose. To be
sure, there are limits on Congress’s investigative authority. But those limits do not substantially
constrain Congress. So long as Congress investigates on a subject matter on which “legislation
could be had,” Congress acts as contemplated by Article I of the Constitution."

 

Did you say Watkins?

Related to Congress’s legislative function is its “informing function.” The Supreme Court
has understood that function to permit “Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption,
maladministration or inefficiency in agencies of the Government.” Watkins v. United States, 354
U.S. 178, 200 n.33 (1957). “From the earliest times in its history, the Congress has assiduously
performed an ‘informing function’ of this nature.” Id. (citing James M. Landis, Constitutional
Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 HARV. L. REV. 153, 168–194
(1926)). The informing function finds its roots in the scholarship of President Woodrow Wilson,
which the Court first cited in United States v. Rumely:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into
every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It
is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom
and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every
means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the
administrative agents of the government, the country must be
helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both
scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the
country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the
very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and
direct. The informing function of Congress should be preferred
even to its legislative function.

345 U.S. 41, 43 (1953) (quoting WOODROW WILSON, CONGRESSIONAL GOVERNMENT: A STUDY IN
AMERICAN POLITICS, 303). Thus, though not wholly distinct from its legislative function, the
informing function is a critical responsibility uniquely granted to Congress under Article I. See
Landis, 40 HARV. L. REV. at 205 n.227 (describing the informing function as “implied and
inherent” within the legislative function).

 

That would be n+12 where n is not defined and not easily determined.

Just another case of judge shopping. Easy to find when there hundreds of them out there.

 

I don’t think Trump’s efforts to run out the clock will succeed. And there will be a series of summary ruling like this. That said, Trump will skate by on a few of his attempts to stonewall.

Trump is counting on the fact that few people will read a 400 page document detailing some of his crimes and conduct, and instead, take Barr’s false memo at face value.

Of course, all the Trumpsters will. At this point, they’re cheering loudly, even though even they know that a lot of what they are bellowing is total BS. They’re going to go down with the ship.

The target is the disinterested middle, and Trump’s strategy is two fold.

One is to do everything he can to keep the witnesses in the Mueller probe, and the contents of the Mueller report from being discussed on live television in front of Congressional committees.

He figures, if he can keep the facts off the television screen, and he bellows loud enough, he can skate by.

So he’s trying to run the clock out on hearings.

I was just watching Nancy Pelosi discuss this.

It is a matter of timing for her as well.

It is going to be a matter of presenting the facts, in a public forum on live television.

The issue, is when and how to go about it.

I do not believe that the Democrats need to be in any particular hurry.

But I also believe that the American public deserves (and needs) to have the entire sleazy record presented in detail on live television, even (or especially) if these hearings coincide with the Presidential campaign.

And, I do believe that impeachment may have to be on the table.

The greatest danger of Trumpism isn’t Trump himself, despite his reckless and irresponsible criminality and his moral treason.

It is the reality that Trump has been allowed to get away with things that will make it far easier for a real tyrant to emerge.

The threat comes from the weakness of GOP leaders, who have put their own political ambitions and survival above their oaths of office; and from a mob of mindless followers who will gladly hand over their freedom and their rights for the empty promises of a strong man.

And that is why impeachment will probably be necessary,

Even of the vote in the House takes place just before the election, and the trial afterwards (whether or not Trump loses).

The precidents Trump has set must not be allowed to stand,

 

Thanks for highlighting another threat the Orange Turd poses to the institutional foundations of the country. Every time a ruling goes against him and the presiding judge was appointed by a Dem Baby Donald cries foul. He is systematically degrading confidence in the integrity of the judicial branch. Not only by questioning rulings but by nominating extremist ideologues to fill judicial positions.

 

What is interesting about the ruling is the Court made it clear they can not investigate just to investigate, it has to be related to a legislative intent.

The order was stayed, the case will move on up...they might get it in his second term. He's having fun with the House at this point

 

I heard a great line regarding that very thing yesterday. It was, "the book is out, now they are trying to prevent a movie about it being made."
The effect of McGahn going on TV and describing what he told Mueller about in sworn testimony.........that the Grifter-in-Chief instructed him to obstruct justice........is the kind of thing Team Turd is very concerned with and are going to great lengths to prevent.

 

"Thus, it is not the court’s role to decipher whether
Congress’s true purpose in pursuing an investigation is to aid legislation or something more sinister
such as exacting political retribution. See McSurely, 521 F.2d at 1038. If there is some discernable
legislative purpose, courts shall not impede Congress’s investigative actions. See Watkins, 354
U.S. at 200 (“Their motives alone would not vitiate an investigation which had been instituted by
a House of Congress if that assembly’s legislative purpose is being served.”).

 

^ THANX for proving my point.

You know what's truly hilarious? That with low reading comprehension, and a leftist flash card mentality, you still don't get it.

If you beg me, I'll tell you why you proved my point. It's right there in what you c&ped. LOL!

 

Seeing as the excerpt you referred to is from the judge's ruling......you know......the one that makes a mockery out of the Orange Turd's complaint.........I'd say one of us still doesn't get it, but that someone is you. But I do enjoy watching you flail about.

 

That part of the judicial system is broke. It has been for a long time. Anytime you have that many judges who can rule based on a whim, it is wrong. Pick a different judge and you can get a different ruling. If you think that is OK, then you have a very strange view of the law.

 

@ U.

 

No, it's not. But Don wants you to believe it is. And he is trying very hard to make it that way.

 

Seeing as the excerpt you referred to is from the judge's ruling......you know......the one that makes a mockery out of the Orange Turd's complaint (and your position).........I'd say one of us still doesn't get it, but that someone is you. But I do enjoy watching you flail about.

 

That was fast action by the court. The Judicial Branch has has their fill of Trump and his delay tactics. There will be fast court action up and down the line. The pressure builds.

 

Please stop. The big brain people get it. It's perfectly ok that you don't, and don't want to know why. That lack of intellectual curiosity is one of the traits that makes you a leftist.

 

Which proved his bias. Once released no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. This OF COURSE should be stayed awaiting an appeal, SOP.

 

It's called due process.