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

You need to use more emojis, cuz at this point it's all you've got since the facts are not your friend.

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

 

Nope. As he explains in his ruling it was due to the weakness of the plaintiff's case and “Plaintiffs could identify no new argument that they would make if given the chance to do so” which would justify a stay.

 

Msg# 23
We don't have an imperial congress. And again in such cases stays are routine because one the information is out you can't pull it back.

 

Stays are not routine. They are granted on merit.........in this instance there was none.

 

It matters such as the disclosing of information they are since once the information is out you can't pull it back. Why not have the appellate court review?

 

As he explains in his ruling it was due to the weakness of the plaintiff's case and “Plaintiffs could identify no new argument that they would make if given the chance to do so” which would justify a stay.

 

LOL! Congress can go pound sand.

 

And an appeals court will rule on whether the judge is correct, in the meantime it will issue a stay.

 

So........it's okay for Don to have begun his campaign based on a racist lie, okay for him to be ignorant on policy issues, okay for him to cheat on his wife, to cheat contractors, defraud people who went to Trump U, have a foundation that admitted to self-dealing, hire corrupt cabinet members, be surrounded by criminals...........and now it's okay for him to stonewall Congress while they are trying to investigate his criminal behavior. Got it.

 

Yes, in all likelihood it will. That doesn't invalidate the judge's reasoning in not granting a stay in the meantime.

 

So you believe it is OK to pick one of several hundred judges to get the ruling which agrees with your position. How about when someone goes to trial, the defense attorney picks a judge which believes that bank robbery is OK if the person was desperate or the the prosecutor picks one which does not like gay people for his gay client?

 

Mehta is a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It seems to me he is in the jurisdiction where the case should be decided. Could you provide a link to prove your contention he was chosen by the Dems. Thanks.

 

Doesn't make any difference However, "Amit Priyavadan Mehta is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was appointed by Barack Obama and began his term on December 19, 2014. Wikipedia".

It is a very liberal court. Eleven of the fourteen judges were appointed by democrats including the chef justice.

 

Couldn't help noticing you are following the Orange Turd's lead, disparaging the decision without explaining why in legal terms.

 

In legal terms, the democrats are not targeting a specific crime. They want all of his records in the hope of discovering one.

Apparently you did not like me pointing out that the Columbia court was extremely liberal.

 

Tell ya what, read this over..................https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wcOqhrV6_3hCJMhpWQ-qeSjaiZJaUGVJ/view

.................and get back to me when you have a valid rebuttal that doesn't involve "liberal judge bad."

 

What is the specific crime they are investigating. "On such and such a date, President Trump did the following ...... which is in violation of such and such US Code." Otherwise, they are investigating in search of a crime.

 

Sorry, I'm on to your endless attempts to re-frame the argument. I asked you to rebut the judge's reasoning for finding against the plaintiff and not just say he ruled the way he did because he was nominated by Obama.

 

Fact. It is a liberal court.
Fact. The chief justice was appointed by Obama.
Fact.. Mehta was appointed by Obama.
Fact. They are not pursuing a specific crime. They are investigating in search of a crime.

 

1, 2, 3........we've been through this. It's where we left off. I'm waiting for you to make a substantive argument against his ruling without falling back on mimicking Baby Donald who is whining like a child.
4. Fact. They don't have to be pursuing a specific crime. That argument is a colossal ruse.

 

Simple, now that a judge has made it clear that executive privelege doesn't apply to Trump's staffers, any of them who refuse go to jail.

 

This ruling isn't new. White House Staffers haven't been covered under executive privilege since the 90's since Ken Starr and Brett Kavanaugh went to the supreme court to force Clinton staffers to testify in court. The Supreme court ruled then that executive privilege only applied to the President himself, and official whitehouse documents, and NOT to the staffers working for the president.

Now, the far righters are pissed off because this ruling is being applied to Trump.

 

Actually, that isn't what the ruling was about. Issues surrounding executive privilege are more complex. But it's been pointed out McGahn's testimony is already a matter of public record. So the specious claim of EP on his congressional testimony is simply a try to keep him off TV saying he was told to obstruct justice.

 

Fact. In other words, they are investigating in search of a crime. Fact. We have already had two years of that nonsense. .

Show me the requirement in the constitution.

 

Not complex at all actually. The ruling issued by the Supreme Court in the 90's was about just that. Clinton was tryijng to prevent his staff from being brought before congress and them grand jury, and Ken Starr took the issue to the supreme court, and they ruled that white house staffers were not covered by EP. So, Trump ordering his staffers to refuse subpoenas is illegal.