Trump tells ex-White House counsel McGahn not to appear before Congress

[scorecard]

28 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A President telling people not to

obey Congressional subpoenas, no way can that be permitted to stand.

 

Either win a fight over the subpoena in court or obey the subpoena.

 

Trump is not only setting himself above the Constitutional checks and balances, he’s setting up every President that comes after him to ignore Congress.

 

This must be stopped.

 Well surely this would create a precedent which must allow other folks to ignore subpoenas.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by scorecard

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

So why do the dems not impeach him?

Because Nancy Pelosi and some others think it will be a political mistake and backfire like when Clinton was impeached. They don't know that though. It's very short sighted. 45 is about 1000 times more impeachable than Clinton was.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, scorecard said:

 Well surely this would create a precedent which must allow other folks to ignore subpoenas.

 

 

Anyone can ignore subpoenas. Remember Eric Holder and Fast and Furious ?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Because Nancy Pelosi and some others think it will be a political mistake and backfire like when Clinton was impeached. They don't know that though. It's very short sighted. 45 is about 1000 times more impeachable than Clinton was.

 

Just based on his conduct, Trump absolutely is qualified for impeachment by the House.

 

But the unfortunate reality is, the guy can continue engaging in the most un-American, dishonest and reprehensible conduct, and the current Republican controlled Senate is not going to find him guilty and remove him from office -- absent some truly game-changing revelation.

 

So a political realist would have to ask -- what's the point, until and unless there's something that's going to change the equation in the Senate.

 

Quote

The number of federal officials impeached by the House of Representatives includes two presidents: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton; both were later acquitted by the Senate.[3]Additionally, an impeachment process against Richard Nixon was commenced, but not completed, as he resigned from office before the full House voted on the articles of impeachment.[2] To date, no president has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

...absent some truly game-changing revelation.

 

 

Do you mean like evidence of an actual crime?

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Just based on his conduct, Trump absolutely is qualified for impeachment by the House.

 

But the unfortunate reality is, the guy can continue engaging in the most un-American, dishonest and reprehensible conduct, and the current Republican controlled Senate is not going to find him guilty and remove him from office -- absent some truly game-changing revelation.

 

So a political realist would have to ask -- what's the point, until and unless there's something that's going to change the equation in the Senate.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States

 

It's not only about removal. Look we know he's a criminal. A formal impeachment would fully bring all the details of that out into the open. It's the right thing to do, and in the long run any Quisling senators that don't vote to remove will likely have planted the seed of their own political doom. 45 might be reelected either way. The Pelosi fear is that impeaching him without removal makes that more likely. It just as easily could make that LESS likely. The demand to impeach is growing daily as 45 continues to obstruct congress.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you mean like evidence of an actual crime?

Obstruction of justice is a start. Multiple counts.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

It's not only about removal. Look we now he's a criminal. An formal impeachment would fully bring all the details of that out into the open. It's the right thing to do, and in the long run any Quisling senators that don't vote to remove will likely have planted the seed of their own political doom. 45 might be reelected either way. The Pelosi fear is that impeaching him without removal makes that more likely. It just as easily could make that LESS likely. The demand to impeach is growing daily as 45 continues to obstruct justice.

2

 

Maybe Pelosi sees bringing "...all the details out..." as a loser. As it is, they can stretch the "investigation" out until the election.

[Basil B]

11 hours ago, webfact said:

McGahn would "respect the President's instruction" and not testify, his lawyer said later, in a letter sent to the head of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

 

The committee is investigating whether Trump illegally obstructed the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It wants to quiz McGahn after he figured prominently in a report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about the Russia probe and whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

Is not Trump telling people not to testify, an obstruction of justice.

[Dumbastheycome]

3 hours ago, allen303 said:

Looks like some of you will have to claim TDS as a preexisting condition based on the article below. I would keep that in mind if you have to apply for insurance here in Thailand! I am sure some med company will come up with something for this and make a little money!

 

 

Trump derangement syndrome, or TDS, is the anger, confusion, and mania exhibited by some in the left over the fact that Donald Trump is president. Even the esteemed mental health journal Psychology Today weighed in on the syndrome.

While the author, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Canada’s McGill University, acknowledged that the syndrome isn’t officially recognized, he did point out that it has been widely observed:

“Many have argued that some people have been seriously disturbed and distressed by the policies, speech, behavior and tweets of President Trump, so much so that it has affected their cognitive, affective and behavioral functioning. Such people may need mental health support.”

 

Is that suggesting  the POTUS  is a mental health  danger intoto? LSD  was barred from   public consumption for same cause !

Edited May 21, 2019 by Dumbastheycome
edit

[riclag]

dem chairman  staff member

Edited May 21, 2019 by riclag

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Obstruction of justice is a start. Multiple counts.

 

It's a big risk, either way...

 

It sounds like, a formal Impeachment process begun by the House might give them additional legal leverage with the courts in pursuing and prevailing in their financial record and other document disclosure request against Trump and the Administration.

 

However, there's also the risk that a House impeachment of Trump followed by no action or a rejection vote in the Senate could help galvanize Trump's supporters and increase the odds that he could get re-elected in 2020. And that's the last thing we need.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587

 

Quote

 

[Rep.] Raskin — a former law professor — said he wasn't advocating impeaching Trump but suggested that opening an impeachment inquiry would strengthen their legal position while allowing Democrats to move forward with their legislative agenda.

Pelosi dismissed this argument, asking Raskin whether he wanted to shut down the other five committees working on Trump investigations in favor of the Judiciary Committee.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Is not Trump telling people not to testify, an obstruction of justice.

Not necessarily.

[Jingthing]

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It's a big risk, either way...

 

It sounds like, a formal Impeachment process begun by the House might give them additional legal leverage with the courts in pursuing and prevailing in their financial record and other document disclosure request against Trump and the Administration.

 

However, there's also the risk that a House impeachment of Trump follow by no action or a rejection vote in the Senate could help galvanize Trump's supporters and increase the odds that he could get re-elected in 2020. And that's the last thing we need.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587

 

 

Yes it's also a risk NOT to do it. Considering it's the right thing to do constitutionally when you have a president like this one, I think it makes sense to roll the dice and take the risk to do the thing we elected them to do. Impeach if you have a president that has committed multiple impeachable offenses. That's a step back to normalcy and rule of law. Got to start somewhere. 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Obstruction of justice is a start. Multiple counts.

I thought Mueller said there was not enough evidence obstruction to bring charges, no?

[Jingthing]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I thought Mueller said there was not enough evidence obstruction to bring charges, no?

You read wrong. He was restricted by the DOJ policy of not being able to indict a sitting president. He set the case for impeachable and/or indictment after 45 leaves office. 45 isn't running for president so much in 2020. He's running to stay out of prison. 

[Jingthing]

Well McGahn did NOT show, and slowly but surely pressure builds on Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against 45.

 

Quote

 

Is Nancy Pelosi’s dam on impeachment starting to break?

 

It’s getting harder by the day for Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to hold the line that the House of Representatives should not consider impeaching President Trump.

She’s not budging, but some of her key allies are. The Washington Post’s Rachael Bade and Mike DeBonis report that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) argued to Pelosi Monday night that Congress should open an impeachment inquiry into Trump.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/21/is-nancy-pelosis-dam-impeachment-starting-break/

[quandow]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well McGahn did NOT show, and slowly but surely pressure builds on Pelosi to begin impeachment proceedings against 45.

I hate Pelosi almost as much as I hate the pussy-grabber-in-chief, but she knows politics better than anyone. She is playing the role of reluctant hero, the best possible approach. She is letting the situation build steam until it's impossible for even the Republican senate to ignore the crimes 45 has committed. How ridiculous a situation the US politics has produced! About the only good has been how the ugly underbelly of racist, xenophobic, homophobic, nationalist idiots have been not only exposed but have OWNED their despicable behavior, thereby identifying the need to QUASH this deplorable mindset.

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by quandow
spelling

[Tug]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I thought Mueller said there was not enough evidence obstruction to bring charges, no?

Donald’s lap dog Barr said that no?

[worgeordie]

Trump has so much to hide,lets hope they get to the bottom of 

it all,before he wins again, and appoints himself Dictator.

regards worgeordie

[riclag]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I thought Mueller said there was not enough evidence obstruction to bring charges, no?

Actually the fact is the conclusion of the report was no obstruction/no collusion as Mr. Collins  reiterated today when Mcgahn didn't show up!  The rules setup by the dems and reps give the AG the decision to give a report ,which he didn't have to do  .The rules were established and excepted 20 years ago by the dems because of the Starr reports scathing assault on innocent people ! The dems are obstructing congress by neglecting to except the final decision of Barr's report and  the regulations of the Special Counsel rules! Ya can't make this up. Can a Congress bring contempt charges on the opposing side?

Edited May 21, 2019 by riclag

[quandow]

1 hour ago, riclag said:

Actually the fact is the conclusion of the report was no obstruction/no collusion as Mr. Collins reiterated today when Mcgahn didn't show up!

Translation - Yes, the emperor has no clothes.

Truth - Mueller described very clearly TEN instances of obstruction as well as behavior that demonstrated that of a liar covering up his crimes.

One more time - Honest men have nothing to hide.

[impulse]

15 hours ago, quandow said:

THIS is the kind of behavior that brought Nixon down.

 

One more time - Honest men have nothing to hide.

 

Honest men (and women) don't get elected President, either.  Not since Carter anyway.

 

[Jingthing]

 
Honest men (and women) don't get elected President, either.  Not since Carter anyway.
 

There are levels.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[quandow]

26 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Honest men (and women) don't get elected President, either.  Not since Carter anyway.

 

There is NOBODY on this planet who is completely honest. Even if you don't commit sins, there are sins of omission. Trump has gone to a whole new level. He thinks he is above the law, and we need to restore SOME semblance of normalcy to the office of the president. It's truly frightening to watch his "reality TV style" speeches, spewing out stupid hatred, but the most repugnant part of any of his gatherings is how many stupid, hateful people are CHEERING HIM ON! The lies upon lies and they are taking it as gospel truth. SICKENING to think of how low millions of Americans have sunk.

[bendejo]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I thought Mueller said there was not enough evidence obstruction to bring charges, no?

 

Here's what the report says:

 

As I've been saying since before the report was released, a redacted document is a farce.  It is also an insult to the intelligence of the person it is being presented to.  On the other hand, if someone is not sufficiently intelligent to understand they are being insulted, well then it's a sunny day.

Team DT plays to the base and they're an easy audience, as they say in show biz.

 

There was a brief statement by Ted Cruz during the 2015-2016 primaries where he accused DT of using Cruz's own tactics for fast-talking the voters.  I'm not going to detail it here because I know some of our participants will take it personally. 

 

 

[Patriot1066]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you mean like evidence of an actual crime?

No evidence of a crime as no crime just the Dems and their press pack trying to weaken the very string and popular president Trump

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, riclag said:

dem chairman  staff member

Even the level of cartoons is going down.

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Actually the fact is the conclusion of the report was no obstruction/no collusion as Mr. Collins  reiterated today when Mcgahn didn't show up!  The rules setup by the dems and reps give the AG the decision to give a report ,which he didn't have to do  .The rules were established and excepted 20 years ago by the dems because of the Starr reports scathing assault on innocent people ! The dems are obstructing congress by neglecting to except the final decision of Barr's report and  the regulations of the Special Counsel rules! Ya can't make this up. Can a Congress bring contempt charges on the opposing side?

Really time for you to understand the report and conclusions. The conclusion was not 'no obstruction'.

[Chomper Higgot]

Trump’s continuing obstruction of justice has a legal risk attached.

 

The Statute of Limitations on obstruction is 5 years but important the clock starts ticking on the last or latest occurrence of the crime and until 5 years after that event all related crimes are prosecutable.

 

Trump’s continuing obstruction of justice ensures he will be liable for prosecution even if he wins a second term.

 

He is maintaining his legal jeopardy, perhaps he likes it.