Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules

[90DayFinancier 910]

 

The decision is expected to put pressure on other reluctant witnesses to testify, but it may not shift the timing of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

 

•  

Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the White House’s top lawyer, a federal judge ruled Monday — a decision that will put pressure on other reluctant Trump administration witnesses to testify about President Donald Trump’s actions.

In an opinion that could reshape the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that McGahn, who spent 30 hours talking to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, can’t hide behind Trump’s claim that he is “absolutely immune” from speaking to the House Judiciary Committee.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/25/mueller-star-witness-must-testify-to-congress-judge-rules-073622

[Dashinka 24,492]

So back to Trump thought about firing Mueller?

 

[Dashinka 24,492]

Victor Davis Hanson: Are thought crimes impeachable?
 

 

• By Victor Davis Hanson Tribune News Service (TNS) 
• Nov 25, 2019 Updated 13 hrs ago

 

During special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, his legal “dream team” tried to make a secondary case that Donald Trump also obstructed efforts to prove Trump-Russian “collusion.”
 

Trump was said to have advised his lawyers and other subordinates, past and present, not to cooperate fully with the Mueller investigation. Yet the special counsel did not pursue any actionable cases of egregious interference by the White House.

 

Indeed, Mueller would never have concluded his $35 million, 22-month investigation had he not enjoyed cooperation from the White House.

 

White House employees were questioned freely by the special counsel. Documents were released. When the special counsel’s exhaustive investigation into purported Trump-Russia collusion found no such crime, the fallback claim of obstruction arose. Trump allegedly wanted to curtail Mueller’s parameters of inquiry into something that was proven not to be a crime.

 

Mueller found no grounds for a criminal referral on obstruction of justice. But he repeatedly hinted that Trump had thought about obstructing the noncrime of collusion.

 

In the Ukrainian melodrama, Trump is accused of the thought crime of considering the withholding of military assistance unless Ukraine investigated possible Ukrainian tampering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and also former Vice President Joe Biden’s intervention in Ukrainian politics on behalf of his son.

 

Biden had bragged at a Council on Foreign Relations conference that his threats to withhold nonmilitary assistance to Ukraine led to the dismissal of a prosecutor, Viktor Shokin. It turns out Shokin may have been considering an investigation of the energy company where Biden’s son Hunter had been given a lucrative position on the board of directors.

.

.

.

Trump has been accused of thought crimes, not actual crimes. Trump can be indiscreet, even crude, in his speech. But alleged bad thoughts are not crimes — at least not outside George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.”

 

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/victor-davis-hanson-are-thought-crimes-impeachable/article_299d1f7f-fb21-55bc-91dc-9ba8bb73a193.html

Edited November 26, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[laylalex 7,284]

Why does anyone think that citing to Shokin's "investigations" is a good move? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

 

It's important not to cite to debunked conspiracy theories.  

[Dashinka 24,492]

53 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Why does anyone think that citing to Shokin's "investigations" is a good move? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

 

It's important not to cite to debunked conspiracy theories.  

That is all you got out of VDH’s column?  Btw, didn’t Old Forgetful Joe actually brag about holding up Ukrainian aid to get Shokin fired?  I know, a Dem orchestrates a quid pro quo, good!

Edited November 26, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[laylalex 7,284]

There is a definite difference, apparently overlooked, between where a government official is applying pressure on another government to carry out the policy aims of the official's own government, and where a government official is applying pressure on another government for his own personal interests. The first is normal, the second is not.

[Dashinka 24,492]

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

There is a definite difference, apparently overlooked, between where a government official is applying pressure on another government to carry out the policy aims of the official's own government, and where a government official is applying pressure on another government for his own personal interests. The first is normal, the second is not.

Ok, so when it came from Obama/Biden it is government policy aims, but when it comes from Trump is for personal gain?  Correct me if I am wrong, isn’t Trump also President like Obama was?  Foreign policy starts with the President whoever they may be.  Additionally, how do you explain the Obama hot mic discussion with Medvedev?  Considering Obama was heading toward reelection, it seems he had some personal gain as well.  Regardless, impeach Trump!

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is all you got out of VDH’s column?  Btw, didn’t Old Forgetful Joe actually brag about holding up Ukrainian aid to get Shokin fired?  I know, a Dem orchestrates a quid pro quo, good!

 

   It's a little early to start impeachment proceedings against Biden, is it not?

[90DayFinancier 910]

39 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's a little early to start impeachment proceedings against Biden, is it not?

When you don't have facts or a moral imperative, it is never to early to start a disinformation campaign! It's not like white shoes after labor day. 😄😄😁😁😁

Edited November 27, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Dashinka 24,492]

5 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

When you don't have facts or a moral imperative, it is never to early to start a disinformation campaign! It's not like white shoes after labor day. 😄😄😁😁😁

Glass houses.  I will ask the question again, what crime is Lying Schiff investigating?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

9 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   It's a little early to start impeachment proceedings against Biden, is it not?

Early, perhaps.  But the investigation would likely yield a lot more damaging info into Biden.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Glass houses.  I will ask the question again, what crime is Lying Schiff investigating?

I'll bet you won't get an answer.  Again.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

There's a chance McGahn succeeds at this, but overall, it doesn't matter, he can invoke executive privilege and not answer virtually anything they ask.

[90DayFinancier 910]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Glass houses.  I will ask the question again, what crime is Lying Schiff investigating?

Look, going around and around with facts that are in the public record is a waste of time. You obviously can read from reliable media but choose to believe "alternative" reactionary sources. That is your right.

 

Feel free to read whatever conspiracy postings about pedophile politicians abusing children under pizzerias , deep state conspiracies, mail servers in the Ukraine, how medical experts are lying about vaccination or that  CO2 is actually a benefit to mankind.  

 

In this forum I regularly see institutions like the New York Times, SPLC, the FBI, the scientific community, the Intelligence community,  and Federal Investigators slammed as biased, bought or bent. It's just like the President's lawyer said. "The truth is not the truth".

 

Back to your question:

I would explain to you in plain terms what the allegations are and why it matters. But the truth is , some no longer care about the truth.

Edited November 27, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Given how regularly people possibly commit crimes every day, I propose a real life experiment (the way they do it in the research world), 90DayFinancier:

 

The next time you hear someone tell you about how someone might have committed a crime (and without presenting actual evidence of a crime), call the police, tell them you overheard someone say they heard another person say they thought someone might have committed a crime. See if they open an investigation into the person in question, or if they just discard it. 

 

Post results.

 

I expect a "they don't care about the truth" conclusion.

 

In reality, this isn't about the truth, it's about the formulation of a narrative, and storytelling, to people that clearly love stories and not evidence, laws, procedures, etc. That's why we're onto another exercise of government authority against Trump without any proof, and desperate people grasping at straws to justify this farce. It's the same exact logic behind why these people wanted Kavanaugh ruined by specifically timed allegations by someone who has a relationship with the Democratic Party, without a single shred of proof, calling proof-free accusations "credible", for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It's all about getting one's way, absolutely zero to do with logic, laws, or anything else remotely reasonable.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds