Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread


henrygandorf

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Do you even realize what you are saying?  Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not.  You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield".  I think you typed it with a straight face too.  So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide?  Wow.  In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege.  So by your definition it was obstruction.

And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine.  Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

I don't think you understand how subpoenas or executive privilege work.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Well, you're only arguing with actual lawyers that know law and shit. It isnt about privilege and they arent asserting it. And their conditions were to end the investigation, which is a bit of a nonstarter for what should be obvious reasons to people who arent idiots. 

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

  • Fuck You 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sheeeit said:

Lulz.  You clearly have no reading comprehension and this is another perfect example of you being so emotionally charged that you cant even respond.  I clearly stated that my argument was on the issue and not, at all, based on who is currently in office.  If you want to debate that then lets do it.

"Because I fucking believe in the rule of law, regardless of whose fucking "team" is in power." 

Which "rule of law" should we follow?  The law is not black and white on this issue.  Is presidential privilege not lawful?  The courts certainly think that it is.  Both dem and repub appointed Justices have upheld it regularly.  Apparently, you "fucking believe" that congressional subpoena power should override presidential privilege.  That is a defensible position.  Just as presidential privilege is a defensible position.  I can not believe that you actually think that there should be zero instances where congressional subpoenas can be legally ignored.  That is why we have a 3rd branch.  If the courts determine a particular subpoena is lawful then full consequences should fall on the person not abiding by them.  You are arguing that every single written and expressed comments by any POTUS or anyone providing counsel to a POTUS should be made public.  That cant be your true feelings on the matter.   

"And I thought that Holder and the DOJ were wrong."

I never suggested that you didnt.  My point on that, which was pretty clear, was to point out the hypocrisy of the players involved.  I am sure your personal position was consistent but I must have missed all of your posts that suggested America was a lawless, banana republic at the time.

 

 

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Do you even realize what you are saying?  Either congressional subpoenas are absolute or they are not.  You just typed that Holder failed to comply only after Holder (the one being subpoenaed) decided the gop had gone "too far afield".  I think you typed it with a straight face too.  So your position is that the person who receives the subpoena gets to determine what they want to provide?  Wow.  In fact, the specific documents that were requested from Holder but not provided in the subpoena were denied in the end by......obama exerting executive privilege.  So by your definition it was obstruction.

And contrary to your assertion about the WH not providing a scintilla of information, i suppose that you just forgot that the entire current impeachment inquiry is based on the potus phone conversation with ukraine.  Potus released the transcript of the call.  A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

They arent absolute. But, just like every other legal issue, the lawyer is supposed to do everything possible to comply with lawful requests and only assert things like privilege when a good faith basis exists to do so. That is what Holder did. Not complying at all is pretty much never an option, and that is the one that Trump has chosen. Worse, he released an edited summary of the call rather than the transcript precisely because he thought he could gain a political advantage by doing so, while hiding the true transcript completely. Of course, he is an idiot, so the summary still ended up being damning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

A transcript that every single legal scholar in america would agree is subject to executive privilege.  

No legal scholar on the planet would think the so called "transcript" is subject to executive privilege.  Well, maybe some of the trump appointees would given, say, Neomi Rao's knowledge of the Constitution, with complete ignoring of every single case or scholarly article on executive privilege.

Executive privilege can apply to communications within the executive branch of government.  Communications with people not part of the executive branch of the United States government cannot possibly be subject to executive privilege.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sheeeit said:

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

Actually, that language doesn't assert a privilege.  At all.  That is, if a party submitted that language as an assertion of privilege in court, it would not be well-received, as it does not assert that ANY specific privilege applies to ANY specific request (and there are specific requests that have been made to which they could respond).  Rather, it says, in simplified language, "if you don't follow the procedural rules that I alone decide apply and are binding, even though there is no authority making any such procedure binding, then I just won't respond, and I'm not waiving any privilege that might apply, and here, I'll list all of them, except the clergy privilege, but I might, because I said 'including,' which doesn't limit me."

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I suppose it is possible that you are just uninformed and not an "idiot".

This is directly from Pence's letter to congress:

"Please know that if the committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the committees have appropriate requests for information in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for separation of powers," Morgan wrote. "Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the president, the vice president and their advisors."

So everything you typed was wrong.  They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

Are you really an attorney?

One, that letter doesnt assert anything. It says he maintains the right do so, but doesnt actually say privilege applies or explain why it would apply. When you assert privilege, you have to explain the basis and identify what specific request you're applying it to. Two, the terms and conditions that you amazingly skip included ending the investigation. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

They are in fact relying on executive privilege and they have never set a "conditions were to end the investigation".

https://games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/documents/7cb26618-e770-45ef-9c45-bdd5554ce201/note/9608d380-f0df-4e07-8b08-8f326b723626.pdf#page=1

I like how @sheeeit doesn’t mention the letter from the President’s lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

Those are just facts, and facts are just things that get in the way of his asshole opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

Yep.  And this is where the use of Rudy bites him him in the ass.  Using someone who is NOT an official representative of the executive branch means that any information etc. that went through that person is not subject to executive privilege.  Rather, it was an action taken in Trump's personal capacity, not as an officer of the executive branch.  If, on the other hand, Rudy WAS acting as a representative of the executive branch, then his actions (and those will be criminal actions) will be actions of the executive in that capacity.

Scylla, charybdis, and all that mess.

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  And this is where the use of Rudy bites him him in the ass.  Using someone who is NOT an official representative of the executive branch means that any information etc. that went through that person is not subject to executive privilege.  Rather, it was an action taken in Trump's personal capacity, not as an officer of the executive branch.  If, on the other hand, Rudy WAS acting as a representative of the executive branch, then his actions (and those will be criminal actions) will be actions of the executive in that capacity.

Scylla, charybdis, and all that mess.

Then the question of whether the act was done as a conspiracy against the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

FIF truth.  Not that you'd recognize it if it ran you over.

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

I negged you because you lied.  And not even a good one.  

Here, FROM THE FUCKING DOCUMENT ITSELF:

Quote

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.

It is NOT an exact, word-for-word transcription by a stenographer.  That is a specific thing.  This is not that thing.  So, fuck off, you fucking lying sack of shit.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

I honestly can’t imagine what compels someone to be such a shitty troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

From the actual document: CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

There's a goddamn disclaimer at the bottom of the first page of the memo that reads:

CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

 

Edited by Stilicho
I see others have also bothered to read the memo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

The question is what information, intelligence, or conferring is being retained as privileged information? Things that go through the proper channels and are in line with established foreign policy? Sure, I can understand that as privileged information. However, using someone who is not in anyway affiliated in any capacity with the government to influence other countries, or to establish channels that are outside of the legal and proper channels is absolutely not privileged information.

Then there are the whistleblowers that went through the proper channels and brought the present issue to the forefront of our collective consciousness. What this administration and players in this ordeal have done clearly demonstrates a pattern of trying to undermine our institutions, alliances, and policies.

So what information exactly are you trying to assert is privileged information?

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

Keep on digging. They released what they thought would clear the President and back his "perfect call" narrative. It backfired. I would guess there is even more dirt buried on that call/transcript that has yet to be released and one of the reasons the White House went to extraordinary measures to try and hide the call from normal channels (aka unauthorized use of the National Security Server).

 

There is so much evidence now in the open that outlines exactly what has happened that any attempt now to ignore subpoenas and refusing to turn over documents in question should be looked at as an exact attempt of the VP/President to obstruct justice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sheeeit said:

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Asithappens said:

A couple of things. One, I don't remember calling the US "special", although we do have a system of government that, imo, is superior to many others (US Constitution) and does offer a better than average chance of weathering these types of storms. Maybe you disagree with that assessment. And while I'm in no way a Nationalist, we are exceptional, at least there's nothing wrong with thinking so. It's fine to do so. It's fine for the Swedes to think they are exceptional, too. 

And nothing I have said means that I don't think we are at risk of imploding. Of course we are at risk. Take your argument to those who have explicitly said such a thing. 

But you seem to think the sky is falling a lot of the time. I guess one of these times you'll be right.

The flip side of American exceptionalism, or the lack thereof, is that we are neither exceptionally good, nor exceptionally bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

Any moment you spend trying to engage sheeit in a good faith conversation is a wasted one.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

One, that letter doesnt assert anything. It says he maintains the right do so, but doesnt actually say privilege applies or explain why it would apply. When you assert privilege, you have to explain the basis and identify what specific request you're applying it to. Two, the terms and conditions that you amazingly skip included ending the investigation. 

"I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS SHAM INVESTIGATION UNTIL THE INVESTIGATION IS SHUT DOWN!!! ALL CAPS 4LOKO!!!!'

 - Sincerely, Chief Suck up to Almighty Orange God.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Um..the people in government that communicated with the POTUS about his interactions with a foreign head of state?

Are you talking about Rudy?  POTUS did not instruct Rudy to ignore the subpoena.  Rudy is just ignoring it.  If they want to come after Rudy they certainly can.  

 

From the Rudy thread, post #205 by @Brisketexan

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I negged you because you lied.  And not even a good one.  

Here, FROM THE FUCKING DOCUMENT ITSELF:

It is NOT an exact, word-for-word transcription by a stenographer.  That is a specific thing.  This is not that thing.  So, fuck off, you fucking lying sack of shit.

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Goddammit.

Being ill-informed and wrong is not lying.

You people aren't helping anything.  You're as bad as conservatards going for librul tears.

Its sheeeit. He isnt ill-informed, he is intentionally disingenuous. It is his thing. But, maybe he comes on here and admits it isnt a transcript. I doubt it.

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I'm not referring to a subpoena for anyone, that is an entirely different issue from the question I asked. I'll go find the post that laid out this dilemma succinctly. The issue I'm referring to is using someone not in the executive branch to conduct business for that branch or the US government in general.

There's not all that much law on executive privilege, unlike attorney-client privilege.  The privilege applies to deliberative communications and processes within the executive branch.  I think there's a pretty good argument that if you bring in someone who isn't a part of the executive branch, you blow the privilege.  Crimes and wrongdoings notwithstanding.

Also worth noting that the privilege is not absolute, as is the attorney client privilege.  It can be pierced in the interest of justice even when no exceptions or disqualifications apply.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

Is that true? Because I don't think it's true, but I could be wrong. 

What I heard, and I really, really doubt that you have inside intel, is that this was contemporaneous notes, not anything from a steno. Meaning, it was NOT word-for-word.

If you're lying to us, then fuck you. 

If not, then I, in my inestimable wisdom and judgement, will find a way to still blame you. Very Trumpian of me, don't you think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Its sheeeit. He isnt ill-informed, he is intentionally disingenuous. It is his thing. But, maybe he comes on here and admits it isnt a transcript. I doubt it.

I havent been keeping up.  I thought he was just ill-informed.

Still, I think the "liar" and "lying" terms are tossed around too freely around here and elsewhere.  Hanlons razor and all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be clear:  I’ve worked in Congress, I believe Congressional subpoenas should be nearly absolute.  I’m willing to allow for some discretion regarding conversations between presidents and aids as well as national security,  but in general, most executive privilege is complete horseshit. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sheeeit said:

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

It is a 5 minute summary of a 30 minute call. Admit it isn't a word for word transcript. Admit it cannot contain the complete conversation. Admit it is possible that it doesnt accurately portray the full conversation. All of those things are obviously true. I'd love to see you acknowledge any of them. 

As to executive privilege, see everything we said before. It isnt a limitless well of protection. There is even a Supreme Court case on it involving another president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Jesus.  This place is completely insufferable.  Call it whatever you want.  POTUS released a document that was created by people listening in real time to his phone conversation.  Is that better?  You said they "paraphrased" it.

"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." So I guess you yourself need to "fuck off, you lying sack of shit".  

And, as usual, you somehow get fixated on this and refuse to even try and justify that using executive privilege is "fucking lawful".

Attempting to pressure a foreign government in exchange for a "favor" by withholding assistance to that country is unlawful though. It's, what is referred to in the business, as a "quid pro quo"l." the words "quid pro quo" do not actually have to be stated. Only the asking of something from the other party in exchange for something you have that they want or need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...