• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena

Chomsky said:
The House Dems feel entirely mandated by the recent 2016 election, and Trump of course cares only about his base - who fully support him.

The underlying dynamics at work here, are the same as in the shutdown. Which is why I believe we will be repeating these scenarios ad nauseam, until the 2020 election occurs. The election will act as a referendum. Perhaps one of the bigger in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...


Wasn’t it Steve Bannon that had to check in with the WH before answering committee questions, seems like ten years ago?
 
Chomsky said:
To be honest, I think the guy was an idiot to take the (acting A.G.) job.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right that he Trump administration and Whitaker, brought any trouble associated with that role and his behavior in it, on themselves.

However, analysts are saying the shutdown delayed addressing this, and now that we're finally getting to it, it appears as though they will just kick the can until Barr is in, which could be as early as Monday. Reporting is that they wouldn't call Whitaker back in once he's returned to his private life.

There was mention of the subpoena in the Obama era for the AG at that time, and it supposedly took 3 years, at which time it was too late to matter.

I don't know though, if there is a way to grill him even in private life, and he's got really embarrassing/stupid stuff they were doing...I'd still like to know!
 
Chomsky said:
Or, he may be trying to limit his liability to one appearance. Then if/when subsequent fact-checking turn-up discrepancies, he can be immune from further subpoena (to further testify).

To be honest, I think the guy was an idiot to take the (acting A.G.) job. It's fraught with legal peril. I'd never put my family in possible jeopardy (through me) like that.
Click to expand...

What he's hoping to do is to be able to refuse to answer pertinent questions about his involvement and communications with the White House by claiming those communications are protected by executive privilege. If he under subpoena than he would not be able to invoke executive privilege and would be then compelled to answer their questions.
 
Rexedgar said:
Welcome to the “slippery slope.” I wonder if there is an off ramp, not optimistic.
Click to expand...
I share your skepticism. It seems to s spiraling game of one upmanship

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Chomsky said:
The House Dems feel entirely mandated by the recent 2016 election, and Trump of course cares only about his base - who fully support him.

The underlying dynamics at work here, are the same as in the shutdown. Which is why I believe we will be repeating these scenarios ad nauseam, until the 2020 election occurs. The election will act as a referendum. Perhaps one of the bigger in our lifetimes.
Click to expand...

And democrats arent appealing to their base? To quote you guys, 'this is democrats throwing red meat to their base.'
 
Chomsky said:
Or, he may be trying to limit his liability to one appearance. Then if/when subsequent fact-checking turn-up discrepancies, he can be immune from further subpoena (to further testify).

To be honest, I think the guy was an idiot to take the (acting A.G.) job. It's fraught with legal peril. I'd never put my family in possible jeopardy (through me) like that.
Click to expand...

He was hawking “well endowed” crappers.
 
trouble13 said:
I share your skepticism. It seems to s spiraling game of one upmanship

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The canary in the coal mine died some time ago. Left/right this is not going to end peacefully. Federal/State politics have gone into uncharted territory.
 
Chomsky said:
Source: (CNN) Whitaker says he will not appear before House panel unless he gets guarantee he won't face subpoena

Well, here we go. It seems it's beginning.

As the Dems won the House on election night 2018, I postulated that Trump & his administration would dig-in and resist Congressional appearances and subpoenas. We may be seeing the beginning of this. And I fear it could get extremely, extremely, ugly. I hope I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


Totally agree with the "Ugliness" Couple thoughts.

1) Another poster brought up waiting for Barr's appointment, makes sense to me since Whitaker is just a Temp anyways. Why testify or need to......At this point.... hes not obstructing Mueller (yet or accusations there of)
2) EVERYONE should be afraid at this point of subpoenas and testifying PERIOD, regardless of guilt. I know I would be and if I did NOT need to, so as not to be treated as perjury. Then screw that. You can be completely innocent and still be "caught" in a lie or perjure yourself "Somehow" This is a sticky situation were part of me say hes being scummy, but another part of me says, "Kavannaugh" has been accused of perjury and that senate hearing was a Donkey show. Double standards and hypocrisy. er me on the side of caution rather than being transparent now days.


In relation to the SC.

1) The white house, Trump and his administration has done NOTHING outside of his constitutional rights to interfere or STOP Mueller. He has exercised constitutional rights, he has expressed his opinion of disdain for the SC but he has NOT stopped it in any way shape or form.
2) Dems have been pushing to protect the SC from WHAT its been 2 years and NO one has tried to do anything to it outside of the constitutional rights.
3) All these hearings about protecting the SC all the discussion about making the final report transparent etc if Barr says he will not unless deemed responsible to do so. Is just a political game.


Here are the facts at hand that are relevant and as another poster stated "These lawmakers should be spending time, enacting laws and negotiating for the government budget" Not Mueller who is doing his job, Not Trump inaugural team, and the hell does his Tax return change anything....

this is a bunch of political games that BENEFITS NO one... but those trying to stay elected..... so dumb
 
pilot16 said:
CNN was just saying earlier though that Whitaker could tie this up in the courts. How does that work? He just refuses or does he get some executive privliege?
Click to expand...
From my understanding, there is no infrastructure in place in the House to compel physical actions. They (Congress) need to go through the courts, where the courts use their infrastructure to compel physical actions. And it's quite an arduous legal process, which is why it is rarely done.

Oddly enough, it was Pelosi who last compelled the White House to physically do an action - produce subpoenaed records. It was her House getting the records from G.W. Bush, of his attorney general replacements as he took office. Interestingly enough, Pelosi recently installed that same attorney (Irvin Nathan) as the House Counsel!

I'm telling you, it's going to get ... interesting ...
 
Exactice said:
2) EVERYONE should be afraid at this point of subpoenas and testifying PERIOD, regardless of guilt. I know I would be and if I did NOT need to, so as not to be treated as perjury.
Click to expand...

Perjury is a felony for lying. If you don't want to be charged with perjury, then don't lie. It's pretty simple.

You can be completely innocent and still be "caught" in a lie or perjure yourself "Somehow"
Click to expand...

No, this isn't true at all. This is a lie that conservatives like you are perpetuating. There is no way that you can get hit with perjury without knowingly making false statements. Because that's what perjury is.

A great example of perjury: testifying under oath that you have never had contact with someone via text, when you exchanged dozens of texts with them that same day. Pretty clear that you were lying.

2) Dems have been pushing to protect the SC from WHAT its been 2 years and NO one has tried to do anything to it outside of the constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

What a dumb thing to say. Do you buy home insurance after your house burns down? Do you buy auto insurance after you get in a car accident?

Here are the facts at hand that are relevant and as another poster stated "These lawmakers should be spending time, enacting laws and negotiating for the government budget"
Click to expand...

LMAO precious coming from a conservative that supports Trump and his government shutdown.
 
Mycroft said:
This is all nothing but political maneuvers and posturing...on both sides. Both sides have their motives. It's nothing to get all riled up about.
Click to expand...
I think it has the possibility to transcend mere posturing, Mycos. I think it has the distinct possibility of turning the country into bifurcated factions, eschewing Constitutionality (in part), and throwing us into Constitutional crisis.
 
The man does not want to be forced to answer all questions. For a big fella he is one tiny coward.
 
Far as I can see, he thinks he runs a company that offers time travel, and another company that makes toilets for men with large appendages.

Time travel and masculine toilets

World Patent Marketing - how to threaten whistleblowers

The FTC reported that World Patent Marketing also attempted to frighten their customers by sending them emails describing a company security team of "all ex-Israeli Special Ops and trained in Krav Maga, one of the most deadly of the martial arts...The World Patent Marketing Security Team are the kind of guys who are trained to knockout first and ask questions later."

In their 2017 report the FTC included an example of emails that the company used to prevent or retract complaints:

Hey Genius, I understand you emailed one of my board members telling her you think my company lacks integrity and you think we might be a fraud. Just wanted to let you know that is probably going to be the most expensive email you ever sent. I hope it was worth it . . . meet my attorneys Eric Creizman and Andrew Levi - they really enjoy meeting new people.
Click to expand...

Big dicks, time travel and Krav Maga...no wonder he thinks he can stare down a subpoena.

Oh and, he thinks he found Sasquatch.
 
Rexedgar said:
Wasn’t it Steve Bannon that had to check in with the WH before answering committee questions, seems like ten years ago?
Click to expand...
Yes, he amongst others. And I suspect they all will be called back. A large part of the reason the House investigations will be so large and encompassing, is due to the two years of dereliction of duty while under GOP control. It's almost like starting from the beginning. A real yeoman's job. And I hope it's all televised ...
 
Mach said:
You're absolutely right that he Trump administration and Whitaker, brought any trouble associated with that role and his behavior in it, on themselves.

However, analysts are saying the shutdown delayed addressing this, and now that we're finally getting to it, it appears as though they will just kick the can until Barr is in, which could be as early as Monday. Reporting is that they wouldn't call Whitaker back in once he's returned to his private life.

There was mention of the subpoena in the Obama era for the AG at that time, and it supposedly took 3 years, at which time it was too late to matter.

I don't know though, if there is a way to grill him even in private life, and he's got really embarrassing/stupid stuff they were doing...I'd still like to know!
Click to expand...
Thanks for providing additional perspective, here. :thumbs:
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Whew! You'll be REALLY relieved, in that case, the house is no longer doing anything that you're so worried about.

The Dems won control and the adults are back in charge.
Click to expand...

Please respond to my post, not , as you seem to do regularly, respond to your imagination. FYI, there are NO adults in the dim party.
 
Chomsky said:
I think it has the possibility to transcend mere posturing, Mycos. I think it has the distinct possibility of turning the country into bifurcated factions, eschewing Constitutionality (in part), and throwing us into Constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...

I don't know about being at the point of a Constitutional crisis, but we are in a very sorry state.

1. We have a past administration that used the power of the government for political purposes in an attempt to influence a past election.

2. We have the Democratic Party transparently using the power of the House to influence an upcoming election.
 
Chomsky said:
I think it has the possibility to transcend mere posturing, Mycos. I think it has the distinct possibility of turning the country into bifurcated factions, eschewing Constitutionality (in part), and throwing us into Constitutional crisis.
Click to expand...

With the Supreme Court being the very unpredictable lynchpin.
 
Rexedgar said:
The canary in the coal mine died some time ago. Left/right this is not going to end peacefully. Federal/State politics have gone into uncharted territory.
Click to expand...
I agree and regardless of which political side your on it should concern everyone.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Rogue Valley said:
You Trumpers sure didn't mind when Devin Nunes of the House was playing games.
Click to expand...

You libs' problem is you don't know the difference between investigating something real, and a witch hunt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom