DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump and his admin refusing to allow congress to investigate.

He's a dimwit who just got $78 million generated by his wife. He's a crook.. Liar and has his head so far up trumps butt, he can't think straight.

As for not allowing a vote, that's not his job, his job is to allow senate Members to see, debate and vote on bills and other issues.

He's not supposed to be a road block for anything.

He's a political hack

I guess you didn't hear Mueller's retraction after his 11 minute press speech. He retracted everything.

You have a link for that?

I'm certain he doesn't.

Maybe he is the missing link.

Pathetic.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/05...ment-bill-barr/

Do you have a link to a semi credible source? I googled it and found nothing at all. Redstate doesn't strike me as all that reliable, and I'm trying to be as kind as possible about that.

That's what's wrong with our society today. Instead of trying to seek out the truth themselves, they want someone else to make it "easy for them".

They'll argue about something they've never read themselves and expect others to look it up for them and provide things for them.

It's why everyone just repeats things from the people they agree with and never seek the answer for themselves.

Our society is screwed.

That's because your liberal sites don't report news they don't like. Are you trying to say that's a fake quote. That's from a DOJ site.

I'm saying the words "Mueller's retraction" never appear in that article and the author uses the term "backtrack", then goes on to say it's basically his opinion with:



So, basically you have nothing. That's what I'm saying. You put 1+1 together and got 3.6 somehow ...

So how about some credible reporting to prove yourself right... smh

AND I see nothing there from a DOJ site. smh x2

It's fake news... not the Trump type of fake news, where for example there are protests raging all over London during his visit and he says there's no protests and reports of same are 'fake news' ... this is real to goodness G.e.n.u.i.n.e fake news. The commentator/hack -- much like Barr -- invented meaning and reason and put words into Mueller's mouth that he never said and never meant. Got to love a good opinion piece posted as fact.

So this got a little reaction today...

Dem committees win new powers to investigate Trump

The House voted Tuesday to grant new legal powers to a key committee investigating the Trump administration, handing Democrats another tool in their battle to bore deeper into Robert Mueller's report on Russia's election meddling and potential obstruction by President Trump.

The 229-191 vote broke down strictly along partisan lines with no defectors from either party, highlighting the entrenched divisions on Capitol Hill between Democrats accusing Trump of conducting a "cover-up" related to Mueller's findings, and Republicans fighting to protect their White House ally from what they consider a political "witch hunt" heading into 2020.

The resolution empowers the House Judiciary Committee to go before a federal court in seeking the Department of Justice's (DOJ) compliance with subpoenas for disputed materials and witness testimony. Two figures are named explicitly in the text: Attorney General William Barr, who has refused to release some parts of Mueller's report and the underlying documents; and Don McGhan, the former White House counsel who has defied a Democratic subpoena to appear before the committee.

But in a late-debate twist, Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) announced Monday that he's reached a deal with DOJ officials to access "Mueller's most important files."

The surprise 11th-hour agreement has tempered some of the long-running tensions between Democrats and the administration. And leading up to the vote on Tuesday, Democratic leaders simultaneously hailed the resolution as a necessary and aggressive expansion of their constitutional oversight powers, while also suggesting they might not ever need to use it.

"The timeline will, in part, depend on whether the DOJ continues to cooperate with our legitimate Article I powers of oversight and investigation," said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

"If they continue to cooperate with us, I would expect that we will not race to the courthouse."

That appeasement does not extend, however, to McGahn. And Democrats are suggesting they'll use the new legal powers provided by Tuesday's resolution to go after the former White House counsel in the not too distant future.

"Seems to me that Mr. McGahn is in a particularly vulnerable situation as a private citizen," Jeffries said. "He should either begin to cooperate immediately, or face the consequences."

The vote comes as a growing number of liberal Democrats are endorsing the launch of an impeachment inquiry targeting Trump — a move opposed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other top Democrats, who have political concerns about taking such a drastic step without a greater show of public support.

“There is nothing as divisive in our country, in my view, than impeachment,” Pelosi said Tuesday during an event in Washington, delivering a familiar refrain.

At least 56 rank-and-file lawmakers are backing impeachment, according to a tally kept by The Hill, and Pelosi is under growing pressure to show that her preferred strategy of aggressive investigations is getting results.

The language adopted by Democrats in describing Tuesday's resolution hints at the eagerness of top Democrats to project an image of going tough on the scandal-plagued administration, even as they're opting against even sterner legal measures at their disposal.

Indeed, Democratic leaders are labeling the resolution one of "civil contempt." But the measure makes no mention of contempt. And the language is much softer than another resolution, passed through the Judiciary panel last month, to hold Barr and McGahn in criminal contempt of Congress — a step that carries steep penalties, including heavy fines and up to a year in prison.

"We're calling it contempt, for short, because the courts obviously would have to find the executive branch in contempt in order to, sort of, render the orders to comply," said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Judiciary Committee and former constitutional law professor.

"So it's, generally speaking, not contempt."

There is some disagreement among the Democrats as to why they didn't pursue the criminal contempt resolution. Jeffries and Nadler both cited the DOJ's recent decision to share more Mueller files as the reason they softened their position.

"We began to see yesterday, in the face of the possibility of either a criminal contempt citation, or proceeding with inherent contempt, that they began to see things differently all of a sudden," Jeffries said.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested the decision was rooted in more practical considerations, noting the unlikelihood of DOJ attorneys prosecuting the head of the agency.

"I understand contempt is not in the resolution — it's essentially civil contempt —and ... it authorizes the committee to go to ... have the courts enforce the subpoena," Hoyer said Tuesday. "We think that's a much more productive route than pretending that a U.S. attorney appointed by Donald Trump is going to pursue the attorney general — his boss — for contempt."

Separately, Democrats are still negotiating for the testimony of Mueller, who had indicated last month that he'd prefer not to appear before Congress to discuss his findings. Nadler has taken the lead on those talks, but has declined to give updates on their status.

The drawn-out timeline has frustrated a growing number of lawmakers, who want the special counsel to clarify a host of questions still lingering around his report, particularly his reason for not recommending obstruction charges against the president.

"That is the view of the overwhelming majority of the House Democratic Caucus," Jeffries said. "Bob Mueller has a duty to the American people to bring those conclusions to light in public testimony before the United States Congress."

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/448001-dem-committees-win-new-powers-to-investigate-trump

Well the games are about to end.

You'd figure they'd be used to disappointment by now. I can't wait until their new political theater crashes around them.

DISCLAIMER: I wrote this while having a few beers so if I sound aggressive, ignore. Still I'm impressed I cooked this up so here you all go!

I'm in this weird camp anymore where I:

• Feel very confident Trump has obstructed justice after reading the executive summary
• Believe the Democrats were massive idiots believing Mueller would find high crimes and handcuff the President

Democrats thought they'd have Trump talking to Putin. If they knew anything about criminal organisations, they don't do face to face meetings! It all happens via courier. The news media played it up, the democrats ate it up, the conservatives are enjoying them eat crow now. I swear Nancy Pelosi is the only strategic Democrat in the whole dang party.

It's easy to say gay people can get married and make that the policy/law of the land. It's going to be darn near impossible for the party to wake up and realize the Republicans do not share the Democrats goal. It used to be that political parties existed because many people shared a way to improve life for their people. Some group gets together for human rights, or better business laws. We eventually ended up with two parties, who had very different ways to improve life, but each party knew the other was not an enemy, just someone with a different point of view. That maybe if we can find common ground we can help advance each other.

That doesn't exist anymore. It does for the Democrats. They want to advance their improvements for the people. But all the Republicans care about is getting more government power. They only advance improvements if it helps them get more power. Sharing improvements by its nature diffuses power, not build it.

But the Democrats don't know this. They just feel the Republicans are advancing their ideas of pro life, pro guns, and pro business. Yet pro life, pro guns, pro business only helps the powerful people build more power. Pro business because business thrives off the multiples of individuals labor. Pro guns because convincing bad guys and good guys that the other side has guns just makes everyone buy guns, and keeping them worried about their fellow man. Not the powerful. Pro life because business people need as much labor as they can. They don't care about your life story or if your mother was raped by a family member. They just care if you can do your job.

So until the Democrats realize that their sparring partner downright hates America they will get nowhere. Why do I think the GOP hates america? Before I explain that, let me be clear: I do not think GOP supporters intrinsically hate america. I believe most GOP supporters love america more than their liberal patrons do actually. But the GOP platform and those who benefit directly from the GOP platform certainly act like they do. The America of Lincoln is an America Of the people, by the people, and for the people. The GOP spits on this concept. The GOP only cares in concentrating its power in the few.

Hope Hicks agrees to testify before House panel

President Trump’s former aide Hope Hicks has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee behind closed doors, the panel announced Wednesday afternoon.

Hicks has agreed to submit to a transcribed interview before the committee next Wednesday. The committee had originally subpoenaed her for public testimony on June 19.

“It is important to hear from Ms. Hicks, who was a key witness for the Special Counsel. Ms. Hicks understands that the Committee will be free to pose questions as it sees fit, including about her time on the Trump Campaign and her time in the White House,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.

Nadler said he planned to release the transcript publicly ”promptly" after her testimony.

Hicks’s testimony will be significant, as she is the first former White House staffer to appear before the Democrat-led committee as part of its sprawling investigation into allegations of obstruction of justice and other abuses of power by Trump and his associates.

The White House has thus far blocked former officials such as ex-White House counsel Don McGahn from turning over documents and delivering testimony before the committee pursuant to subpoenas.

Earlier this month, the White House instructed Hicks and Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s former deputy, to decline to turn over documents related to their time in the administration. White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued that the documents remain under control of the White House and implicate executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege.

Hicks did provide the committee with some files related to her time on the Trump campaign, but she deferred to the White House order for documents related to her time in the administration.

The subpoenas to Hicks and Donaldson, issued together on May 22, also sought testimony from Hicks on June 19 and a closed-door interview from Donaldson on June 24.

Nadler, who has been battling with a White House that he says is stonewalling his committee’s legitimate oversight requests, also noted that he will work with Hicks to resolve any executive privilege issues that arise during the closed-door interview.

"Should there be a privilege or other objection regarding any question, we will attempt to resolve any disagreement while reserving our right to take any and all measures in response to unfounded privilege assertions," Nadler said. "We look forward to her testimony and plan to make the transcript promptly available to the public.”

Hicks served in prominent roles in the Trump campaign and later in the White House, resigning from her post as the president’s communications director in February 2018.

She provided testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, details of which are included in his exhaustive 448-page report laying out contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia and exploring potential obstruction of justice by Trump.

Mueller ultimately did not reach a conclusion on whether Trump obstructed the probe, saying the Justice Department policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted prevented him from doing so.

Still, the special counsel has made clear that his investigation did not exonerate Trump of allegations of obstruction, and Democrats have taken his report and recent public comments as a green light to drill forth on their own investigations into Trump’s conduct.

Attorney General William Barr has said the evidence laid out in Mueller’s report is insufficient to accuse Trump of a crime.

Hicks will be the first fact-based witness the panel will hear from as part of its investigation, with her appearance coming two months after the release of the special counsel’s report.

Earlier this week, the committee hosted a panel with former White House counsel John Dean, a known Trump critic and a pivotal figure in the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration in the 1970s, to hear testimony on obstruction.

Meanwhile, a deal for Mueller’s own testimony continues to evade the committee; Mueller indicated in his public remarks on May 29 that he is unwilling to testify publicly before Congress about the investigation. Nadler says he will subpoena Mueller if necessary.

Nadler, however, teased Mueller’s possible testimony in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday evening, saying he would testify “way before” the end of summer, without providing further detail.

The announcement of Hicks's scheduled testimony comes one day after the House Democrats voted to give committee chairmen more power to go to court to seek civil enforcement of their subpoenas for individuals who do not comply with them.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/448244-hope-hicks-agrees-to-testify-before-house-panel-report

One by one, the Dems are knocking down Trump's obstructions and getting to the facts. Hicks will testify to avoid jail for contempt.

George Conway pens op-ed calling for Trump impeachment proceedings

Lawyer George Conway and law professor Neal Katyal penned an op-ed published in The Washington Post on Wednesday calling for impeachment proceedings against President Trump to begin.

Katyal and Conway, the husband of White House counselor Kellyanne Conway and a frequent critic of Trump on Twitter, say Trump’s court filing arguing he cannot be investigated by Congress is the most recent indicator that lawmakers should begin impeachment proceedings.

Trump “filed a brief in the nation’s second-most-important court that takes the position that Congress cannot investigate the president, except possibly in impeachment proceedings. It’s a spectacularly anti-constitutional brief, and anyone who harbors such attitudes toward our Constitution’s architecture is not fit for office,” the two men wrote.

The two lawyers wrote that the brief “is nothing if not an invitation to commencing impeachment proceedings that, for reasons set out in the Mueller report, should have already commenced.”

Conway and Katyal are referring to an appeals brief filed by Trump’s lawyers in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia that argues against the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s ongoing probe into Trump’s business ventures and whether he broke the law by committing financial and tax fraud.

Trump "argues that Congress is 'trying to prove that the President broke the law' and that that’s something Congress can’t do, because it’s 'an exercise of law enforcement authority that the Constitution reserves to the executive branch,'" Conway and Katyal wrote.

The drumbeat of Democratic lawmakers calling for impeachment proceedings to begin has been growing, particularly increasing after special counsel Robert Mueller gave his only public comments regarding the findings of his report.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has tempered the conversation about impeaching Trump, pointing to the lack of Republican support outside of Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) who has been the only Republican to publicly support opening impeachment proceedings.

“Congress could investigate Trump’s finances in an impeachment proceeding, but it can do so without launching the formal process of impeachment,” Conway and Katyal wrote, concluding that “Trump’s brief can be construed as an invitation to commence impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, Trump’s attitudes toward our Constitution’s checks and balances, in addition to evidence of obstruction of justice, must play a key role.”

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/44826...ent-proceedings



I love this bit. Nailed it!

I hope she testifies and I hope she tells the truth... I have serious doubts that it's going to be some smoking gun like you seem to think it is... it will likely be somewhat vague and then both sides will pick and choose the parts that fit their narrative and the fight will rage on...

It will, however, give congressmen a great chance to grandstand and try to appear tough and argumentative for their constituents..

Then both sides can say, "See, we were right."

We can only hope. Maybe something good will come out of a very public thorough investigation. And if Trump is actually innocent, even though I can't fathom how he could be, then he would be innocent. That does not include impeachment where the Senate acquits simply on party line. That would only inflame matters.

There is absolutely nothing that anybody could say or do at this point that is going to lead the majority of democrats to come to the conclusion that Trump is innocent... For two reasons.. one, that would require proving the negative, that he didn't do something, which is almost impossible to prove... two, he's almost assuredly NOT completely innocent and the evidence that is out there that SOMETHING happened, is too much.. democrats aren't going to ever let this go and no amount of testimony is going to change that.

On April 18, 2019, Swish posted on Facebook that the results of the Mueller report were coming out and that he was prepared to live with the findings... a bunch of folks in the comments agreed with him, IIRC... see how far that has gotten us?

Edit - Swish, know that this is not a dig at you.. I believe you were/are sincere.. just stating that these things very rarely actually reach a conclusion that the majority can agree on..

Hard to judge Swish on that one since we still don't have the full report and Barr spun the thing falsely for a month before any Dem got a glimpse of it.

Like I said, I'm not judging him, I honestly think he was sincere... just a little too optimistic that there was actually going to be some kind of a conclusion in it.

Then the way it was rolled out, with editorial, rebuttal, innuendo, speculation, bits and pieces.. without just throwing the whole report out there for public consumption.. has only served to make it a freaking nightmare.

And then there are people who were actually OK with the SC's findings and are still OK with congress proceeding apace. That is how it's set up. I for one am OK with letting the process play out.

The froth of the news media treating every morsel as a thanksgiving dinner didn't help one bit. The report is as I expected, and I think anyone who has read the executive summary and came away thinking Trump is innocent has problems with reading comprehension. Most people haven't read the report OR the summary and just go off their preferred "news" source. An unfortunate side effect when news is a money business. Compare the BBC to our news outlets and its a night and day difference.

And that's the real problem here. Nobody has actually bothered to read it or even read the breakdown of the points made in it regarding obstruction.

They'd rather regurgitate what their talking heads say over and over again.

And I think it's far more a side effect of the people not really caring about knowing the actual truth and becoming sheeple. I mean the media plays its part but it's the people who no longer desire to actually look at things for themselves anymore.

Hey I tried to post the points in part 2 and the Trumpians still refused to read it.

Exactly.

I stay as far away from cable news as I can get. They all sound the same, making the game: pick your flavor and run with the bull you like to smell.

Me too. At my gym, there is a bank of TVs in front of the cardio equipment when you first walk in the door. Fox News and CNN are always right beside each other.... many times I've walked in, read the headlines of what both are talking about and the way it is phrased, chuckled, and gone about my workout...

"Dueling Chyrons."

Trump admin has ordered Hope Hicks not to answer questions about her time in the White House... smh