(12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?

Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.

Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.

I watched some of the trial yesterday (yes, it IS a trial) and thought to myself, this reminds me of the trials they used to hold in East Germany.

(12-05-2019 11:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 10:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Anybody else a little disturbed that the elected members of Congress are using secret subpoenas to obtain, and then release to the public at large, the call records of political opponents and reporters?

Nothing the Democrats do surprises me, and everything worries me. I believe most of the leftie posters here to be good and honest men, and I wonder how they mentally reconcile the actions of their team in congress with their own notions of fair play and due process.

Maybe Big could tell us how this works, legally.

I do enjoy how the Dems have utterly ignored the basic Congressional Rules in the first set of hearings already.

Again, rules and process should only be adhered to based on outcome.

What Schiff pulled with the cell phone logs is pretty disgusting. Dont know if illegal, but on the grotesque side a real '11'.

But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.

(12-05-2019 12:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.
I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.
I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

I also wonder why the honest men here do not respond.

I’m not sure there are any.

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

You mean like AG Holder?

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

(12-05-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

You mean like AG Holder?

Nice dodge and weave. What about a real answer?

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

No comment on AG Holder? To me, that sounds like precedent.

yes, I think there are limits. But I also think they are very broad, and the courts need to define on each case.

But now this brings up the actions of the Vice-president. you sure you want to go there? I am all for subpoenaing Biden and others from that time period to get to the bottom of whatever the Democrats are trying to bury.

(12-05-2019 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

No comment on AG Holder? To me, that sounds like precedent.

Not familiar with that situation - looks like it was in 2012 over documents?

(12-05-2019 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

No comment on AG Holder? To me, that sounds like precedent.

Not familiar with that situation - looks like it was in 2012 over documents?

Use your google.

(12-05-2019 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

No comment on AG Holder? To me, that sounds like precedent.

Not familiar with that situation - looks like it was in 2012 over documents?

Use your google.

(12-05-2019 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

No comment on AG Holder? To me, that sounds like precedent.

Not familiar with that situation - looks like it was in 2012 over documents?

Use your google.

(12-05-2019 03:29 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

Which ones in particular?

To be honest, I actually supported members (present serving and past) of the Obama administration doing the same thing --- there is an absolutely clear issue about division of powers, the scope of Congressional subpoeana, and laundry list of sub-issues relating to those present, not to mention the very strong potential of executive privilege relating to discussions amongst members of *any* Presidential Administration.

If it pertains to purely private individuals without those issues present, they should undoubtedly testify in response to the Congressional summons.

Next question with a bunch of background issues missing?

But then again I am ignorant dumb*** who actually cares about processes and the rule of law.

So theoretically, would you extend executive privilege to allow for the cover up of a crime? What if that crime isn’t even connected to the operation of the office of the POTUS?

Say a POTUS is accused of outright bribery and their energy secretary was in the office at the time of the bribe. Executive privilege covers that topic?

Or do you think there are limits to what executive privilege covers?

Perhaps you should actually answer my first question to you instead of the litany of 'what ifs' that follow, mind you.

And, yes, this ignorant dumfk actually believes that a privilege should enjoy the presumption of that as such. Kind of makes sense when one understands what the hell the privilege in this case (and privilege in related situations) is meant to protect. Common sense.

Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on or handing over documents related to discussions on Fast and Furious. I was disappointed because with that issue I do believe Federal laws were broken at the highest level; but me stammering 'but but but' and 'what if what if what if' doesnt change the level of proof needed to overcome that.

So I will assume from your pell mell dash, that you are unaware or dont care about the idea of executive privilege. Or how it relates to the actual supbpoenas, nor how the subpoeanas related directly to the issue of co-equal branches of government. Kind of bedrock stuff one should be aware of before one stammers on with rhetorical complains about the subject.

And, as implied directly preceding, that presumption for executive privilege (as with almost all privileges) can be defeated. Too bad that takes a little extra work. But that stands in contradistinction to your rhetorical stand-alone whine question, doesnt it?

(12-05-2019 03:32 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 12:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-05-2019 11:17 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But the ends justifies the means I guess for that in those minds.

Exactly. Nothing, not the Constitution, not precedent, not fair play, not due process, shall stay these self-appointed couriers from the slow and agonizing pursuit of their one goal in life, to get Trump.

I thought when the Mueller report came out they would desist. Now I wonder if they still will be trying this stuff four years from now. Or even longer. They are more single minded in their quest than Ahab.

I wonder why the honest men in the Dem party allow these perversions to continue in their name.

How do you feel about witnesses who have been given a congressional subpoena to testify, ignoring the subpoenas? They have first hand knowledge of the allegations and could shed some very strong light on the situation.

You mean like AG Holder?

Nice dodge and weave. What about a real answer?

It is actually spot on, lad. I am sorry you might not be familiar with that portion of ancient history.

(12-05-2019 03:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Pretty much why I had zero issue with Holder not testifying on Fast and Furious.

Don't help the Lad with his homework. How will he ever learn?