(10-21-2024 04:04 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 03:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 02:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Eight hours of billed meetings in one day and don't know with whom or what it was about...

not possible

Eight hours billed. Some travel, some interviews. Indeterminate on how much travel, how much meeting.

Also note the following item in the article -- "The United States Supreme Court case of United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), requires that prosecutors confer with government officials before interviewing current or former federal employees".

Mark Meadows, and any host of of former Trump cabinet employees.

I see 5 responses of the 16 directly refer to me. Rent free......

He finally found someone to copy....there it is.



Weve rarely had a poster here embarass himself the way you have. Youre special.

Congrats!

Im so sorry you cannot comprehend what is actually literally in the article.

(10-21-2024 04:07 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  One of the lawfare warriors engages in questionable ethics. How does tanq respond? Like this:



Also, "but Trump blah blah blah."

Predictable. So, so predictable.

I guess that interviewing ex-Federal officials in the investigation is somehow earth-shattering? Really? Actually following the rule to do so is earth shattering? Lolz.

(10-21-2024 03:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 02:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Eight hours of billed meetings in one day and don't know with whom or what it was about...

not possible

Eight hours billed. Some travel, some interviews. Indeterminate on how much travel, how much meeting.

Also note the following item in the article -- "The United States Supreme Court case of United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), requires that prosecutors confer with government officials before interviewing current or former federal employees".

Mark Meadows, and any host of of former Trump cabinet employees.

I see 5 responses of the 16 directly refer to me. Rent free......

That's really what your answer is going to be? As a nobody atty and that was what this guy was if you are going to the white house to get permission to question the chief of staff or "any host of of former Trump cabinet employees". You going to remember that meeting and who you had it with. The article also states it doesn't mean the meetings were at the white house. But I think it's about 95% sure thing they were at the white house. No government atty is going to do the traveling. They are not wasting their day and going to make the "nobody atty" do that.

No one unless they are a 100% idiot would believe this atty doesn't remember who he met with. You really going to be that person?

“The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

Yeah, but tanq says otherwise. Because he's the "expert" on everything about everything.

(10-21-2024 04:59 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

Yeah, but tanq says otherwise. Because he's the "expert" on everything about everything.

Maybe he will share something he is am expert on with us oneday.

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

A Touhy request is required anytime a litigant seeks information from a Federal employee, and the US government isnt a party to the litigation.

(10-21-2024 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

A Touhy request is required anytime a litigant seeks information from a Federal employee, and the US government isnt a party to the litigation.

A Touhy request is a written request for official information from the government for use in litigation when the government is not a party to the case. The request is named after the 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen.
A Touhy request can be made in the form of a letter or a subpoena:

(10-21-2024 03:47 PM)maximus Wrote:  Tanqs lost his internet connection

Along with his mind.

(10-21-2024 03:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 02:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Eight hours of billed meetings in one day and don't know with whom or what it was about...

not possible

Eight hours billed. Some travel, some interviews. Indeterminate on how much travel, how much meeting.

Also note the following item in the article -- "The United States Supreme Court case of United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), requires that prosecutors confer with government officials before interviewing current or former federal employees".

Mark Meadows, and any host of of former Trump cabinet employees.

I see 5 responses of the 16 directly refer to me. Rent free......

So you could bill 8 hours for a conference with WH staff and not remember it?

Well? Are you going to address the appearance of dishonesty his answers represent? Don't you find them the least bit suspect, as in he's lying through his teeth?

(10-21-2024 05:50 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 03:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 02:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Eight hours of billed meetings in one day and don't know with whom or what it was about...

not possible

Eight hours billed. Some travel, some interviews. Indeterminate on how much travel, how much meeting.

Also note the following item in the article -- "The United States Supreme Court case of United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), requires that prosecutors confer with government officials before interviewing current or former federal employees".

Mark Meadows, and any host of of former Trump cabinet employees.

I see 5 responses of the 16 directly refer to me. Rent free......

So you could bill 8 hours for a conference with WH staff and not remember it?

Read the bolded above, TB4E.

As for remembering who I conferred with on a particular day more than two years previous, I couldnt tell you from my time entries. Or really remember.

His entry: "Interview with D.C./White House, November 18th, 2022. Eight hours at $250. Cost $2,000". It could be from among scores of people he probably conferred with during that stretch. He probably conferred with at least a few score of people similarly associated with eitehr the Trump WH or the Biden administration.

(10-21-2024 05:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Well? Are you going to address the appearance of dishonesty his answers represent? Don't you find them the least bit suspect, as in he's lying through his teeth?

It is probably dishonest only to those that make blind assumptions and really dont read the entries.

Possible he is dishonest? Sure.

Possible that he didnt particularly recall from the among few score that fit the very general description? Sure to that as well.

But Ill leave it to you to make the blind leap to the former.

(10-21-2024 05:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

A Touhy request is required anytime a litigant seeks information from a Federal employee, and the US government isnt a party to the litigation.

A Touhy request is a written request for official information from the government for use in litigation when the government is not a party to the case. The request is named after the 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen.
A Touhy request can be made in the form of a letter or a subpoena:

And a Touhy request can be done in person.

(10-21-2024 04:59 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

Yeah, but tanq says otherwise. Because he's the "expert" on everything about everything.

Your more than welcome to make a substantive response. Or just whine. Your choice.

(10-21-2024 06:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 05:50 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 03:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 02:32 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Eight hours of billed meetings in one day and don't know with whom or what it was about...

not possible

Eight hours billed. Some travel, some interviews. Indeterminate on how much travel, how much meeting.

Also note the following item in the article -- "The United States Supreme Court case of United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 (1951), requires that prosecutors confer with government officials before interviewing current or former federal employees".

Mark Meadows, and any host of of former Trump cabinet employees.

I see 5 responses of the 16 directly refer to me. Rent free......

So you could bill 8 hours for a conference with WH staff and not remember it?

Read the bolded above, TB4E.

As for remembering who I conferred with on a particular day more than two years previous, I couldnt tell you from my time entries. Or really remember.

His entry: "Interview with D.C./White House, November 18th, 2022. Eight hours at $250. Cost $2,000". It could be from among scores of people he probably conferred with during that stretch. He probably conferred with at least a few score of people similarly associated with eitehr the Trump WH or the Biden administration.

In that case he should be able to produce receipts from all such meetings, right? Why are they focused on that one in particular? I mean scores of people would almost have to involve multiple meetings or calls, correct? Could you confer with scores of people in 8 hours?

You're telling me that you wouldn't have the ability to go back through your records to find a specific meeting that would almost certainly include notes? Or that having such records available wouldnt jar your memory?

That seems counterintuitive for a successful lawyer.

Like I said. He is lying.

He either made up billing entries or he just lied under oath.

(10-21-2024 06:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 05:48 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 05:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-21-2024 04:57 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  “The 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen, 340 U.S. 462 established that agency heads have the authority to restrict the testimony of their subordinates and to establish procedures for releasing official information”

That doesn’t look like a credible reason for Nathan Wade to meet repeatedly with the DOJ.

A Touhy request is required anytime a litigant seeks information from a Federal employee, and the US government isnt a party to the litigation.

A Touhy request is a written request for official information from the government for use in litigation when the government is not a party to the case. The request is named after the 1951 Supreme Court case United States ex rel. Touhy v. Ragen.
A Touhy request can be made in the form of a letter or a subpoena:

And a Touhy request can be done in person.

So he was able to do this all in one day in D.C. ? Now that is impressive, all in 8 hrs.

The whole point of this exercise was to uncover the realistic possibility that the WH had a hand in guiding the prosecution of Trump in Georgia. You know, kinda like their #3 man in the DOJ resigning and taking a job with the NY DA's office, in another case we're all familiar with.

How does anything anybody said in this thread, including our resident expert, disprove that theory? I'm guessing that's why the committee went down this path.

Former Fulton County, Georgia, special prosecutor Nathan Wade told lawmakers Monday that District Attorney Fani Willis planned to pursue charges against Donald Trump before she officially took the job, and admitted to meeting with Biden administration officials at least twice during Willis' probe of the former president.

In August 2023, a grand jury handed up an indictment to Trump and 18 allies for trying to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.

Wade was forced off Willis' legal team after their romantic relationship was exposed. Late last month, he was subpoenaed to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, which is probing prosecutions of Trump.

In a closed-door deposition before the committee last week, Wade said he was on a "search committee" — set up before Willis took office on January 1, 2021 — to find prosecutors to go after Trump.

After being asked when the search for prosecutors started, Wade said, "Sometime after the election, but prior to her taking office," according to the House committee's transcript released Monday.

The transcript also showed that, at least 58 times during his testimony, Wade said he could not "recall" or didn't "know" key details of documented interactions he had with Biden White House officials and members of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nathan...d/1184885/