General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRe Impeachment - turn on Rachel RFN
The fucker is going down - justice is coming
Ptah
(33,028 posts)malaise
(268,968 posts)House Committees - from the WSJ report.
Also the law suit for McGahn.
Nadler coming up on Rachel in a few minutes
Here's a link to Rachel - the show will be available shortly after the live show ends.
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Ptah
(33,028 posts)malaise
(268,968 posts)pwb
(11,261 posts)I don't even have cable anymore all wifi streaming for me. i can ge.t Rachael but I have to work at it.
donkeypoofed
(2,187 posts)Same for CNN. Its very handy!
tinrobot
(10,895 posts)Judiciary committee is using possible impeachment as one reason to compel Don McGahn to testify.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)JohnnyLib2
(11,211 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,590 posts)McCabe and Strzok suing tRump for being fired. The banks are releasing records on his dirty money. Nadler is trying to get McGahn too.
"Pelosi signed off on the language in the McGahn lawsuit that said that the committee was trying to decide whether to impeach Trump, according to an aide to the speaker."
"Earlier this week, Nadler laid out a timeline for impeachment, saying that his panel could move to impeach Trump by the end of the year an ambitious timeline given the multiple court cases the committee is fighting. Democratic committee aides said Wednesday that they hoped to convince the court that the case was an "emergency" to expedite the court proceedings."
"McGahn's testimony is a key piece of that effort, Democrats say, because he was a key witness in the Mueller report -- especially its second section, about instances when the President may have attempted to obstruct the investigation. The special counsel's investigation documented how Trump told McGahn to fire the special counsel, which he did not do, and then told McGahn to lie publicly about Trump telling him to dismiss Mueller. McGahn's statements to Mueller's team were cited more than 150 times in the report -- more than any other witness."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/07/politics/don-mcgahn-lawsuit-impeachment/index.html
kentuck
(111,089 posts)When McGahn is subpoenaed to testify, will he take the 5th Amendment?
Will Sessions testify?
Who will cooperate, unless ordered by the Court?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It will be interesting to see how the Committee responds. Since there's no indication that he committed any crimes and he's not the big fish anyway, they could likely grant him immunity, which would take away his Fifth Amendment shield since he would no longer be in danger of self-incrimination.
FYI - he's already been subpoenaed, but he's refused to testify on the grounds that his testimony is protected by executive privilege. The Committee has now taken him to court to get a court order mandating him to testify. If they get it and he still refuses, he'll be in contempt of court, which takes it to a new level.
lindysalsagal
(20,680 posts)In the 2020 ads in every state. So, there's that.
triron
(22,001 posts)She had Stzrok's attorney on.
NCLefty
(3,678 posts)some damning news about Trump will be uncovered and then smeared liberally across the next 15 months to keep everyone focused on the criminal in the White House.
zackymilly
(2,375 posts)malaise
(268,968 posts)Dems will have done their duty
zackymilly
(2,375 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Impeaching Kavanaugh and or Clarence Thomas could be considered a 'duty.'
If they did "do their duty" right now, would you be applauding? Or would you be banging your head on your desk like everyone else saying, "Think about the consequences!! Yes, it's awful watching them in action, and would be satisfying seeing Thomas gone after that blatant abuse during "Citizens United" and getting an abusive, tempramentally unqualified rapist off the bench, but NOT NOW! Wait until we don't have so much to lose by doing so!!!"
You know why Mitch McConnell won't let so many House bills come to the Senate - After all, he knows that they won't pass, so why would he need to keep them off the floor? It's not just his own job - or to please big donors like the NRA and fossil fuels.
He knows that getting those GOP votes on the record against bills with names like "BIPARTISAN BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2019 " will be used against them by Dems in 2020 - especially states that are turning purple. There would be nothing to gain by letting it come to the floor, and would give ammunition to those who want to primary moderate GOP Senators in purple states.
It's the same reason behind Paul Ryan bringing the "repeal and replace" vote to the floor dozens of times, even if it had zero chance of getting anywhere. Getting those votes on the record for Freshmen GOP tea partiers to use in their campaigns.
If we wanted Dem leaders to use the same tactics that McConnell uses against them, we need to LET THEM. This is what Pelosi is doing. She knows how these votes will affect Dem 2020 House and Senate campaigns in swing districts and red states.
The Kavanaugh confirmation was a wet dream for the GOP - they knew that it was a lose/lose for Senate Dems in Red states. If they voted to please their constituents and keep their seat - no matter if it made NO difference in the outcome, they would be vilified by Democrats accross the country. If they voted with Democrats - no matter if it made NO difference in the outcome - they would likely be primaried.
We don't need to play into that with impeachment hearings, unless there is something that we don't know about that could be a bombshell, like evidence that could impeach Pence first. If that was the case, then I think Pelosi and the Judiciary Committee would go forward. That might be worth losing Senate seats in Red States in 2020, if it laid the groundwork for Trump resigning - because any VP would have to be approved by Congress, and they won't do it.