2022-01-04 07:40:13 UTC
On Mon, 03 Jan 2022 12:34:55 -0600, Mitchell Holman says...
Eldest Trump children won't comply withIt's acceptable to ignore "witch hunt" subpoenas.
subpoenas from New York attorney general
January 3, 2022
subpoenas from New York attorney general
January 3, 2022
What was Obama's excuse?
Democrats Furious As Subpoena Ignored, But Obama Did The Exact Same Thing
This subpoena is just another talking point for democrats who are horrified and
trembling over the fact that their illegal abuses are about to be exposed.
Democrats are screaming for impeachment and Pelosi is having a hard time
holding back their ignorant hate. The reason? Don McGahn, former White House
counsel has refused a subpoena by House dems and blowhard Jerrold Nadler is
apoplectic over the act.
Of course, none of these democrats said a word or called for impeachment when
Obama forbade his political strategy director from answering GOP questions.
The New York Times apparently forgot this little story from 2014... or they
think the American public is too stupid to remember it:
The White House said Tuesday night that it would refuse to allow its director
of political strategy to testify Wednesday before a Republican-led House
committee investigating whether the administration had illegally conducted
political activity in the West Wing.
In a letter to Representative Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, the president's top lawyer said that as a
member of the executive branch the political director, David Simas, had
immunity from being compelled to testify before Congress.
Mr. Issa's committee subpoenaed Mr. Simas last week, contending that the White
House should not have opened the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach this
year. Mr. Issa told the White House in May that "the American people have a
right to know if their tax dollars are being spent to support congressional
campaigns during the 2014 midterm elections in violation of federal law."
In a statement on Tuesday, Mr. Issa said that the decision to prevent Mr. Simas
from testifying was "another attack on our nation's Constitution" and that he
planned to examine whether the president intended to assert executive
In past confrontations between Congress and the executive branch, lawmakers
have held officials in contempt if they refused to appear.
Presidents have also made formal, legal assertions of executive privilege to
keep advisers from testifying.
So, preventing congressional testimony is NOT new. Donald Trump is executing
the same privilege that Obama did, but is being called a villain by the left
without any proof.
Fox News reported on the democrats' outrage (and the fact that they have ZERO
legal ability to haul McGahn in to testify):
The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee vowed Tuesday to go to court
if necessary to seek former White House Counsel Don McGahn's testimony, after
he defied a subpoena and skipped a committee hearing at President Trump's
The move infuriated Democrats and touched off what could be another high-
profile battle over holding a Trump official in contempt of Congress.
"Let me be clear, this committee will hear Mr. McGahn's testimony, even if we
have to go to court to secure it," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry
Nadler, D-N.Y, said at the beginning of the hearing which McGahn did not
Accusing Trump of witness intimidation, Nadler added, "When this committee
issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show
up. Our subpoenas are not optional."
While he did not specifically mention contempt, Nadler told CNN on Monday night
that lawmakers would pursue that route.
A day earlier, the president directed McGahn to not appear for the committee
hearing, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to
testify about his official duties.
"In short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a
legal obligation to be here today," Nadler said. "This conduct is not remotely
But Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member on the committee, responded
to Nadler's remarks by accusing Democrats of political theatrics, saying they
are "trying desperately to make something out of nothing."
"I cannot emphasize this enough - the chairman's track record demonstrates he
does not actually want information," Collins said. "He wants the fight, but not
Earlier this month, House Democrats opted to question an empty chair -
alongside a prop chicken - when Attorney General Bill Barr failed to appear
citing Democrats' unusual demands.
In a statement released Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah
Sanders blasted Democrats for continuing to pursue Trump investigations, saying
they want a "wasteful and unnecessary do-over" in the wake of Special Counsel
Robert Mueller's probe - and describing the subpoena for McGahn as part of
The related DOJ memo said McGahn, like other senior advisers to a president,
has "immunity" from being compelled to testify about his official duties.
"This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr.
McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to
his official duties as Counsel to the President," the memo said.
The committee announced the hearing last week, but it was initially unclear
whether McGahn would appear due to the ongoing battle between congressional
Democrats and the White House over his testimony.
The committee, led by Nadler, subpoenaed McGahn on April 22, days after the
release of Mueller's report, which featured McGahn prominently in its section
related to the obstruction of justice inquiry. This included a claim that
McGahn disobeyed Trump's call to have him seek Mueller's removal.
The report also revealed that when the media reported on the president's
request, the president directed White House officials "to tell McGahn to
dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have
the special counsel removed."
He did not.
The House committee's subpoena, coming amid a fight over access to the
unredacted Mueller report, called for McGahn to appear before the panel to
testify and provide documents related to the Mueller investigation.
The battle over McGahn's testimony is just one front in the clash between the
White House and congressional Democrats.
Earlier this month, the committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for defying a
subpoena for Mueller's full and unredacted report, as well as underlying
evidence and documents used in the investigation.
Trump, prior to the vote, asserted executive privilege over the materials in a
bid to protect them from being turned over to the committee. The full House has
yet to take a final vote on whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress.
Unless these democrats are outed from power, the fight will continue.
Liberals Are Wimps (New Study Shocks Scientific Community...
Liberal men are physically smaller and weaker than conservative men - and it's
Vice Admits Liberal Men are Weaker, Less Attractive than...
Vice Admits Liberal Men are Weaker, Less Attractive than Conservatives By
Phillip Schneider on August 11, 2020 ( Leave a comment ) While the flames of
the culture war rage, even far-left media publication Vice admits that liberal
men are weaker and less competent than conservatives.
TRUTH: Why Liberals Are WEAKER Than Conservatives
TRUTH: Why Liberals Are WEAKER Than Conservatives. Speaking of weak liberals,
who can't even stand the sight of history: Texas Restaurant Defending
Controversial Sign Some Are Calling Racist - by Robert Gehl. A Texas restaurant
is under attack on social media for what many are calling its racist décor. The
neon sign hung at Cook's Garage...
Science Proves That Liberals Are Crazier Than Conservatives
Well, I recently came across a fantastic article about another study of
Liberals - except this time, instead of focusing on the weak males, it focuses
on the average Liberal woman instead. A Ph.D. candidate at Georgia State
University has analyzed the data out of a recent Pew Research Center poll, and
the results are amazing.
Shocker: Study Shows Physically Weak Men Tend to be Liberal
Shocker: Study Shows Physically Weak Men Tend to be Liberal. In news that will
surprise absolutely no one, a new study reveals that girly men are more likely
to favor socialist policies. The study, conducted by researchers at Brunel
University London, looked at the height, weight, physical strength, and bicep
circumference of 171 men, along...
Liberalism Breeds Soft, Weak, Young "Men" - Louder With...
by Steven Crowder I know some of you think when I say "liberalism breeds weak,
fat men," that I'm merely politicizing an issue to be polarizing. I assure you
that's not the case. Allow me five hundred words to make my case. I was a
chubby kid. Strike that, I was a jiggly shrimp. Skinny-fat. The kind of kid who
was relatively thin, yet managed to ma
Why Liberals Are So Physically Monstrous And Repulsive...
Liberals are not born uglier. They voluntarily remain ugly or become uglier to
fit a narrative. "Appearance is ideology". It takes a special kind of hypocrisy
to call something that is universally seen as ugly "beautiful" and vice-versa.
Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic
Jun 9, 2016 Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science
journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more
likely to show traits associated with "psychoticism"...
12 Reasons Why Liberals And Progressives Will Always Be...
Liberal men however are inexcusable, they are either effeminate enough to be
emotionally manipulated or are weak and yielding to social pressures. December
10, 2016 Take The Red Pill Don't forget that Liberal men are usually the
offspring of domineering feminists or divorced feminists and sometimes single
Men With Weak Upper Bodies Tend to Be Liberal - Physically Strong Men Tend to
Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political
stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according
to a new study.
Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to
Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic
redistribution, according to the research.
The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen,
of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of
California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits
that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to
influence behavior today.
Professor Petersen said: 'While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon,
it has - in a sense - always been with our species.'
In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of
resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but through
shows of strength.
With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesized that
upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire
resources - would predict men's opinions about the redistribution of wealth.