Jump to content

Lawlessness in America: Garland, America's AG in contempt of Congress


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, West said:

Did you really expect Garland's DoJ to prosecute him over that frivolous nothingburger? LMAO

No rationale was ever given for NEEDING the AUDIO except your LIES about the transcripts being edited to remove substantive meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2024 at 6:08 PM, robosmith said:

The AG is the law. Duh

Just like Fauci is science, right?

You Libbies are disgusting. The DOJ prosecuted a 75 year old lady and you cheer that on, hiding behind..."it's the law"...but Garland breaks the law and you twerps are fine with it.

You're sick people. Disgusting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Just like Fauci is science, right?

You Libbies are disgusting. The DOJ prosecuted a 75 year old lady and you cheer that on, hiding behind..."it's the law"...but Garland breaks the law and you twerps are fine with it.

You're sick people. Disgusting. 

Garland didn't break the law, goofus. Once it's claimed, executive privilege is presumptive. You'd need a court to reverse it. Nothing illegal. 

I'm sure you'll change your opinion now and retract your vitriolic remarks. Because you're a person motivated by facts, not someone just randomly spewing crap to justify your biases, right? 🤣

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Just like Fauci is science, right?

You Libbies are disgusting. The DOJ prosecuted a 75 year old lady and you cheer that on, hiding behind..."it's the law"...but Garland breaks the law and you twerps are fine with it.

You're sick people. Disgusting. 

Absolutely 💯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

Did you really expect Garland's DoJ to prosecute him over that frivolous nothingburger? LMAO

No rationale was ever given for NEEDING the AUDIO except your LIES about the transcripts being edited to remove substantive meaning.

They prosecuted Banon when he had a legitimate assertion of executive privilege. Biden has an illegitimate assertion, is likely guilty (per the Hurr report) and the DOJ and WH admit the transcripts are not accurate. Seems like an open and shut case if it was anyone other than the right hand man to the tin pot dictator that runs our banana republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Garland is lashing out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/11/merrick-garland-justice-department-threats-fbi-2024/

Quote

These attacks come in the form of threats to defund particular department investigations, most recently the special counsel’s prosecution of the former president.

Well, Jack Smith is a proven, serial abuser of the court system: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2023/07/28/this-is-harassment-trump-speaks-out-following-latest-indictment-charges-n2626354

Quote

Smith prosecuted the former Republican governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. The U.S. Supreme Court later overturned the case in a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Court observed that “there is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

...

Trump later pardoned Renzi. The Republican claimed he had been “wrongly convicted by a Department of Justice that engaged in witness tampering, illegal wiretapping, and gross prosecutorial misconduct.”

Quote

They come in the form of conspiracy theories crafted and spread for the purpose of undermining public trust in the judicial process itself. Those include false claims that a case brought by a local district attorney and resolved by a jury verdict in a state trial was somehow controlled by the Justice Department.

It is funny how the #3 at the DOJ quit his prestigious job to take a near entry level Jon in NY and just so happened to end up on the Trump case. That's so weird. What a coincidence, right?

Quote

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-prosecutor-quit-top-doj-post-for-lowly-ny-job-in-likely-bid-to-get-former-president-expert-says/ar-AA1nFQ27?ocid=sapphireappshare

 

The prosecutor whose opening statement kicked off the historic trial of Former President Donald Trump left a lofty perch in the Biden administration Justice Department for his current comparatively modest New York City job – a career move that legal analysts describe as puzzling and one that's prompted questions regarding motivation

Who is this guy fooling? His DOJ is blatantly political. Probably the most political law enforcement we have seen since Hoover. He should run scared. This banana.republic b.s. has to stop. We have to end it. And it only ends when they see real, tangible losses. That means cuffs. That means jail time. J7, 2025, enforce the law and arrest him for contempt of congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Garland didn't break the law, goofus. Once it's claimed, executive privilege is presumptive. You'd need a court to reverse it. Nothing illegal. 

I'm sure you'll change your opinion now and retract your vitriolic remarks. Because you're a person motivated by facts, not someone just randomly spewing crap to justify your biases, right? 🤣

Contempt of Congress is a criminal offense. You creeps are always hiding behind one skirt or another like the fembot goofs you are. In this case, some "presumptive" executive privilege. 

Such cowadess and willingness to warp the law is continually being tallied.

Come upins will be so sweet.

Enjoy your day...coward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodad said:

Garland didn't break the law, goofus. Once it's claimed, executive privilege is presumptive. You'd need a court to reverse it. Nothing illegal. 

I'm sure you'll change your opinion now and retract your vitriolic remarks. Because you're a person motivated by facts, not someone just randomly spewing crap to justify your biases, right? 🤣

Weird how Banon was guilty of the exact same crime when he had a president claiming executive privilege.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Just like Fauci is science, right?

He is a doctor unlike you college dropouts.

12 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You Libbies are disgusting. The DOJ prosecuted a 75 year old lady and you cheer that on, hiding behind..."it's the law"...but Garland breaks the law and you twerps are fine with it.

You're sick people. Disgusting. 

He didn't break the law, sicko. The subpoena was responded, unlike Bannon and Gym Jordan who IGNORED their subpoenas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

They prosecuted Banon when he had a legitimate assertion of executive privilege.

You have no idea how executive privilege works. Only the current POTUS can invoke executive privilege, CERTAINLY NOT an guy who never held official office.

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Biden has an illegitimate assertion, is likely guilty (per the Hurr report)

Hur cannot and did not declare Biden guilty, and neither can you. 

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

and the DOJ and WH admit the transcripts are not accurate.

Prove it.

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Seems like an open and shut case if it was anyone other than the right hand man to the tin pot dictator that runs our banana republic.

Unlike you and Bannon, Biden's claims of executive privilege are VALID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Weird how Banon was guilty of the exact same crime when he had a president claiming executive privilege.

Trump never claimed executive privilege regarding Bannon nor would such claims be VALID after he was NO LONGER POTUS.

15 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Weird how Banon was guilty of the exact same crime when he had a president claiming executive privilege.

Bannon might have had a case if he'd responded but he just IGNORED the subpoena and hid on a billionaire's yacht.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Trump never claimed executive privilege regarding Bannon nor would such claims be VALID after he was NO LONGER POTUS.

Bannon might have had a case if he'd responded but he just IGNORED the subpoena and hid on a billionaire's yacht.

No, Trump filed a law suit claiming exec priv:

In recent days, former President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon rebuffed a subpoena from the same panel.   At the center of both defiant acts is the concept of executive privilege.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Contempt of Congress is a criminal offense. You creeps are always hiding behind one skirt or another like the fembot goofs you are. In this case, some "presumptive" executive privilege. 

Such cowadess and willingness to warp the law is continually being tallied.

Come upins will be so sweet.

Enjoy your day...coward.

I swear, I don't know how people like you even function in life. You don't know anything, and even if someone gives you the information, you can't absorb it. And the spelling is just icing on the stupid cake. You talking politics is like a dog watching TV; you're in the room, but you don't understand what's actually happening.

Edited by Hodad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Weird how Banon was guilty of the exact same crime when he had a president claiming executive privilege.

You are factually incorrect. Trump's attorneys told Bannon's explicitly that executive privilege would not apply. Bannon didn't even work for the WH during the events that he was subpoenaed to testify about.

Care to try again?

Edited by Hodad
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

That's actually debatable. Since you didn't post a link, I'll assume it is solely your opinion and completely invalid.

When I don't post a link, it's because I've heard it on NUMEROUS NEWS SOURCES.

Not surprised that YOURS don't report that. LMAO

Who told you that an ex-POTUS can claim executive privilege? FOS LIES?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

When I don't post a link, it's because I've heard it on NUMEROUS NEWS SOURCES.

Not surprised that YOURS don't report that. LMAO

Who told you that an ex-POTUS can claim executive privilege? FOS LIES?

And you still can't prove your assertion or you would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

And you still can't prove your assertion or you would have.

Who told you that an ex-POTUS can claim executive privilege? FOS LIES?

Trump Loses Big on Executive Privilege

Quote

At the D.C. Circuit, a three-judge panel determined that former President Trump could not assert executive privilege to prevent disclosure of documents subpoenaed by the committee, at least insofar as the legislative and executive “[b]ranches agree that there is a unique legislative need for these documents and that they are directly relevant to the Committee’s inquiry into an attack on the Legislative Branch.” 

....

But the justices also seized on the D.C. Circuit’s alternative basis for resolving the case—which is actually far broader than the mere proposition that a former president can’t assert the privilege in the face of the current president’s objections. Eight justices of the Supreme Court, declined publicly to note that they would disturb the D.C. Circuit’s finding that Trump’s executive privilege claim would fail even if he were the incumbent president. In the past, the court observes, Presidents have “waived privilege in times of pressing national need.” The D.C. Circuit ruled, and the Supreme Court left undisturbed, that the Jan. 6 insurrection was a “clear and apparent effort to subvert the Constitution.” In such an “extraordinary” situation, any President’s claim of executive privilege will fail to stand up to Congress’s need for investigation and, in turn, disclosure of the former president's communications. 

So where does this string of events leave the law of executive privilege in the D.C. Circuit? Not in a good place for the former president in his battles with the committee. It is still possible the Supreme Court will choose to review the D.C. Circuit opinion, though that seems unlikely given that its order Wednesday allowed the Archives to turn the disputed material over to the committee. So the following analysis is necessarily at least a little bit tentative at least until the Court issues a formal denial of certiorari. That said, it’s a bad set of developments for the former president.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Read for comprehension. The DC court said the legislative branch had a genuine legislative need for the documents. They did not say that he couldn't assert EP as a former POTUS.

 

They said:

Quote

So where does this string of events leave the law of executive privilege in the D.C. Circuit? Not in a good place for the former president in his battles with the committee. It is still possible the Supreme Court will choose to review the D.C. Circuit opinion, though that seems unlikely given that its order Wednesday allowed the Archives to turn the disputed material over to the committee. So the following analysis is necessarily at least a little bit tentative at least until the Court issues a formal denial of certiorari. That said, it’s a bad set of developments for the former president.

Trump LOST his claim of executive privilege to block the release of the disputed material.

Can you READ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,771
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    joebialek
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matthew earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CouchPotato earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Contributor
    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      First Post
    • CouchPotato went up a rank
      Explorer
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...