First House Subpoenas

[Elixir]

In the PresPol forum, Keith&Co posted this:

That total does not count any congressional inquiries, nor does it include any other inquiries into other administration officials unrelated to Russia.

Well, unrelated NOW, but when Foreign Involvement becomes an accepted fact, the defenses will claim these brave souls misappropriated, or abused, or flat out stole in order to subtly invite investigations, sort of a Trojan Horse crime to let agents into the inner workings of criminal activity they dared not reveal out loud.

OR-

Your honor, in the fzzce of the treason, the corruption, the alienation of allies, ant the long term effects on the economy, my client's tiny, little, forgivable mistake is hardly worth taking the court's time. My client pleads small fish in a big, stinky, cesspit of crime, and we'll just let ourselves out. Thank you.

Got me wondering - does anyone want to venture a prediction regarding the first subpoena or set of subpoenas that will come out of the Democrat-led House in 2019? If the possibilities were graphed out and each possibility represented by a dot, it would look like a swarm of mosquitoes. By what criteria do they decide which one to swat at first? On the one hand, they're not going to (at least I don't THINK they're going to) come right out and try to subpoena Trump to the stand and rip him apart. But on the other hand, if they get bogged down with small fish - like say, Alexander Taylor, former director for Cambridge Analytica, it could take decades to get around to the main culprits, since it looks like there are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of such minor enablers and possible co-conspirators.

So ... who or what do people here expect to be the object of the House's first subpoena(s)?

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the one hand, they're not going to (at least I don't THINK they're going to) come right out and try to subpoena Trump to the stand and rip him apart.

True. They won't want to ask him questions except when they already know the answers. So, they'll work their way up. But they're also in a hurry to legitimize the very fact of the investigation. So they won't spend time with the foot soldiers, with investigations that are not obviously connected to Trump, big picture crimes that Trump supporters could dismiss.

I expect Donald Junior, Ivanka, etc. High enough to be giving orders, but clearly never do anything without Daddy's approval.

 

[Elixir]

On the one hand, they're not going to (at least I don't THINK they're going to) come right out and try to subpoena Trump to the stand and rip him apart.

True. They won't want to ask him questions except when they already know the answers. So, they'll work their way up. But they're also in a hurry to legitimize the very fact of the investigation. So they won't spend time with the foot soldiers, with investigations that are not obviously connected to Trump, big picture crimes that Trump supporters could dismiss.

I expect Donald Junior, Ivanka, etc. High enough to be giving orders, but clearly never do anything without Daddy's approval.

That sums up my feeling as well. But even at that level, there's an awful lot to choose from. An embarrassment of riches, so to speak. More like an embarrassment of embarrassments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Then start with Don Junior.
He doesn't really know when to stop talking. Ask a few questions, follow what is revealed...

 

[Elixir]

Then start with Don Junior.
He doesn't really know when to stop talking. Ask a few questions, follow what is revealed...

That's probably where I would start, but I don't have to worry about optics, primaries etc.
You think that's what will happen?

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's probably where I would start, but I don't have to worry about optics, primaries etc.
You think that's what will happen?

Many who are in office now pretty much ran on an 'enough of Trump' ticket. They can't quite bring Trump into the spotlight, not just yet. But bringing his spawn under scrutiny will get them closer to The Donald, while leaving him little wiggle room to claim 'I didn't know Donny.' And it will contribute to claims next election that they were getting tough on The Trumps.

 

[Elixir]

That's probably where I would start, but I don't have to worry about optics, primaries etc.
You think that's what will happen?

Many who are in office now pretty much ran on an 'enough of Trump' ticket. They can't quite bring Trump into the spotlight, not just yet. But bringing his spawn under scrutiny will get them closer to The Donald, while leaving him little wiggle room to claim 'I didn't know Donny.' And it will contribute to claims next election that they were getting tough on The Trumps.

Good point... and it's not hard to envision hard core trumpsuckers turning on Junior whilst remaining cleft unto Cheato.

 

[Rhea]

What about folks like Jason Miller? Enough to get him out of the west wing? I agree the trump children and Jared are excellent cases with lots of existinng evidence. And they may send messages to underlings who still have info that is very bad for Trump Sr.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

In the PresPol forum, Keith&Co posted this:

That total does not count any congressional inquiries, nor does it include any other inquiries into other administration officials unrelated to Russia.

Well, unrelated NOW, but when Foreign Involvement becomes an accepted fact, the defenses will claim these brave souls misappropriated, or abused, or flat out stole in order to subtly invite investigations, sort of a Trojan Horse crime to let agents into the inner workings of criminal activity they dared not reveal out loud.

OR-

Your honor, in the fzzce of the treason, the corruption, the alienation of allies, ant the long term effects on the economy, my client's tiny, little, forgivable mistake is hardly worth taking the court's time. My client pleads small fish in a big, stinky, cesspit of crime, and we'll just let ourselves out. Thank you.

Got me wondering - does anyone want to venture a prediction regarding the first subpoena or set of subpoenas that will come out of the Democrat-led House in 2019? If the possibilities were graphed out and each possibility represented by a dot, it would look like a swarm of mosquitoes. By what criteria do they decide which one to swat at first? On the one hand, they're not going to (at least I don't THINK they're going to) come right out and try to subpoena Trump to the stand and rip him apart. But on the other hand, if they get bogged down with small fish - like say, Alexander Taylor, former director for Cambridge Analytica, it could take decades to get around to the main culprits, since it looks like there are literally hundreds - if not thousands - of such minor enablers and possible co-conspirators.

So ... who or what do people here expect to be the object of the House's first subpoena(s)?

It will take a few weeks o set up committees and to get everybody up to speed, staff acquired and moved into offices etc. First off will be low hanging fruit. Making public stuff the GOP cons refused to release. Protecting Mueller. Starting hearings the GOP blocked. Batting down legal challenges from the GOP.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...mp-administration_us_5c27f2c6e4b08aaf7a91116c
‘Consequences, Subpoenas’ In Trump’s Future, Vows House Oversight Committee Member


"House oversight committee member Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) vowed that “consequences” and “subpoenas” are in store for the Trump administration in the flurry of activity planned when the new Democratic majority takes over in January. “Donald Trump is inappropriate on so many levels,” she said Saturday on MSNBC. “We will hold him accountable.”

She said the committee has sent over 51 letters to the White House and agencies demanding information by Jan. 11."


----

So, by January 11, the gauntlet will have been thrown down. The Democrats are now, for a change, playing hard ball. No more nice Democrats. It is going to be a really fun year. Cry "Havoc!" and loose the hounds of the Oversight Committees!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...mp-administration_us_5c27f2c6e4b08aaf7a91116c
‘Consequences, Subpoenas’ In Trump’s Future, Vows House Oversight Committee Member


"House oversight committee member Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-Mich.) vowed that “consequences” and “subpoenas” are in store for the Trump administration in the flurry of activity planned when the new Democratic majority takes over in January. “Donald Trump is inappropriate on so many levels,” she said Saturday on MSNBC. “We will hold him accountable.”

She said the committee has sent over 51 letters to the White House and agencies demanding information by Jan. 11."


----

So, by January 11, the gauntlet will have been thrown down. The Democrats are now, for a change, playing hard ball. No more nice Democrats. It is going to be a really fun year. Cry "Havoc!" and loose the hounds of the Oversight Committees!

It's about time they grew a set of balls.

They need to continue with civility while playing hardball with the facts. Trumpo's wall tantrum is proof that he's pissing his pants. The only thing he's credibly able to do anymore is give his hardcore supporters their daily orgasm. He knows his days are numbered.

 

[Gun Nut]

yessssss... YEEEEESSSSS...

Come to me... come to the dark side...

"growing a set of balls" is a great first step the Dems can take.... Will they? We may get to see after all.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

yessssss... YEEEEESSSSS...

Come to me... come to the dark side...

"growing a set of balls" is a great first step the Dems can take.... Will they? We may get to see after all.

The Dems passed ACA. That took balls.

The GOP failed to repeal ACA.

 

[Gun Nut]

The Dems passed ACA. That took balls.

And a violation of the Constitution via presidential overreach... so... good example

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Dems passed ACA. That took balls.

And a violation of the Constitution via presidential overreach... so... good example

Not according to SCOTUS.

 

[Elixir]

The Dems passed ACA. That took balls.

And a violation of the Constitution via presidential overreach... so... good example

Not according to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS! The great Constitutional scholar, Chief Justice GunNut disagrees!

 

[Gun Nut]

Not according to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS! The great Constitutional scholar, Chief Justice GunNut disagrees!

I didn't say that I disagree with Jimmy, oh Great Mouthwash, Elixir...

 

[Elixir]

Not according to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS SCHMOTUS! The great Constitutional scholar, Chief Justice GunNut disagrees!

I didn't say that I disagree with Jimmy, oh Great Mouthwash, Elixir...

Nor did I say you disagreed with Jimmy. Just the Supreme Court. Because you know the Constitution better than they do, right? If not, on what grounds do you declare the ACA "unconstitutional"?

Reading comprehension FAIL. But that's okay, here's your chance to make good.