Replies

Back to Russia.

not true, they can be forced to show up but still trump can claim executive privileged and they don’t have to say a word.

Someone really needs to read the court decision on this one.

But they CAN and SHOULD refuse to answer, claiming EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE.

The BEEB is uber lefty and anti-Trump.

A federal judge has ruled...
He says breathlessly.

YAWN!...BFD.

They actually CANT be made to testify they just have to show up, once they show up they can refuse to answer questions because of executive privilege!!!

Obama appointed judge who goes against the Constitution separation of powers. She ignores years of precedence and multiple rulings because SHE doesn’t like it. Executive privilege derives from the President’s veto power. If it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses to over-ride a Presidential veto, a single presidential NO vote of a Congressional action, then the mere assertion of a committee’s vote to compel an executive department revelation must also succeed in garnering a two-thirds congressional dual house support. If they have that, impeachment is a Foregone conclusion.

This idiot Obama judge does not know constitutional law or case law. Congress does not have the power to break executive privilege. . . Nor does a single district judge. That would require the US Supreme Court.

Aides to members of the House don't have any sort of privilege to hide behind. Aides to Schiff and Nancy should be called if this goes to the Senate and asked about contacts with the Gossip Blower, who from Ukraine or representing Ukraine comes to see the House member they work for, etc.

Nope. Fake news. They can be compelled to APPEAR, for the amount of time this rogue judges ruling stands, which won’t be long. They can then APPEAR and invoke executive privilege or their 5th amendment right. We are not yet that kind of country where you can be forced to testify.

Ketanji Brown Jackson (born September 1970) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In 2016, she was reportedly interviewed as one of Barack Obama's potential nominees for the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia.
Early life and education[edit] Jackson (née Brown) was born in Washington, D.C. Her parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, are an attorney and retired school principal, respectively. Jackson graduated from Miami Palmetto High School in 1988. Her parents still reside in Miami. She earned a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude in government in 1992 from Harvard University and a Juris Doctor degree cum laude in 1996 from Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Jackson has served as a law clerk for three federal judges, including U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Patti B. Saris and U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya. She clerked for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1999 until 2000. — Wikipedia

Scant legal qualifications for where she sits, let alone the Supreme Court. Obviously her creeds are that she’s reliably progressive and leftist.

It’ll take 3 Donald J Trumps to clean out DC and the federal judiciary after what Soetero and the globalists that came before him have done to it. Good Lord.

Another Soetero appointee making sh*t up as she goes in support of the Resistance.

As incredibly painful as it would be, it would be educational to attend some type of social gathering with these clowns. Just to listen to them talk and pat themselves on the back. Of course, I doubt any of them have bbq’s like the rest of us with some meat on a grill and a cooler full of beer.

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Quelle surprise

A ClownBammy judge rules that the Derp State can do anything it wants to.

HJC -vs- White House – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Predictably Rules White House Counsel Don McGahn Must Testify….

Posted on November 25, 2019 by sundance

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks. The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.
Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing. The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.

Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:

View this document on Scribd

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue. There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦ The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight. That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court. Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending. There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.
[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered. (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦ The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation. The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was stayed by a three member DC Appellate court. Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case ~~could~~ will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing. (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

♦ The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn. Issue: subpoena validity. The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS). The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process. The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

The Department of Justice says it will appeal the ruling.

Almost automatic these days.

But in her ruling, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "no one is above the law".

Hmm, the same words Nancy Pelosi used on this subject.

sounds as if ANOTHER Federal judge wants to violate the Cpmstitution regarding executive privilege. He must have been in one of Obama’s classes.

Obama Judge who will be overturned on appeal. Absolutely no legal justification for this ruling. It a political judgement made by a partisan judge.

Well, the Beeb can hope, eh?

ROTF!!!

File the appeal.

Take to SCOTUS if necessary.

This needs to go to the Supreme Court.

This amounts to the legislative and judicial branches of government ganging up on the executive branch, and very seriously jeopardizing the Constitutional separation of powers.

The President, any President, should have a reasonable expectation that what he/she and their staff speak about will remain confidential. For Congress to be able to compel staffers to testify about what happens in the Executive branch is really not much different than requiring the President to wear a public microphone all day.

That impeachment is nothing but a circus and dont give it any credibility by attending or testifying. no judge can treat it as being normal..no resemblance.of anything ever before