Don McGahn Has To Either Hurt Trump Or Hurt Himself

  
By:  john-russell  •  5 months ago  •  11 comments

Don McGahn Has To Either Hurt Trump Or Hurt Himself
So McGahn cannot go in front of the Judiciary committee and say something else, or disavow his previous statements without facing a perjury charge. 

Gerald Nadler said today that the House Judiciary Committee will again subpoena former White House counsel Don McGahn within a week and probably end up forcing his testimony through the courts. 

The bs coming from the Republicans the other day about how much Trump has co-operated with the investigations notwithstanding, there is little doubt that Trump has threatened McGahn with repercussions if he spills the beans to Congress. 

Don McGahn told Mueller's investigation the details of Trump's attempts to obstruct justice. He told them under oath. So McGahn cannot go in front of the Judiciary committee and say something else, or disavow his previous statements without facing a perjury charge. 

McGahn may very well want to lie for Trump, but he won't be able to. Hence the weeks and months drag by as it all has to be hashed out in court.  

This is Trump and the Republicans idea of completely co-operating with the investigation. 


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    5 months ago

Keep them doggies rollin. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 months ago

Wasn't McGann the one who took notes in all of his meeting with the 'president'?  Wasn't the 'president' aghast when he found out?

I'd say he has some pretty damning evidence against the turd in chief.  

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 months ago

All this means is that the Dems don't have any evidence to impeach,

which would fail miserably anyway

 
 
 
Ronin2
2  Ronin2    5 months ago

What part of Executive Privilege do Democrats fail to understand? 

They didn't seem to have any problem with it when Obama tried to use it for Eric Holder and Holder's wife; after the fact with Fast and Furious.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/07/don-mcgahn-wont-comply-with-house-democrats-subpoena-1308802

McGahn’s successor as White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, indicated to Burck earlier Tuesday that the White House considers documents in McGahn’s possession to be subject to executive privilege and that any discussion about sharing them with Congress should be between lawmakers and the White House. “The White House records remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional principles, because they implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege,” Cipollone wrote to Burck on Tuesday. “For these reasons, the Acting Chief of Staff to the President, Mick Mulvaney, directs Mr. McGahn not to produce these White House records in response to the committee's April 22 subpoena.”

Wash, rinse, and repeat is all the Dems in the House are good for these days. Well that, and putting poison pills in bills and then bitching when the Senate won't pass them.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2    5 months ago
They didn't seem to have any problem with it when Obama tried to use it for Eric Holder and Holder's wife; after the fact with Fast and Furious.

This dosen't come close to that level. Liberals like Weissmann think they can impeach/indict the President for his thoughts or words. They have a lot to learn and the lesson hits 'em between the eyes come election day!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @2    5 months ago
They didn't seem to have any problem with it when Obama tried to use it for Eric Holder and Holder's wife; after the fact with Fast and Furious.

Comparing McGahns possible perjury to Obama and Fast and Furious (started under Bush) is like saying "Hey, why is this apple so sour when the Orangutan is so fat?"...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3  Nerm_L    5 months ago

The House Judiciary Committee already has McGahn's sworn testimony.  And McGahn's sworn testimony has already been disclosed publicly.  How will a repetition of that sworn testimony change anything?

Don McGahn cannot impeach Trump no matter how much sworn testimony McGahn provides.  Only Democrats hold the power to impeach Trump.  Is Jerry Nadler trying to convince Nancy Pelosi to allow impeachment?

Democrats seem to believe that they can convince voters to simply give the White House to a glass of water with a D on it.  But the voters knew who and what Donald Trump was before the last election.  Charges of Russian collusion were made before the last election.  The Steele dossier was widely publicized before the last election.  Trump hasn't changed since before the last election. Democrats haven't added anything substantive to what was disclosed to the public before the last election.

Instead of wasting time litigating the last election, Democrats had better convince voters that they offer a viable alternative.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3    5 months ago
[delete]
 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    5 months ago
What you are saying is that Trump supporters are un American pieces of shit. Thank you. 

Trump has made the case that the southern border needs to be secured with more pedestrian barriers.  What's the alternative and why is that alternative a better choice?

Trump has made the case that trade agreements have harmed the United States.  What's the alternative and why is that alternative a better choice?

Trump has made the case that the United States needs to revitalize the manufacturing sector.  What's the alternative and why is that alternative a better choice?

Trump has made the case that taxes on business hinders the economy.  What's the alternative and why is that alternative a better choice?

Trump has made the case that the United States is bearing a disproportionate share of the burden to maintain global peace.  What's the alternative and why is that alternative a better choice?

What I am saying is that Democrats are trying to litigate the last election in hopes of convincing voters to hand the White House to any Democrat running for President.  Why would a Democratic President be a better choice?

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.2  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    5 months ago
American pieces of shit.

No...the Democrat presidential nominee was a piece of shit.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2  WallyW  replied to  Nerm_L @3    5 months ago
Democrats had better convince voters that they offer a viable alternative.  

They have absolutely nothing to offer, and are losing loads of voters every day

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Old Hermit
sixpick


26 visitors