Zylon
2869
Call it a hunch, but I can’t see Republicans getting on board with training people to spot fake news.
Remember how “wrong” that Buzzfeed story was a few months ago…LOL
Yeah, I remember. I personally assumed most every word of it was true, absent a couple of details. Seemed like a safe assumption.
Also, all of this trash needs to be disbarred or thrown in prison. Or both.
Rather amusing exchange between the Dems and Republicans on the committee:
MR. MITCHELL: Sir, you have a binder in front of you with some exhibits.
At various times during today’s testimony, we’re going to ask you to turn to a particular tab, and we’re going to go over a particular document.
We’d ask –
MR. TURNER: Can we have copies of those?
MR. MITCHELL: As documents are introduced, we will provide copies to members of the minority. I would ask that you not –
MR. TURNER: Just to clarify the record, you are not going to give us copies of the binder so we can look at the documents that you’ve just put in front of him and review them while he’s reviewing them? You’re only going to give them to us as you refer to them?
MR. MITCHELL: As soon as a document is referred to and introduced -
MR. TURNER: Well, then the answer is yes, right? You all have documents. He has a document. He has a binder. And you’re not giving us a copy of the documents in his binder currently?
MR. MITCHELL: You are getting copies of the document that is being introduced at this time.
MR. TURNER: Just say yes, because what you are doing is you are saying you have given him a binder of documents that you’re not letting us see.
MR. MITCHELL: That is correct.
MR. GOLDMAN: And we’re asking him not to look ahead in his binder, because –
MR. TURNER: How do you know he hasn’t? You didn’t ask him. lt’s highly unusual to hand a witness a binder of documents and have only the majority side have those documents and us not have them.
THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Turner, I’lljust make a couple points. All of the documents you had access to. They’ve been provided to your –
MR. TURNER: We have thousands of documents. I’m supposed to ascertain what ones are in front of him?
THE CHAIRMAN: You don’t have thousands of documents from Mr. Cohen.
DR. WENSTRUP: May I suggest you take his binder away right now and you give him these documents as we get them, if you want to have the appearance of being upfront. I’m not a lawyer, but -
THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Wenstrup, you’ve been here for 2 years, in which you never extended a courtesy like that to us. But I will tell you this, I will tell you this -
DR. WENSTRUP: I don’t remember having a binder like that that we gave to the witness.
THE CHAIRMAN: You had ample –
DR. WENSTRUP: You give me one example where we gave a binder to a witness that you didn’t get.
THE CHAIRMAN: We can give you plenty of examples, which, whether they were in a binder or not, you gave dozens of documents to a witness to go through.
DR. WENSTRUP: So, if it’s wrong then, you say it’s right now.
THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Wenstrup, I am going to make you a commitment. l’m going to make you a commitment. We are going to treat you far better than you treated us in the minority. We’re going to be far more respectful. And, indeed, we already have because, Dr. Wenstrup –
DR. WENSTRUP: This just doesn’t seem right is all I’m saying.
THE CHAIRMAN: lf I can finish. Because we gave you these documents days in advance, a courtesy you rarely extended to us.
Just so you know, Mr. Ratcliffe, you’re new to the committee, so you’re not familiar with the history, but the history is we would rarely get any advance notice of a witness coming in or of documents in advance. And there were often occasions where documents were dumped in the system even without letting us know there were documents there. That’s the history. So we have already demonstrated far more courtesy to you than was extended to us. And we will continue to. We will continue to. And we will discuss the documents with this witness during votes to try to accommodate your request, but I want to make it clear that the courtesy you’re asking from us was never extended to us. But we will do better.
ShivaX
2879
“Should you fail to do so, the Committee is prepared to use all enforcement mechanisms at its disposal.”
This article probably appropriate followup as far as the enforcement.
Is Nadler going to send the sargent at arms to go after McGahn? It seems like the problem is that when the disagreement is with the executive branch, congress doesn’t really have any power it can use.
Oh, an excuse to plug a podcast I enjoy. The latest installment covers contempt.
It might. It also might not.
Isn’t trump telling McGhan to not show up, and McGhan following those orders… OBSTRUCTION?
Timex
2886
Lol, so they have an internal memo from an irs lawyer saying that they, obviously, have to give Trump’s tax returns to Congress. Because. You know. The law clearly says that.
Still not sure what contempt does. I mean, aside from making someone feel slightly bad? All the info I’ve consumed so far state that there’s no real enforcement going forward against someone in the executive, as they are normally the ones enforcing a subpoena, and it’s not like it’s a private individual or company where congress will be disinclined to pass favorable legislation. This is why mark zuckerberg shows up right away, and mcghan doesn’t.
So, someone please explain why I should care, it would make me feel better…
I’m not sure it would make you feel any better, but if no knowledgeable person replies, you can look up previous discussion around this post.
