I believe I read somewhere that written questions would NOT be under oath.BMX Bandit said:
I think it's very interesting. Thanks for posting Stephenville
Further evidence that Schiff and the Democrats know that their "whistleblower" would get hammered under cross-examination.
Depositions on the written questions are close to completely worthless.
Uh, you can read both the WB complaint AND the transcript of the call and see that the WB complaint is NOT factually accurate. There are MANY inaccuracies.MetoliusAg said:
That's a bit hyperbolic, but I agree it isn't worth much. As demonstrated by Trump's written deposition to the Mueller investigation, including numerous questions he left blank.
What is more interesting, though, is Zaid implies he has kept whistleblowers' identities anonymous in the GOP's Benghazi investigation and other govmt investigations.
Interesting, too, that the far-right is focusing so much energy on a WB whose written complaint has now been supported as factually accurate by the ICIG and several sworn depositions of govmt employees.
Quote:
This appeal does not require us to consider whether the President is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the President may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal proceeding. We accordingly do not address those issues The only question before us is whether a state may lawfully demand production by a third party of the President's personal financial records for use in a grand jury investigation while the President is in office. With the benefit of the district court's well articulated opinion, we hold that any presidential immunity from state criminal process does not bar the enforcement of such a subpoena.
Don't bet on it. The materials sought in the subpoena include "documents and communications" from the period between June 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018 relating to suspected "hush money" payments made to two women....".Quote:
Nothing to do with impeachment
MetoliusAg said:Don't bet on it. The materials sought in the subpoena include "documents and communications" from the period between June 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018 relating to suspected "hush money" payments made to two women....".Quote:
Nothing to do with impeachment
Going off your track record I'd bet the farm.Quote:
Don't bet on it. The materials sought in the subpoena include "documents and communications" from the period between June 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018 relating to suspected "hush money" payments made to two women....".
MetoliusAg said:Don't bet on it. The materials sought in the subpoena include "documents and communications" from the period between June 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018 relating to suspected "hush money" payments made to two women....".Quote:
Nothing to do with impeachment
Read about half of McKinley's. Thirty-seven years of Foreign Service. Typical bureaucrat in the he's all about the State Department and only the State Department. Eviscerates Tillerson because Tillerson wanted to trim down State supposedly to try and make it more efficient but that just upset everyone's apple cart. They don't adapt to change very well, apparently.will25u said:
Wonder why the rest aren't being released.
If ongoing grand jury investigations and ongoing court cases in multiple jurisdictions uncover evidence of felonies committed by the Potus, obviously it would be of interest to an ongoing impeachment investigation. There's absolutely nothing surprising about that.Quote:
I appreciate your acknowledgment that anything & everything maybe might potentiality be related to impeachment.
No, actually it's progressing quite nicely on multiple fronts.Quote:
Apparently Ukraine isn't going so well
MetoliusAg said:Don't bet on it. The materials sought in the subpoena include "documents and communications" from the period between June 1, 2015 and September 20, 2018 relating to suspected "hush money" payments made to two women....".Quote:
Nothing to do with impeachment
MetoliusAg said:
No surprise: Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman replicated one of the recurring themes seen over & over from other Trump subordinates/toadies: while they're performing illegal actions for Trump, they engage in multiple illegal side deals to enrich themselves.
MetoliusAg said:
No surprise: Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman replicated one of the recurring themes seen over & over from other Trump subordinates/toadies: while they're performing illegal actions for Trump, they engage in multiple illegal side deals to enrich themselves.
Quote:
When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss what he knew about President Trump's conversations with Ukraine's president, he was violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House's impeachment inquiry.
He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he told legislators could get him charged with a crime and, of course, how his choice to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.
"It's not far-fetched," Sean Timmons, a managing partner at Tully Rinckey, said. "It's a murky issue."
It comes down to whether Trump's order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent testimony, period, it's not.
BOOM!mrad85 said:MetoliusAg said:
No surprise: Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman replicated one of the recurring themes seen over & over from other Trump subordinates/toadies: while they're performing illegal actions for Trump, they engage in multiple illegal side deals to enrich themselves.
It wasn't intended as a "Boom" or anything.Rapier108 said:BOOM!mrad85 said:MetoliusAg said:
No surprise: Giuliani, Parnas, and Fruman replicated one of the recurring themes seen over & over from other Trump subordinates/toadies: while they're performing illegal actions for Trump, they engage in multiple illegal side deals to enrich themselves.
