Toggle sidebar

Did you ever think

T

TarHeelEer

Freshman
Dec 15, 2002
89,338
59
48
From your own beloved Clinton News Network:

"But Hicks, the former White House communications director, still could turn over documents the committee has requested related to the 2016 Trump campaign, a period that's not covered by executive privilege, according to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler."

I'm convinced you all are taking blue meth. No matter how cool it looks on tv, stop it.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
TarHeelEer said:
From your own beloved Clinton News Network:

"But Hicks, the former White House communications director, still could turn over documents the committee has requested related to the 2016 Trump campaign, a period that's not covered by executive privilege, according to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler."

I'm convinced you all are taking blue meth. No matter how cool it looks on tv, stop it.
Click to expand...
You have one moron believing the ******** that another moron spews. Do you think either one has a clue what is going on?
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
TarHeelEer said:
From your own beloved Clinton News Network:

"But Hicks, the former White House communications director, still could turn over documents the committee has requested related to the 2016 Trump campaign, a period that's not covered by executive privilege, according to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler."

I'm convinced you all are taking blue meth. No matter how cool it looks on tv, stop it.
Click to expand...
Cherry pick much? We all know you do. Your spin is awful.

"Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were," the New York Democrat said. "The President has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request. We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson."
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
WVUBRU said:
Cherry pick much? We all know you do. Your spin is awful.

"Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were," the New York Democrat said. "The President has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request. We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson."
Click to expand...
Cherry pick? It was from CNN. Ignorance is a choice.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
tjebarr said:
look it up dumb ***. you look foolish
Click to expand...
“Nadler said federal law says the documents that left the White House months ago are no longer covered by executive privilege “if they ever were””.

Nadler is just commenting on executive privilege for no reason?
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
“Nadler said federal law says the documents that left the White House months ago are no longer covered by executive privilege “if they ever were””.

Nadler is just commenting on executive privilege for no reason?
Click to expand...
Obviously, this has you all confused.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
Cherry pick much? We all know you do. Your spin is awful.

"Federal law makes clear that the documents we requested — documents that left the White House months ago — are no longer covered by executive privilege, if they ever were," the New York Democrat said. "The President has no lawful basis for preventing these witnesses from complying with our request. We will continue to seek reasonable accommodation on these and all our discovery requests and intend to press these issues when we obtain the testimony of both Ms. Hicks and Ms. Donaldson."
Click to expand...
We can discuss whether or not they’re covered by executive privilege, but it’s pretty clear, the White House is asserting it, or attempting to, which was my original assertion.

Now, do you and the fvckalong twins want to pivot to the next round of “all three of you are morons”?

And I’ll even go so far as to say, I don’t think the EP will hold, but it’s a delaying tactic. Which again, to the bonehead 1’s original question, yes, we’ve seen this many many times from all administrations.
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
We can discuss whether or not they’re covered by executive privilege, but it’s pretty clear, the White House is asserting it, or attempting to, which was my original assertion.

Now, do you and the fvckalong twins want to pivot to the next round of “all three of you are morons”?

And I’ll even go so far as to say, I don’t think the EP will hold, but it’s a delaying tactic, which again, to the bonehead 1’s original question, yes, we’ve seen this many many times from all administrations.
Click to expand...
My assertion is not that Trump is claiming Executive Privilege but rather it isn't applicable. I stated it to you once before.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
TarHeelEer said:
"But Hicks, the former White House communications director, still could turn over documents the committee has requested related to the 2016 Trump campaign, a period that's not covered by executive privilege, according to House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler."

I'm convinced you all are taking blue meth. No matter how cool it looks on tv, stop it.
Click to expand...

DvlDog4WVU said:
We can discuss whether or not they’re covered by executive privilege, but it’s pretty clear, the White House is asserting it, or attempting to, which was my original assertion.
Click to expand...

You two should take the dicks out of your mouths and talk to each other.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
countryroads89 said:
You two should take the dicks out of your mouths and talk to each other.
Click to expand...
Repeat from fvckalong twin 1. Thanks for letting me know it was bullseye.

Do you realize Jerry Nadlers position on privilege is a bit tainted?
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
My assertion is not that Trump is claiming Executive Privilege but rather it isn't applicable. I stated it to you once before.
Click to expand...
No sir. You asserted this was obstruction and impeachable. I can quote your initial post if you’d like. I correctly pointed out that this was an assertion of EP, whether correctly applied or not will be up to the courts, not Nadler. Then, your butt buddies showed up to remind us all once again they either can’t or didn’t read the article of if they did, they didn’t comprehend it. You proceeded to agree with their positions, you liked their posts, and further, you attempted to admonish us for our correct interpretation of the reading.

Now, as I said, we can disagree on the application of the EP, but it’s clear, the WH is trying.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,601
818
113
DvlDog4WVU said:
No sir. You asserted this was obstruction and impeachable. I can quote your initial post if you’d like. I correctly pointed out that this was an assertion of EP, whether correctly applied or not will be up to the courts, no Nadler. Then, your butt buddies showed up to remind us all once again they either can’t or didn’t read the article of if they did, they didn’t comprehend it. You proceeded to agree with their positions, you liked their posts, and further, you attempted to admonish us for our correct interpretation of the reading.

Now, as I said, we can disagree on the application of the EP, but it’s clear, the WH is trying.
Click to expand...
Stated more succinctly, cuntry wrong again.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
No sir. You asserted this was obstruction and impeachable. I can quote your initial post if you’d like. I correctly pointed out that this was an assertion of EP, whether correctly applied or not will be up to the courts, not Nadler. Then, your butt buddies showed up to remind us all once again they either can’t or didn’t read the article of if they did, they didn’t comprehend it. You proceeded to agree with their positions, you liked their posts, and further, you attempted to admonish us for our correct interpretation of the reading.

Now, as I said, we can disagree on the application of the EP, but it’s clear, the WH is trying.
Click to expand...

You seriously think an attempt to assert executive privilege would get someone out of obstruction charges?

Haha, that’s funny.
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
No sir. You asserted this was obstruction and impeachable. I can quote your initial post if you’d like. I correctly pointed out that this was an assertion of EP, whether correctly applied or not will be up to the courts, no Nadler. Then, your butt buddies showed up to remind us all once again they either can’t or didn’t read the article of if they did, they didn’t comprehend it. You proceeded to agree with their positions, you liked their posts, and further, you attempted to admonish us for our correct interpretation of the reading.

Now, as I said, we can disagree on the application of the EP, but it’s clear, the WH is trying.
Click to expand...
We agree the WH is trying. I have no beef with that. My position of the WH directing private citizens not to comply with a congressional subpoena is an impeachable offense. You want to disagree with that, fine. The argument is EP is not applicable which makes your position pointless. Other than that, you get all huffy over it as you can't stand being challenged. Just like someone else.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVUBRU said:
We agree the WH is trying. I have no beef with that. My position of the WH directing private citizens not to comply with a congressional subpoena is an impeachable offense. You want to disagree with that, fine. The argument is EP is not applicable which makes your position pointless. Other than that, you get all huffy over it as you can't stand being challenged. Just like someone else.
Click to expand...

Can’t stand being challenged and being so dumb you’re practically wrong all the time - a horrible combination.
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
Bottom line, Trump can't call everything as EP and get away with it. Using that claim improperly is obstruction.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
We agree the WH is trying. I have no beef with that. My position of the WH directing private citizens not to comply with a congressional subpoena is an impeachable offense. You want to disagree with that, fine. The argument is EP is not applicable which makes your position pointless. Other than that, you get all huffy over it as you can't stand being challenged. Just like someone else.
Click to expand...
I don’t mind being challenged. Assertion of EP, correctly applied is not obstruction. Agreed?

The debate in this case is whether it’s being correctly applied. You say no. The courts will tell us. Until they do, it’s not obstruction. And when they tell the WH to comply, if they still don’t, then I’ll agree with you it’s obstruction. Until the courts decide whether it’s being correctly applied, you merely have an opinion, and you could be wrong. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether it’s being correctly applied, merely that attempting to assert it is not in and of itself obstruction. It’s a delaying tactic and will require it to be litigated. All of which is legal.
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
I don’t mind being challenged. Assertion of EP, correctly applied is not obstruction. Agreed?

The debate in this case is whether it’s being correctly applied. You say no. The courts will tell us. Until they do, it’s not obstruction. And when they tell the WH to comply, if they still don’t, then I’ll agree with you it’s obstruction. Until the courts decide whether it’s being correctly applied, you merely have an opinion, and you could be wrong. I actually don’t have an opinion on whether it’s being correctly applied, merely that attempting to assert it is not in and of itself obstruction. It’s a delaying tactic and will require it to be litigated.
Click to expand...
I agree with your first point. Then in your later point admitting it is being used to delay, that is the obstruction. Improper use with a devious intent is obstruction.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
I agree with your first point. Then in your later point admitting it is being used to delay, that is the obstruction. Improper use with a devious intent is obstruction.
Click to expand...
Good luck proving devious intent.

Let’s not pretend like this type of tactic isn’t common place, especially in DC. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Cankles, and a host of other prominent political figures do this all the time. I’m sure we can post examples from each of these as direct correlative examples if you disagree to ensure adequate context.
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
Good luck proving devious intent.

Let’s not pretend like this type of tactic isn’t common place, especially in DC. Clinton, Bush, Obama, Cankles, and a host of other prominent political figures do this all the time. I’m sure we can post examples from each of these as direct correlative examples if you disagree to ensure adequate context.
Click to expand...
I won't pretend anything nor can I recall instances that are similar which is what the whole OP stated.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
I won't pretend anything nor can I recall instances that are similar which is what the whole OP stated.
Click to expand...
You honestly can’t recall instances where prominent political figures force issues to court to be litigated vs initially complying? Only to then lose and have to comply?
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
You honestly can’t recall instances where prominent political figures force issues to court to be litigated vs initially complying? Only to then lose and have to comply?
Click to expand...
Your question is to broad. Stick to the subject. I have no knowledge of WH telling private citizens not to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents and testimony not covered by EP. Period. Not arguing anything else.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
countryroads89 said:
It’s pretty obvious except to the idiot trump dick suckers.
Click to expand...
If you truly are an attorney, you suck at your job or you’re just blinded by political ideology unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.

This tactic isn’t even unique to DC, it spans all industries. You ought to see the **** pulled with defense contracting.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
It is. Even dvldog recognizes it with his comments but he won't criticize. Wonder why?
Click to expand...
Because it’s a legitimate litigative strategy.

We have three coequal branches of Govt. Right now 2 are in disagreement, we have the courts to determine which is correct. That’s the process. In the end, if Congress gets their requested docs, what’s the harm?

Supposing the courts side with the Executive in this case, and they very well could, will the three of you come on here and openly apologize to us?
 
W

WVUBRU

Freshman
Aug 7, 2001
24,731
62
0
DvlDog4WVU said:
Because it’s a legitimate litigative strategy.

We have three coequal branches of Govt. Right now 2 are in disagreement, we have the courts to determine which is correct. That’s the process. In the end, if Congress gets their requested docs, what’s the harm?

Supposing the courts side with the Executive in this case, and they very well could, will the three of you come on here and openly apologize to us?
Click to expand...
Nothing to apologize for in this instance from me.

Disagree with your perspective on the subject. I'm done. I'm onto the next thing.
 
DvlDog4WVU

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
47,242
3,304
113
WVUBRU said:
Nothing to apologize for in this instance from me.

Disagree with your perspective on the subject. I'm done. I'm onto the next thing.
Click to expand...
One thing is for sure, as long as Trump remains in office, they’ll be no shortage of **** for you all to whine endlessly about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom