Go for it, Chuckie.
It’s not always wise to poke a hornet’s nest.
“Grassley mused that he didn’t “know whether it’s worth issuing subpoenas when somebody’s been indicted.””
As a practical matter, no, it’s very likely not worth it. However, as an entertainment matter, I’d pay good money to watch Paul Manafort spend several hours claiming the 5th in front of Congress.
OK Chuck…then toddle off down the hall to vote on a bill that will strip millions of healthcare…profiles in courage there Grassley.
Keep in mind, this is the cornpone genius who said yesterday that he could give 10 reasons that the G-C bill shouldn’t be passed, but that it was a great piece of legislation that the GOP should vote for anyway, regardless of the consequences. Seems to me this obstreperous, octogenarian, bucolic bozo has been hitting the corn alcohol on an all too frequent basis.
You might just as well ask for coherence from a pithed frog.
Gee, I wonder if veteran officials who have spent careers acquainting themselves with the legal process will be able to outsmart a feckless, doddering nonentity who most Iowans are likely aware isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer?
The Senate, America’s Grandstand.
The press, including TPM here, constantly portrays witness non-responses to Congressional committees as somehow nefarious, evasive and reflecting badly on those refusing to appear. Rarely is it pointed out Mueller is constantly waging a battle to keep appearances before those committees from corrupting his investigation.
Perfectly nice.
And never is it pointed out that Grassley’s agenda here is to discredit Comey, the FBI and Steele and, if at all possible, insinuate that the entire investigation of Russian influence was a crassly corrupt and political attempt to harm Republicans.
How he got to this place from the speechless, whitefaced horror he was showing after Comey laid out what they had in the FBI’s SCIF is a bit of a mystery. Not clear to me whether he had a brief moment of patriotism that faded once he had time to let his native partisan hackery work its rationalizing magic, whether he was always only horrified at how politically damaging what he’d seen was for Republicans or whether he subsequently got a brown envelope of photos or documents stuffed into his mail slot by parties unknown with a message that people who wanted to be his friends were doing all they could to keep them from becoming public.
The only thing that’s clear is that he knows those rats aren’t going to fuck themselves.
The slightly more generous possibility just occurred that he’s doing this thinking his New Friends ought to be careful what they wish for, oblivious to the fact that what they really wish for is chaos and turmoil and division.
Trillions in tax cuts and defense contracts would be held up by a prolonged impeachment mess. Money, money ,money, much of which is kicked back to PACS, candidates and campaign coffers. The GOP must defend Trump and do everything within their power to sidetrack efforts to bring him down. Sure, Pence would tow the line, eventually. But a year long legal battle over any proven criminality on Trump’s part is best avoided. Time is money.
This observation caught my eye. “behind the still-largely-unsubstantiated dossier that detailed potential Russian leverage on Donald Trump, Fusion GPS”
Based on what I’ve seen it can also be said that it has been largely substantiated. Fusion GPS seems very confident in the dossier. All we need is for Mr. Steele to appear and for 45 to piss off Putie and have the pp tapes released.
Again, let me ask: why do any members of the IC vote Republican? That disgusting septic tank of a political party has joined its filthy leader in treating the IC like a bunch of, oh what was the comparison? Oh yes, Nazis. So why would any “conservative” among the CIA, FBI, NSA on down the line support these disgusting sonsofbitches?
I would guess that it has something to do with the type of personality required to be a part of those organizations.
[quote=“sonsofares, post:13, topic:62596, full:true”] So why would any “conservative” among the CIA, FBI, NSA on down the line support these disgusting sonsofbitches?
[/quote]
Because Trump has promised to let them keep their cattle prods, jumper cables and waterboarding paraphernalia?
It’s interesting you should bring that up, because it reminds me of how media outlets will use the phrase “lawyer up” as a negative, implying guilt. You can see it on any episode of “Dateline” or “48 Hours” where a person’s refusal to talk without a lawyer is treated as an admission of trying to hide something. This probably, over the years, has induced many people to talk without a lawyer and get themselves thoroughly screwed up because requesting a lawyer is consistently treated as criminal.
If you’re refusing a subpeona, that one’s thing. But even non-responses don’t mean anything legally unless it’s shown you’re lying. But even then, if your Attorney General can get away with it, who cares?
And a dick
I agree, but with just a bit of reservation. These people are confronted with allegations of misdeeds attached to complicated acts. So demanding representation makes sense. But on a more simple level I see nothing wrong with answering police or prosecutor questions when you are supremely, provable, alibi level innocent.
A cop knocks on your door, says downtown has questions about a 10PM hit and run last night you were alleged to be involved in. You were in your home all last night with 20 friends celebrating your birthday. Car never left the garage. You were never out of sight of at least five people at all times. Why the hell are you bothering to insist a lawyer gets involved? Maybe I’m dumb, but I’d be tempted to save the $500 bucks, tell them how I spent last night, and say thank you, may I leave now?
Similarly, if anyone Congress wants to talk to is arguably innocent of all suspicions, clean as the driven snow, so far removed and untainted from what’s being investigated six degrees of separation doesn’t begin to cover their distance from the mess, why the hell do they need a legal team and two months to prep answers? Shouldn’t “I didn’t have a goddamned thing to do with any of it” suffice?*
*Unless they aren’t innocent. Hence the suspicions when they “lawyer up”.
Oh no, I do understand what you’re writing, it’s just that getting a lawyer is your legal right. I’m sorry to put it this way, but LEOs are not your friends: they want to know if they should bother looking at you (and that’s their job). They’re not there to exculpate you, help you to get out of the way because—wink wink—they know you had nothing to do with [X]. They want to determine if you’re a suspect. And they know it’s your legal right, but going back to your original post, they have been immensely helped by media orgs to make it look like requesting a lawyer = criminal intent.
And it certainly does depend on circumstance: a detective coming to your door and asking questions or a cop taking your statement about an accident or theft is not a lawyer-invoking moment. But you’re asked to go down to station to “just clear a few things up” is when you need to have the phrase “I want to speak to a lawyer” on your lips.
PS. I’ve learned all this from my own laywer, Ben Matlock.
Chuck has promises to keep doncha know. Oh and miles to go before he sleeps also too.