Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

androshalforc1 t1_iw1e5k2 wrote

> A lawyer for Trump, David A. Warrington of the Dhillon Law Group, said in a statement: “Long held precedent and practice maintain that separation of powers prohibits Congress from compelling a President to testify before it."

Too bad he isn’t a president.

501

SpCommander t1_iw1guzs wrote

Someone should politely explain to this lawyer that a lot of long held precedents and practices have gone out the window the last 6 years.

147

colefly t1_iw2gq6s wrote

Someone should politely explain to this lawyer that ....

He's not getting paid

83

Redd575 t1_iw3dzws wrote

At this point I think Giuliani held the infamous four seasons press conference because that landscaping company was sponsoring him.

21

waitingforthetardis t1_iw5rn7d wrote

I always upvote a Four Seasons Landscaping reference. That was a joyous moment in troubled times.

13

e22ddie46 t1_iw2ln88 wrote

And part of the reason we don't prosecute former presidents is they don't regularly, flagrantly obstruct justice and commit crimes. And brag about them at campaign rallies.

31

[deleted] t1_iw1h0hc wrote

[deleted]

134

Mental_Attitude_2952 t1_iw1o2gb wrote

That didnt happen. Bill clinton had to testify to the grand jury for special counsel Starr.

33

JustAnotherHyrum t1_iw3e29c wrote

Special Counsel is appointed in part to prevent bias or the appearance of bias in the investigation, isn't it? This is an important distinction, as Congress itself definitely has a political agenda in nearly everything it says or does.

With that being said, Trump is a stain on our country and deserves to be behind bars, but I wanted to highlight the reason that testifying before a Special Counsel and testifying directly to Congress are very different for a current President. (Which Trump definitely is not.)

16

IamSauerKraut t1_iw3erri wrote

The precedent cited by Warrington does not exist as he claims.

4

Art-Zuron t1_iw3sb42 wrote

Yeah, but it's fine if it owns the libs. That's not sarcasm. That's how they think. If it counts as thinking at least.

4

paulsmt t1_iw1ff2e wrote

He pretending he is. When he's in jail, it will really hit him hard.

84

boomership t1_iw269be wrote

IIRC Saddam Hussein still thought he could order people when he was captured and put in a jail cell.

27

piTehT_tsuJ t1_iw3fra6 wrote

Hes claiming he is still part of the executive branch of the government.. and shouldnt have to testify because of that.

5

Shadpool t1_iw1p2cv wrote

Not as hard as Bubba’s gonna be hitting it.

−2

mabirm t1_iw1rude wrote

Theres nothing quite like the sweet sound of balls clapping in the early morn.

−4

Separate-Print4493 t1_iw1vqth wrote

When in jail?

Hilarious.

Will be running for president in 2024.

−25

tjn182 t1_iw2ctzs wrote

There's no way the GOP would allow that. One term president, impeached twice, lost house and senate both to the democrats, then this year's mid terms had almost all his picks losing.

Take away all the fluff about him and his stats are shit, the GOP wants a winning candidate and he's not it.

20

shim_sham_shimmy t1_iw2dbnw wrote

He obviously still has a big following but I think the GOP will at least try to move on in 2024. You hear a lot of rumblings now which is why Trump will probably announce he is running any day now. Hopefully they dump him and it causes Trump to rip their party apart.

10

jpiro t1_iw2qzcz wrote

I could absolutely see him forming the MAGA party or some shit and ripping the GOP a new one. Would be fun to watch.

8

shim_sham_shimmy t1_iw3qq48 wrote

Trump running third party would guarantee a GOP loss. I'm not wishing for it but messing with power and money on a national scale like that is the kind of shit that gets people assassinated.

1

JustAnotherHyrum t1_iw3fpzr wrote

Much as this would destroy the Republican party as we know it today, I like the idea of more political parties in America. It causes parties to require compromise to get things done, instead of one of two major parties always angling for complete control.

Assuming a GOP split into multiple parties, I would support the Democratic party splitting into Centrist and Progressive parties for the same reason.

We already have caucuses within each party. Let's just make them full parties and do away with this GOP vs Democrat nightmare we have now that produces nothing but gridlock.

0

Junior_Builder_4340 t1_iw46d4d wrote

I wish we could have some form of parliamentary system of government, like the rest of the civilized world has. So sick of this two-party, shit see-saw.

1

JustAnotherHyrum t1_iw3es31 wrote

The RNC already said they will stop covering his legal fees if he runs again in 2024.

That tells you all you need to know about their opinion of his political usefulness going forward.

The GOP will turn a blind eye to insurrection if someone's politically useful, but they turn on him fully the moment he costs them in the midterms.

Tells you all you need to know about the values and ethics of the GOP.

4

colexian t1_iw2chlz wrote

As someone that despises the orange menace, this person is right. At this point I am convinced Trump could shoot someone on camera and gain voters with no consequences.

4

AngryZen_Ingress t1_iw33zox wrote

Personally, my in-laws are both Trumpers AND DeSantis worshipers. Watching them break down in real time as their daddies fight is amusing.

2

colexian t1_iw3pwze wrote

Its actually pretty entertaining because while they coined the phrase "Never Trumpers", I think a good number of people joined the cult of "Trump or bust" and its going to really screw them come 2024 when it divides the party. Cults rarely have a peaceful change of leadership.

1

Ciccio178 t1_iw2lr5p wrote

Idk why the downvotes.

Trump is a useless sack of shit, but he knows how to do one thing better than anyone. That's stay out of jail. He's been flaunting laws for decades, yet he was elected President and will announce his candidacy to run in 2024 in a matter of days 🤷‍♂️

3

JustAnotherHyrum t1_iw3ggut wrote

Yes, but he is dealing with an entirely different caliber of federal and state investigations now. I believe he knows that his only chance now is delaying court proceedings. Once evidence is allowed to be presented to a jury or a FISA court, he's fucked.

1

paulsmt t1_iw38ejy wrote

First indicted candidate for president in history.

2

Xenjael t1_iw1xogo wrote

Yeah well we also went 250 years without a piece of shit like trump. New precedents happen.

45

moham225 t1_iw20z9j wrote

Andrew Jackson begs to differ.....

25

Kiiaru t1_iw2823l wrote

Andrew Jackson the woat when it comes to US presidents. The firing of his whole cabinet and replacing them with his uneducated buddies. THE INDIAN REMOVAL ACT. And him giving all of the governments gold to local banks, who then immediately sold it and crashed the economy.

Trump is bad. But he didn't crash the economy by... Ok. I'm trying to come up with a comparison but he did sort of crash the economy by not listening to those smarter than him. In a roundabout way with covid and the covid relief funding. Andrew Jackson was a little more hands on with the crash.

Still... Genocide keeps Andrew Jackson at the top of the list

38

NGC3992 t1_iw2azhd wrote

The child separation policy at the border meets the UN standards for genocide.

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

39

TeriFade t1_iw2j82q wrote

True but that's as far apart as non-consentual finger insertion is from pelvic bone breaking, back-alley forced vaginal sex. Both get labeled as rape but one is several magnitudes more damaging.

−20

LessThanLoquacious t1_iw2ndy1 wrote

Buddy, trying to justify sexual assault by saying there are worse sexual assaults is not a good look. Also, Trump rapes children.

21

Beau_Buffett t1_iw256hz wrote

Remember when Andrew Jackson tried to cancel our democracy because he didn't like the election results?

24

Art-Zuron t1_iw3s588 wrote

You also shouldn't forget Andrew Johnson, who crippled southern reconstruction, causing like 60% of our current problems.

4

breakwater99 t1_iw228sd wrote

Long held precedence and practice also maintain that the penalty for treason is severe.

21

IamSauerKraut t1_iw3emyj wrote

Too bad Warrington misstates what precedent (which is a legal opinion not a binding court decision) says. See Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.

3