MSNBC commentators keep saying if Judiciary Committee had refused to let Hicks testify in private

[StarfishSaver]

they would have gotten a lot of mileage out of the public watching her refusing to answer questions in a public hearing.

They seem not to realize that, had the Committee refused to let her testify in private, she wouldn't have shown up at all. And, if the Committee tried to force her to testify in public, they would have had a difficult time getting a court to uphold any contempt charge since she would claim she was willing to testify in private, but the Committee wouldn't let her.

I'm getting a wee bit tired of them skipping over basic facts and logic when they're talking on teevee.

[kozar]

1. great insight n/t

[gordianot]

2. Lots of arm chair quarterbacks out there.

[OnDoutside]

3. [phone] It's so fecking annoying. I know it seems like an endless stream of setbacks but this

doesn't help. There are cases going through the courts, which might give a breakthrough, but until then we don't need this nonsense.

[ilmare2000]

12. Please name the cases going through the courts

Not the cases that might make it to a court, the cases that have already made it to a court.

[Hortensis]

41. Name them yourself. Good grief.

Then there are all the active investigations, OnDoutside. Remembering that Watergate produced @68 indictments; right now Trump-Russia has in the mid 30s.

(And, no, Il, neither of us are going to look the investigations up for you. We don't remember them and their statuses because we're not the ones living in terror of them.)

[OnDoutside]

71. Yes, the 13 or 14 cases that Mueller handed off to the likes of SDNY, etc

There are court cases to play out before this breaks out. I'll give it to Trump (or whoever is advising him) that the strategy to keep anything fact based from being seen on tv, is working fantastically well, for them. That said, I believe he will run out of road, and the truth will start to appear on tv screens before the end of October.

[Hortensis]

73. My brain's not working, but last night happenings

in one of the investigations were reported on, plus FBI criminal investigation into Trump's and Kushner Deutschebank activities, house Financial and Oversight committees. Too much going on for me to keep track of. Though much will end up on TV for us to see, the players in this don't need to watch it on a screen.

Agree he'll "run out of road." And others have suggested it'll really heat up in the fall too.

[OnDoutside]

70. You should watch Rachel's show from last night where she talks about court cases against Deutche

Bank, and from the 24 minute mark, her interview with Congressman David Cicilline who talked about the cases against the Trump circle witnesses who are refusing to testify before Congress. He said the first significant one will be Don McGahn and it won't take a lot of time before he is compelled to testify by the court....Rachel had specifically asked if these would be stretched out beyond the election cycle and he said no, the law is clear.

Also Richie Neal's Trump Tax Return case will get an early result too, because the law is clear on that too.

Congress are also after Trump's Tax Returns through his Tax accountants, where the law is clear too.

[tableturner]

4. Not true!

Neither Hope Hicks, nor any other potential Congressional witness, has veto power over hearing procedures, including whether or not the hearing will be conducted in public.

Each chamber of Congress has exclusive authority to determine and construe its own internal procedural rules (U.S. CONST., Art. I, § 5, cl. 2). This authority includes the discretion to apply, construe, and/or waive procedural requirements governing the conduct of congressional investigations. See AFL-CIO v. U.S., 330 F.3d 513, 522 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (explaining that Congress has “broad discretion” to conduct investigative proceedings and to decide what aspects of such proceedings are to be made public).

Congressional committees definitely have the ability to issue testimonial subpoenas requiring individuals to appear at public hearings.

[StarfishSaver]

14. The only thing more frustrating than trying to argue about the law with non-lawyers is trying to

argue the law with non-lawyers who insist on cutting and pasting things they find on the internet certain that it it's applicable to the discussion at hand.

It's probably a waste of time, but let me try this again: Congress' “broad discretion ... to decide what aspects of such proceedings are to be made public" is different than having unfettered power to force a witness to testify on television. In this instance, the Judiciary Committee intended to make Hicks' testimony public, which is their right - but had they tried to force her to testify on television, they would be hard pressed to find any court willing to enforce a contempt citation against her should she refuse to do so after agreeing to testify behind closed doors and have a transcript of her testimony released to the public.

[tableturner]

28. Okay....just ignore the court ruling.

[StarfishSaver]

30. Not ignoring it. That's why I know it doesn't mean what you think and is inapplicable to your point

I also know that any lawyer citing that case for the proposition you've presented would probably get laughed out of court.

[shockey80]

32. If that's the case,

Why would anyone testify in a open hearing? What you are saying does not make sense.

[StarfishSaver]

34. For the same reason most people stop at red lights even when the police aren't looking

Because they obey the law.

And most people have no problem with or object to testifying in open hearings - and do so without even being subpoenaed.

[shockey80]

38. Wow! So people appear in open hearings when they don't have to?

They could simply say I will appear in a closed hearing. If you are correct, that's crazy.

[uponit7771]

68. +1,

[shockey80]

36. May I ask what kind of law you practice?

[StarfishSaver]

45. I was a litigator (trial attorney)

I also teach law, including Criminal and Civil Procedure.

[LanternWaste]

79. Even lawyers who earned a 120 on LSAT can practice.

It's a great country.

[StarfishSaver]

82. And people who didn't take the LSAT, didn't go to law school and never passed a bar exam CAN'T

practice law.

I don't fall into any of these categories. Which ones apply to you?

[qazplm135]

83. Ok well

I got top two percent on the LSAT and graduated cum laude from a Tier One law school and everything they said is correct.

So that oughta settle it for ya.

[ehrnst]

80. They didn't see that coming....

[Turin_C3PO]

5. I have a question for you since you appear to be very knowledgeable on these subjects.

It’s not directly related to the OP.

Anyway, what will happen if the federal courts rule in favor for the House Dems but Trump and Co. refuse to honor the court orders. What’s the next step at that point?

[tableturner]

6. A true constitutional crisis would ensue!

At that point the only answer would be impeachment and removal. If he defies the Supreme Court, I have to believe that would have enough of an effect to garner the votes of the GOP senators necessary for removal. We'll see....hope it won't come to that.

Edited for clarity....added a couple of words.

[StarfishSaver]

8. Great question

I don't have a definitive answer, because there's really no precedent for something like this. But here's how the process works and what I think could happen:

If a court upholds the Contempt of Congress charge, it would then order the witness to appear. Usually that's the end of it. But we're talking about Trump and his criminal enterprise and minions who don't respect any authority so ...

The next step would be for the Court to order the witness to appear in court to show cause why they haven't complied with its order. If they appear and still refuse to comply, the judge can find them to be in Contempt of Court and order the U.S. Marshals to take them into custody on the spot. If they don't appear, the Court can find them in Contempt of Court and issue a bench warrant for their arrest and order the marshals to find them and take them into custody.

There's been some discussion here about whether Barr would order the Marshals, who are part of the Justice Department, not to carry out the court order. I believe that even if he did, the marshals would follow the court order. Marshals may be in DOJ, but they're law enforcement officers who work with and report to the federal judges and are very loyal to them. But more than that, I don't believe any marshal will follow an unlawful order by the Attorney General to disobey a lawful court order. Thus, I think that ,if it came to that, the marshals would effect the arrest

BUT another but - this may be easier to do for a civilian witness. But it would be very difficult for even the U.S. Marshals to arrest an Attorney General or White House staffer who works in a virtual fortress and is under the 24-7 protection of federal guards.

[Turin_C3PO]

35. Ok thank you for the explanation!

Very interesting. Good to read that the Marshalls would likely side with the courts.

[Calista241]

74. I think it's going to be harder to get a judge to weigh in on a case.

Barr is in multiple sets of negotiations with different committees. We’re going to have to prove that he’s not negotiating in good faith.

McGaghn is the only other person that’s close to a contempt charge, and he’s got significant privilege conflicts that a court is not just going to ignore.

[StarfishSaver]

75. Maybe, but Hicks and the Trump team made it easier yesterday

By showing up under the terms she negotiated and then exerting s non-existent blanket privilege, they helped create a record showing that the House had exhausted all remedies for getting her testimony. If they take her to court, it will likely enforce the subpoena without requiring any further negotiation and do it pretty quickly.

[Funtatlaguy]

7. Private testimony is worthless.

Subpoena all of them for public live televised testimony and make them deny it and not show up or show up and take the fifth.

[StarfishSaver]

9. If they offered to testify privately but the Committee refused and then tried to force them to

testify publicly, it would be virtually impossible to enforce a contempt citation in court.

[shockey80]

33. Then why doesn't everyone do that?

If that's the case it would make sense everyone would do it. There would be no such thing as an open hearing.

[Grasswire2]

42. Give some source material for that. Precedent? Law? nt

[StarfishSaver]

59. Sure. Here you go:

In a case involving a contempt citation against Reagan's EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena to testify and produce certain documents, citing executive privilege (sound familiar?), the DC District Court (which has jurisdiction here) refused to enforce a House subpoena until the parties had exhausted all other efforts to obtain the testimony and documents extra-judicially. United States v. U.S. House of Representatives, 556 F. Supp. 150 (DC District Court 1983)

When constitutional disputes arise concerning the respective powers of the Legislative and Executive Branches, judicial intervention should be delayed until all possibilities for settlement have been exhausted. Judicial restraint is essential to maintain the delicate balance of powers among the branches established by the Constitution." U.S. v. U.S. House of Representatives

The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that executive privilege is a valid defense to congressional demands for sensitive law enforcement information from the EPA. Plaintiffs have, thus, raised this executive privilege defense as the basis for affirmative relief ... The difficulties apparent in prosecuting Administrator Gorsuch for contempt of Congress should encourage the two branches to settle their differences without further judicial involvement. Compromise and cooperation, rather than confrontation, should be the aim of the parties. The Court, therefore, finds that to entertain this declaratory judgment action would be an improper exercise of the discretion granted by the Declaratory Judgment Act.

I hope this is helpful

[uponit7771]

69. Isn't Red Don's blanket claim of EP overstep in and of itself? tia

[ilmare2000]

10. Fact?

had the Committee refused to let her testify in private, she wouldn't have shown up at all.

I didn't realize it was a "fact" that witnesses had control over whether the testimony was public or not.

[StarfishSaver]

15. Yes. Fact

How many other Trump staffers have shown up to testify?

[ilmare2000]

16. What is the case law?

Where is the case law that establishes it as a fact that witnesses control whether congressional testimony is public or private?

[StarfishSaver]

20. Since I never said "a witness controls whether congressional testimony is public or private"

there's no need for me to produce any case law establishing such a thing.

But here's some case law supporting the point I have been making: that a court would be unlikely to enforce a contempt citation against a witness who says they'll testify but doesn't want to do so on television.

In a case involving a contempt citation against Reagan's EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch, who refused to comply with a Congressional subpoena to testify and produce certain documents, citing executive privilege (sound familiar?), the DC District Court (which has jurisdiction here) refused to enforce a House subpoena until the parties had exhausted all other efforts to obtain the testimony and documents extra-judicially. United States v. U.S. House of Representatives, 556 F. Supp. 150 (DC District Court 1983)

When constitutional disputes arise concerning the respective powers of the Legislative and Executive Branches, judicial intervention should be delayed until all possibilities for settlement have been exhausted. Judicial restraint is essential to maintain the delicate balance of powers among the branches established by the Constitution." U.S. v. U.S. House of Representatives

The gravamen of plaintiffs' complaint is that executive privilege is a valid defense to congressional demands for sensitive law enforcement information from the EPA. Plaintiffs have, thus, raised this executive privilege defense as the basis for affirmative relief ... The difficulties apparent in prosecuting Administrator Gorsuch for contempt of Congress should encourage the two branches to settle their differences without further judicial involvement. Compromise and cooperation, rather than confrontation, should be the aim of the parties. The Court, therefore, finds that to entertain this declaratory judgment action would be an improper exercise of the discretion granted by the Declaratory Judgment Act.

[stillcool]

11. the commentators say it...and

all of a sudden all these posts pop up, saying basically the same thing. It reminds me of the Mueller Report,..where they explain how when something was said, one of the Russian units would take it, and blow it up, and pepper it all over the net. So, it would seem like a zillion people had the same opinion...and then the media would report about public opinion. It is frustrating watching it happen live, in front of my keyboard, ...but oddly fascinating.

[StarfishSaver]

23. This is so true

There also seem to be themes of the day. One day it's Democrats are weak. Then it's Pelosi's a failure. Then it's Mueller let us down and the former Marine is a coward, etc.

I definitely am starting to see a pattern.

[Grasswire2]

40. I'm seeing a pattern, too. nt

[spanone]

13. Then when she refuses to show up, subpoena her.

A subpoena (/səˈpiːnə/; also subpœna or supenna) or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure. ... subpoena ad testificandum orders a person to testify before the ordering authority or face punishment.

[StarfishSaver]

17. That's my point

Had she offered to testify in private and was refused and then defied a subpoena to testify in public, the Committee would have had a difficult time getting a court to enforce the subpoena since, if it's her testimony they needed for investigatory purposes, they could have gotten it in private. A court will be very unlikely to uphold a contempt citation solely on the basis that the witness wouldn't testify on television since that's a political, public relations matter, not having anything to do with Congress' need to investigate or gather evidence.

But NOW, the Committee is in a better position since she refused to testify in private. She is now in open defiance of the committee and they are on different footing.

[Bettie]

18. And what was the "win" in her coming in

and testifying to....well, nothing, just a lawyer saying she wouldn't answer.

Her coming in or not is entirely irrelevant if she won't actually testify.

[StarfishSaver]

19. The "win" is that the Committee now can show a court they have exhausted all reasonable remedies for

getting her to testify short of contempt.

[empedocles]

44. The 'IMPEACHMENT NOW' caucus does not seem to have time for process, case building,

voter concerns, constituency building, etc.

[ehrnst]

84. Well...

Link to tweet

[mcar]

21. I was listening to MSNBC on Sirius a lot today

Nicolle Wallace was slamming Dems up and down. Very little about Rs intransigence or the realities you mention.

They have their impeachment logos ready to go, next to their Iran War logos. They care nothing about facts.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Don't forget the specially-composed theme music all cued up and ready to go

[mcar]

24. It is very dramatic, I am sure

[StarfishSaver]

25. LOL

They already have me responding like one of Pavlov's dogs whenever they play their election music. I always stop and look at the television because I think they're about to call a state ...

[mcar]

29. OMG, me too!

How bad is that?

[StarfishSaver]

31. Maybe we should get lives?

[mcar]

56. I was away all last week

and told myself that. Came home and was right back into it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth by Monday-morning quarterbacks

who don't understand the process and just want to bash the committee because they didn't put Hicks on the rack.

[StarfishSaver]

27. They wanted the "Starring Hope Hicks" teevee reality show

As evidenced by them chasing her down the hallway and onto the street asking her dumb questions they knew she wouldn't answer and putting the footage of her in her big old sunglasses on continuous loop for the evening shows.

[ehrnst]

85. Indeed. (nt)

[NewsCenter28]

37. Nope

Schiff just agreed to have Sater testify but only behind closed doors. Some might say Schiff is doing this because he doesn’t want Sater to be on live television delivering bombshells against Dotard that would make it harder for Pelosi et al to achieve their goal of no impeachment, whether that goal be right or wrong. No other reason for closed doors. None. Sater has no basis to defy a subpoena.

[Turin_C3PO]

43. Who's saying that Schiff is doing that?

And when did Pelosi say her goal is no impeachment?

[NewsCenter28]

47. WP has an article up

Schiff will have Slater but it will be behind closed doors, per them.

DU post too.

Pelosi said she doesn’t want impeachment. She wants him in jail and that she feels sorry for him.

[StarfishSaver]

46. "Some might say"

Yes, some might.

[NewsCenter28]

48. No explanation?

For why Slater gets special privileged behind-closed-doors treatment?

[StarfishSaver]

49. You seem to have all the explanations

So what's there to add?

[shockey80]

50. If yo are correct about the Democrats purpose behind the Hicks hearing.

The investigation is going to take years. They are taking the long road to the courts.

[StarfishSaver]

53. What do you think the alternative is?

[NewsCenter28]

62. I actually am in basic agreement with you and you're probably my favourite board poster

If you are right in your prior posts about how the Dems eventually will get to Impeachment, that’s cool. I am more than willing to wait months if needed to see your scenario, which is my dream scenario, play out.

However, when Schiff tries to keep the public from seeing what Sater has to say, it shakes my faith tremendously. Isn’t the point to use televised hearings to propel the public toward impeachment? Schiff keeping everything secret would tend to be exactly counter to that goal.

[Grasswire2]

39. in other words, (as more are beginning to say on teevee) Trump is laughing at Pelosi & winning.

That's what you are saying. There is no Constitutional remedy under which Congress can compel a fact witness to testify to events he/she has already shared with Special Counsel? Is that your position?

[Kurt V.]

51. You're not the only one a 'wee bit tired' . since i don't watch tv news I'm not sure what the

Reference is, but i am sure this is yet another attempt by you to tamp down any talk of impeachment. you are persistent, i'll give you that.

[PatrickforO]

52. I tend to disagree. Congress has the power of subpoena and of contempt, followed

by actual arrest and incarceration to compel testimony. Let the American people see that little drama.

Cause you know what? I'm sick and tired of these scofflaws flaunting everything we hold dear. Time to get tough.

[StarfishSaver]

54. Yes, Congress has this power

But it requires the courts to enforce it. And when enforcing contempt citations, the courts require a showing that Congress made all reasonable efforts to compel appearances short of contempt. If they go to court and say that Hicks was willing to testify but they refused to let her because she wouldn't testify in public, a court is very unlikely to enforce a contempt citation against her, since she would have made a show of cooperating with the only sticking point being she didn't want to testify on camera. Compelling testimony to advance an investigation is well within Congress' investigatory and oversight authority. Compelling testimony so that it can be shown on television is a shaky basis, especially when the testimony would be released to the public, thereby satisfying the public's need/right to know.

By doing it this way, Congress now has conclusive proof that Hicks has openly defied them.

And if she had appeared in public and refused to answer questions, what would have come of it? It wouldn't have added one iota of information to Congress' investigation. In fact, it's possible that it could have backfired and presented her as a sympathetic person - not to mention, giving Jordan, Gohmert and the rest of that crowd an opportunity to grandstand and protect their damsel in distress.

[eggplant]

57. maybe if you say it seven or eight more times, they'll hear you.

but I suspect they aren't listening. Which is sad, but not that surprising.

[StarfishSaver]

61. I don't need to tell them. They already know it and are doing what they need to do in light of it

Yet plenty of people who don't know this think they should instruct Congress how to proceed. Fortunately, I don't think Congress is taking its strategic and legal cues from random posters Democratic Underground.

[eggplant]

64. That wasn't the "them" I was thinking of. :)

And yes, I have confidence that Pelosi et al have things under control. Process takes time.

[StarfishSaver]

65. I misunderstood your post

My apologies.

[saidsimplesimon]

55. I agree, Starfish, except

it's more than a "wee bit weary" from my point of view.

[watoos]

58. People forget that Trump doesn't want

To win court cases. Dems following Proper procedure is what Trump wants.

Court cases will go past the election, exactly what Trump wants.

Trump isn’t trying to win he is trying to delay.
There is a remedy to speed things up, and it is fucking called impeachment. Impeachment will also change the narrative, something that is extremely important.

[Vegas Roller]

66. I agree with that

The theater of her not answering questions would have been priceless

[PatrickforO]

67. You know, I'm still in genuine disagreement with you. Why?

Because I'm 60 years old, and my dad and mom were World War II people. Dad fought in the Philippines and Mom was a Rosie the Riveter. Seriously.

They would roll over in their graves at Trump's disgusting antics. No way this could EVER have happened even fifteen years ago. But now here we are, fallen really far really fast.

Our way of life, our very social fabric is being torn apart in a hundred different directions. The EPA gutted, dying species arbitrarily taken off the endangered species list, the free press under attack, the DOJ and FBI under attack, concentration camps on our southern border - private ones whose ownership is buried fifteen different ways.

I don't care if you're a lawyer. I do care that you talk down to me. Right now, all of us have a choice, and that is between two paths: There is the politic choice, which is what we seem to be taking, and then there is the moral choice, the decent choice, the right choice, which everyone seems scared of because gosh, it might offend someone.

In the meantime, due to the Republicans in the House and in the Senate, and their massive (and treasonous or at least criminally negligent) fiscal irresponsibility, we are watching our treasury be sucked dry by a bunch of billionaire parasites - these billionaire donors told Mitch and his people, and we have this documented, that if they didn't get a tax cut, the donations would dry up, and so they got one.

But they got something else too. The people who believe that the ONLY legitimate role of the federal government is defense and that everything else ought to be deregulated, privatized or 'starved until it is so small it can be drowned in a bathtub' are IN POWER NOW. And they are screwing every single decent working American every which way but loose.

And you're sitting on here saying slow down, slow down, oh, you don't understand because you're not a lawyer...honestly I resent that. I happen to be an economist and know how very, very close to disaster we really are...and not just 'great recession' kind of disaster but blood in the streets revolution disaster. So, you lawyers are walking a fine line. You are caressing a live bomb without trying to put out the fuse. The approach, to my mind, is genuinely wrong.

Why? Because here is the oath they all swore. SWORE. On their HONOR:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

So help me God.

So, starfish, if we beat around the bush too much, go too slow, are too carefully politic, we won't save this republic, and worse, will let it degenerate into a nationalist oligarchic dictatorship. It's time to put your 'resistance' hat back on, people, and put your US Senators and your Representative back on speed dial. Call every day and ask how they are working through the constitutional crisis, because that is what this is. Sign petitions. Call news stations. Send in stories. Write op-ed pieces. Hit the streets. Get those pink hats back out. Because if we don't vigorously defend ourselves against these tapeworms in the intestines of democracy, they will eat away everything that makes life worth living and make us all wage slaves, living in fear of losing the job, of getting sick - mice.

That's what these neoliberals really want. They want us to be docile and just buckle under.

Well, I'm not.

[StarfishSaver]

72. I generally agree with you

Especially this:

"It's time to put your 'resistance' hat back on, people, and put your US Senators and your Representative back on speed dial. Call every day and ask how they are working through the constitutional crisis, because that is what this is. Sign petitions. Call news stations. Send in stories. Write op-ed pieces. Hit the streets. Get those pink hats back out. Because if we don't vigorously defend ourselves against these tapeworms in the intestines of democracy, they will eat away everything that makes life worth living and make us all wage slaves, living in fear of losing the job, of getting sick - mice."

That's exactly what I've been saying people need to do. Instead, too many people are sitting around sniping and second-guessing about what other people should do or aren't doing or are doing wrong.

It's not an either-or proposition. The lawyers and legislators must proceed carefully and pursuant to strategies and processes. But at the same time, people need to be working and agitating and organizing.

That's what happened in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. People tend to remember the marches because they were visual, but at the same time, civil rights lawyers and lobbyists were in the courts and on the Hill working through the system to effect change (and were harshly criticized for going too slow, as were Dr. King and other civil rights leaders who were viewed as being too "docile".) It goes hand-in-hand.

It's unfortunate that you feel you're being talked down to. But explaining things to people who don't have expertise in an area isn't being condescending. I wouldn't
feel talked down to if you explained fine points of the economy to me in a discussion about economics. I would appreciate you helping me understand it - and if I didn't, I'd just ignore you.

[JustAnotherGen]

81. Excellent point

That's what happened in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. People tend to remember the marches because they were visual, but at the same time, civil rights lawyers and lobbyists were in the courts and on the Hill working through the system to effect change (and were harshly criticized for going too slow, as were Dr. King and other civil rights leaders who were viewed as being too "docile".) It goes hand-in-hand.

Most Americans don't realize that Medgar Evers attempted to Segregate the University of Mississippi Law School in 1954 - as a Student.


Two Thurgood Marshall cases he brought to SCOTUS that still influence America today -

Adams V United States - 1943


Smith V Allright - 1944. How few Democratic Party Members today realize the party was filled with foaming at the mouth racists in 1940 - and Thurgood Marshall handed them their asses on a platter - in Texas.


It was 19 years after Marshall argued the Adams case before the SCOTUS, 9 since Brown V. Board AND Medgar attempting to attend Law School - before the CRA of 1964 was signed by a Texan Democratic President.


Patience, chip away, chip chip chip, tap tap tap -

No on is asking (I'm certainly not) for the House to NEVER start - but I want them to have 100 cannons at the ready when they do.

It was the arsenal of 100 years of Jim Crow that got the CRA passed.

[beachbum bob]

76. I want to see any and all trump admin officials on TV refusing to testify and taking the 5th....

just like the criminals have done for ages////

[StarfishSaver]

77. Lots of people want that. But that doesn't need to happen

to get where we need to go

People want a show because it's personally satisfying, but that's not going to ensure any kind of accountability for Trump or even guarantee a good outcome for Democrats.

And when was the last time you saw a criminal in front of a congressional committee taking the Fifth?

[beachbum bob]

78. most time crimianls are taking the 5th in criminal proceedings, but that doesn;t mean we can have

admin officials placed in same predicament. Nothing sways the public more than people standing behind taking the 5th...

Until democrats, ESPECIALLY Peloisi and her crew understand the time has come to actually play hardball, trump and his people will continue to destroy what took decades to build.


Impeachment inquiry of William Barr should have been announced weeks ago