Don McGahn, ex-White House counsel, subpoenaed over Mueller report

originally posted by: Samanth9956

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

www.washingtonpost.com... /04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html?utm_term=.c502b4b0a931

Because that is what innocent people do.

No, that's what someone fed up with 2 and a half years of BS does. Next you guys will want to subpoena Trump's high school diary...

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: Samanth9956

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

www.washingtonpost.com... /04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html?utm_term=.c502b4b0a931

Because that is what innocent people do.

No, that's what someone fed up with 2 and a half years of BS does. Next you guys will want to subpoena Trump's high school diary...

Lol. Still better than making an issue out of a tan suit.

Let's look at Trump's taxes...

originally posted by: Samanth9956

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Samanth9956

Why
Has barr been held in contempt of congress?
Has barr called trump his wingman?

Barr released much much more than required from the Mueller investigation.
Funny how that is not acknowledged.

If Barr is Golden than why are subpoenas being discussed?

He's not golden. He lied. And this isn't the eighties. We're watching.

watch away
how exactly did the ag lie?
perhaps some basic knowledge of how the special council works would help?
that and the fact that we don't do "exonerations" in investigations in our nation

originally posted by: Samanth9956

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: Samanth9956

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

www.washingtonpost.com... /04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html?utm_term=.c502b4b0a931

Because that is what innocent people do.

No, that's what someone fed up with 2 and a half years of BS does. Next you guys will want to subpoena Trump's high school diary...

Lol. Still better than making an issue out of a tan suit.

Let's look at Trump's taxes...

Wow, awesome redirect.

What exactly do you expect to see in Trump's taxes? Do you think people earning that level of income from that many business sources don't have highly paid accountants and financial lawyers who keep things in order? Do you think he sits down and writes out his tax returns personally? Do you expect he'll note a large payment from "V. Putin" in his tax returns?

My previous job was with one of the country's biggest companies. They had 32 people in the head office accounts team, one of whom was solely employed as a taxation lawyer. We worked under dozens of different entities and special purpose vehicles, as any large company does, and everything was above board. It's not just Trump filling out a tax return.

So seriously: what do you expect to find?

Firstly, Trump would be an idiot not to use every tax minimisation strategy available. To paraphrase Murdoch or Packer, why would I pay a single cent more than I have to - the government isn't very good with it.

Secondly, presidents are typically people from a background in politics, having always been paid from the public purse. The tradition (and it is nothing more than that) of showing tax returns is to show they haven't ingratiated themselves or abused their public service position for personal gain (Hillary, cough...).

But Trump is not from a background in politics and being paid as a public servant. His money has been from numerous public and private companies, and publicising the financial records of those affects every one of those companies and can jeopardise every one of the hundreds of people working in them. It's not proper or justified, or even valid for Trump to disclose his returns because it has nothing to do with public money.

But seriously, what do you think you'll find in them?

a reply to: Rewey

I checked my quote. It was Kerry Packer in front of a parliamentary panel:

"I'm not evading tax in any way shape or form. Of course I'm minimising my tax. If anybody in this country doesn't minimise their tax they want their head read. As a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be paying extra."

originally posted by: Samanth9956

originally posted by: Rewey

originally posted by: Samanth9956

The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

www.washingtonpost.com... /04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html?utm_term=.c502b4b0a931

Because that is what innocent people do.

No, that's what someone fed up with 2 and a half years of BS does. Next you guys will want to subpoena Trump's high school diary...

Lol. Still better than making an issue out of a tan suit.

Let's look at Trump's taxes...

I'll clarify my point about how it jeopardises innocent employees:

Trump hands over tax returns for Dems to publicise, which necessarily includes income from dozens of business entities. Despite nothing shady apparent, every competing company now has scored an unfair advantage in that their financial dealings have not just been made public. Market investors are now wary of investing in a company which has had its financial dealings published, and other joint venture partners are wary about undertaking further dealings, lest their financial matters also get dragged into it and published.

Soon, the company experiences a drop in returns and investment. Sorry, looks like we'll have to cut 50 staff this year.

But it's all good because the Democrats got to publish Trump's completely irrelevant tax returns, because Orange Man Bad!

originally posted by: highvein
It's as if they sought out an asylum, and insisted that the patient's write talking points for them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, and thought of this movie...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: highvein
It's as if they sought out an asylum, and insisted that the patient's write talking points for them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, and thought of this movie...

Yeah. If you leave out the honesty part.

I just have to ask, are all these anti-Trump people in favor of guilty unless proven innocent? I really just want to know, because Hillary wasn't proven innocent either. I haven't been proven innocent of beating my wife, even though I've never been married. Where does this stop being funny and become a serious issue for our country?

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: highvein
It's as if they sought out an asylum, and insisted that the patient's write talking points for them.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing, and thought of this movie...

Yeah. If you leave out the honesty part.

Hah, yeah, there is that...

a reply to: Cassi3l

Yall got any more of them subpoeanas?
How is that workin out for yall?

a reply to: Rewey

Except they can't publicize them...

a reply to: thov420

There has not been a trial in either case.
There is not guilt or innocence without a trial.
And no one was charged with anything to be guilty or innocent of.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey

Except they can't publicize them...

With the leaks abounding in DC and the already past proving with Rachel Maddow publicly sharing his earlier tax forms she received...I cannot help but believe you are not being honest in posting.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey

Except they can't publicize them...

Yes, Washington has proved itself to be the epitome of a watertight ship this far. What an inane comment.

Besides, even if they did find something it would need to proceed to a criminal case, in which case it would have to be disclosed, no?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rewey

Except they can't publicize them...

hahahahaha
Hahahahaha
You probably actually believe that
Hahahahaha
What a maroon

Fat jerry just ran his yap again
Lol
Too bad idiot
Nobody is listening to you jerry

May 20, 2019

The DOJ and White House told John McGahn that he can legally IGNORE Jerry Nadler's subpoena, and skip tomorrow's hearing in front of the House Judiciary committee.


Tonight, Nadler sent a threatening letter to John McGahn, warning of "serious consequences", if he doesn't show up.

You better show up, or else!: townhall.com...


I hope committee member Cohen brings enough KFChicken to share tomorrow!

Cohen protests AG Barr's non-appearance by eating Chicken: twitter.com...

a reply to: carewemust

Nadler's threats didn't work. McGahn was a NO SHOW today.
www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse
So basically the Dems are implying that if you get a lawyer or take any steps to legally protect yourself from being falsely accused of something, it is obstruction of justice. Yeah, I thought that is what they are trying to say.

If I were to state that I did not commit a crime I was accused of and attempted to get evidence to prove it or try to meet with people to explain I had not done it....it now qualifies as obstruction of Justice. Now the Democrats are trying to set us up, they can use this to slam anyone who questions any legal action by using it to set precedence to take away our rights as citizens. Anyone should be able to see there are some people up high that are trying to seize control of our society and country.

I don't understand how a party that, in part, runs on the mistrust of law enforcement so easily hands over their right to defend themselves from law enforcement just to spite their political enemies. It's extremely short sighted of them.

I wonder what BLM would say if someone said "if you've done nothing wrong; you shouldn't worry about investigations" the next time a black person is harrassed for "driving while black".