Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 09, 2019

Over the past few days, Democrats have been warning with more and more urgency that the Trump administration's response to an impeachment inquiry might represent obstruction of justice. White House Counsel Pat Cipollone explained the administration's view yesterday in a letter to House Democratic leaders. The missive sprawls over eight pages, but its message can be boiled down to just five words: You're damn right we're obstructing.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"When you're complaining about the rules, you're probably losing"

Trump is on the run and he feels it. Things are only getting more wild, more implausible. There's not been a crazier month in America since 1968 and it's all because Trump.

He's slaughtering the Kurds and he's freeing Isis. He's running the country into recession or worse. He's breaking the law every time you turn around. He's a crazy person getting much, much worse.

Trump's fall may well be a story of politics advanced by other means.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-09 08:05 AM | Reply

This letter should be "Exhibit #1" when this goes to 'trial' in the Senate.

OCU

#2 | Posted by OCUser at 2019-10-09 02:51 PM | Reply

Nothing say "innocent" like hiding everything from view and declaring yourself to be above the law.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 03:09 PM | Reply

Dems using obstruction as an impeachment article isn't good enough. Trump would prefer to be impeached for obstruction than have evidence of his crimes exposed.

Dems need to start prosecuting obstruction, arresting people, and making trump pardon them.

#4 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 03:11 PM | Reply

No question he should be impeached even if he didn't write it. He should be impeached just because the word President was in the letter, he should be impeached if the letter was on paper.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-09 03:12 PM | Reply

Dems using obstruction as an impeachment article isn't good enough. Trump would prefer to be impeached for obstruction than have evidence of his crimes exposed.
Dems need to start prosecuting obstruction, arresting people, and making trump pardon them.

#4 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-10-09 03:11 PM | FLAG:

You idiots have been trying to "have evidence of his crimes exposed" for three years now with no luck.

#6 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-09 03:14 PM | Reply

When will Donald Trump's Jerry Lundegaard moment finally come? And, will it be televised live?

#7 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2019-10-09 03:17 PM | Reply

You idiots have been trying to "have evidence of his crimes exposed" for three years now with no luck.

#6 | POSTED BY FISHYP***Y
Your nothingburger has turned into an impeachmentburger so there obviously is something there unless you're a politically blind Trumphumper.

#8 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-10-09 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You idiots have been trying to "have evidence of his crimes exposed" for three years now with no luck.

#6 | Posted by fishpaw

What prevented you from reading the mueller report? Illiteracy?

#9 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 03:30 PM | Reply

No question he should be impeached even if he didn't write it. He should be impeached just because the word President was in the letter, he should be impeached if the letter was on paper.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw

Awww look. Ball cupper has nothing to say. As usual.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-09 03:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

No question he (Trump) should be impeached even if he didn't write it.

#5 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-10-09

Trump is stepping in it, isn't he? Even you see that.

#11 | Posted by Zed at 2019-10-09 03:59 PM | Reply

This letter is so false, in so many ways. Legally, historically...just about any way you slice it.

Cippolone isn't an idiot. His sole aim here was to give the appearance of legitimate legal argument where there is none, so that laymen will continue to believe the administration's narrative.

It's reckless but unfortunately not something that would get him disbarred (it should be).

#12 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-09 04:13 PM | Reply

Here is Lindsey Graham's thoughts on this very topic.. From 1998.

www.youtube.com

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-10-09 04:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The powers and authority of an elected office do not change depending upon whether you like or agree with the person in that office.

This means that when the House of Representatives or one of its committees requests documents or testimony or issues a subpoena, an administration can't simply ignore the request " or send an eight-page letter from lawyers that amounts to a middle finger.

It doesn't matter if the administration officials insist there's nothing important in the requested documents, or if the administration says the demand for the documents is just a "blatant partisan maneuver to discredit the White House in an election year."

In the coming days, you're going to hear members of Congress outraged at the White House defiance of a coequal branch of government. They will argue that the refusal to comply with demands amounts to a coverup of a crime, a violation of the Constitution, and that resisting officials like the attorney general "knows the answers are there because he's the one who has the documents that contain the answers we're looking for. He's the gatekeeper here, and if he won't give us the information this institution needs to do our duty, our constitutional duty, then we will use every legal and constitutional tool that we have to get to it."

You're going to hear members of the president's party declare that "this is a witch hunt, pure and simple, Mr. Speaker, and it has no place in this House." They will howl that the fight "is about politics" and the opposition "doing whatever it takes to attack the administration, no matter the issue, no matter the cost."

Members of the president's party will contend that perhaps the fight is the point, that the outcome matters less to the House majority leaders than assuring their base that they're fighting the president with everything they've got: "Under this majority, everything has to be a fight " everything. Everything has to be a confrontation. Everything has to be a showdown. And I get the politics. I understand this is an election year. But this goes way, way too far. It is just wrong." The president and his allies will argue that the opposition party's base voters never recognized the preceding election's results, and furious grassroots activists believe that the president isn't really legitimate, and that thus they cannot possibly honor a request driven by such unhinged and extreme motives.

And in the end, it will all result in the House finding Eric Holder in contempt.

Oh, I was talking about former attorney general Eric Holder's refusal to turn over documents to Congress about Fast and Furious back in 2012; what did you think I was talking about?


It's funny how things change when the other side is in power. I'll be very interested to hear how Congressional Republicans respond to Trump thwarting Dem's document requests, etc.

www.nationalreview.com

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-09 04:24 PM | Reply

Jeff loves legal obstruction of justice.

He's overjoyed by Trump pwning liberals.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-10-09 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Jeff loves legal obstruction of justice.
He's overjoyed by Trump pwning liberals.
POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-10-09 04:25 PM"

Clownshack loves playing snoofy's' game of twisting another person's words and attributing them to that person.

#16 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 04:34 PM | Reply

Fast and Furious back in 2012

Was this part of an impeachment inquiry?

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2019-10-09 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Yes, Lets Compare Fast & Furious that started under Bush as Operation Wide Receiver to the Ukraine Scandal!

1. Fast & Furious was about who knew about the program only at the time of the document fight
2. Obama wasn't being investigated for an impeachment inquiry or even involved
3. Eric Holder testified at least 7 times
4. Multiple ATF agents testified
5. Tens of thousands of pages were turned over in 2011 under the Congressional subpoena
6. And the only fight over documents was for 1,300 pages Obama claimed executive privilege over?

Sounds a bit different than No Testimony and No Documents period that the White House has gone to for Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry.

But hey, what do facts have to do with it?

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-09 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 9

#17 and #18

They were/are both congressional investigations and in both instances the Executive has given the middle finger to congress over information congress feels entitled to.

The key difference so far is that the Fast and Furious investigation dragged on for 13 months whereas this so-called impeachment inquiry has barely even started.

#19 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-09 06:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

The key difference so far is that
#19 | Posted by JeffJ

..that was a democrat. Trump is a republican.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 06:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#17 and #18
They were/are both congressional investigations and in both instances the Executive has given the middle finger to congress over information congress feels entitled to.
The key difference so far is that the Fast and Furious investigation dragged on for 13 months whereas this so-called impeachment inquiry has barely even started.

#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

How about a big No?

Officials obeyed each subpoena and testified. Troves of documents were turned over. Only 1,300 pages of privilege documents were not.

In this case, NO ONE IS TESTIFYING and ALL DOCUMENTS ARE BEING REFUSED WITHOUT PRIVILEGE.

If you can't see the difference, you aren't smart enough to keep posting or voting.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2019-10-10 03:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

In this case, NO ONE IS TESTIFYING and ALL DOCUMENTS ARE BEING REFUSED WITHOUT PRIVILEGE.

Over how long of a period of time? Yeah, 2 weeks. If it continues for a much longer period of time I will completely agree with you.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-10 03:40 PM | Reply

If it continues for a much longer period of time I will completely agree with you.
#22 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

What's giving you an indication that it won't?

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-10 03:43 PM | Reply

Jeff is an eternal optimist and believes the Republican Party will do they right thing, eventually.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-10-10 03:49 PM | Reply

Clown,

The Republican Party will do what's politically expedient. Always.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-10 04:46 PM | Reply

What's giving you an indication that it won't?

#23 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

Nothing. I'll watch it play out. If it turns out to be more than a hollow threat I'll be right there calling it out. The founders put checks into place for a reason.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-10-10 04:47 PM | Reply

"The Republican Party will do what's politically expedient"

Roundabout way to say Republicans put Party over Country, but at least you said it... and are one.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-10-10 04:48 PM | Reply

"Roundabout way to say Republicans put Party over Country, but at least you said it... and are one.

#27 | POSTED BY SNOOFY "

At least democrats admit they put party over country, too. No one gets out alive.

#28 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-10 04:52 PM | Reply

this so-called impeachment inquiry has barely even started.
#19 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Wait.. what???

I was just reading memes from some of my conservative friends, implying that Dems have been impeaching Trump since 2015.

#29 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2019-10-11 01:35 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort