The Political Junkie Thread

[dudog]

Pat Cipollone, Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, is scheduled to testify Friday before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to a person briefed on the matter.

Good.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-source-ci ... 52241.html

I will be very curious to hear what, exactly, Mr. Cipollone feels he is able to say and on what topics, given the various potential privileges in play. Depending on how those questions are answered, this could be very productive or a complete nothing-burger. Noteworthy is that he declined to voluntarily appear, and he is only responding now that a subpoena has been issued.

I think that gives him some cover. You've got to be pretty rogue, as an attorney, not to respond to a subpoena. What you then divulge, however, is a different matter entirely.

It should be noted that Cipollone is the White House attorney, not Trump's attorney. Others can speak better than me as to whether that will make a difference (calling OPK, our resident counsel).

[CameronBornAndBred]

(calling OPK, our resident counsel).

Needs to change is name to PPK.
Professor Phi Kap

[OPK]

(calling OPK, our resident counsel).

Needs to change is name to PPK.
Professor Phi Kap

Just call me The Dude.

The privilege question for the White House Counsel is murky, as is the potential application of the crime-fraud exception. I think the J6C agreed not to ask about conversations he had with Trump, which avoids some of the problem but will leave gaps. Ultimately, for now at least, I think the J6C would rather get as much as they can from Cipollone now as opposed to maybe getting more after months of legal wrangling. Especially since come January the House likely will be more interested in investigating Hunter Biden than Donald J. Trump and this committee will be disbanded.

[OPK]

A good ruling from Judge McBurney in the Georgia case (as reported by my friend and hopefully the next Attorney General of the Great State of Georgia, Jen Jordan):

https://twitter.com/senatorjen/status/1 ... tyOn3k38Rw

[CrazyNotCrazie]

A good ruling from Judge McBurney in the Georgia case (as reported by my friend and hopefully the next Attorney General of the Great State of Georgia, Jen Jordan):

https://twitter.com/senatorjen/status/1 ... tyOn3k38Rw

Does this basically say that the GA legislators have to testify about what they were talking about when discussing throwing out the election results?

I'm glad to see this trial is moving along and hopefully will keep doing so. As great as all of the things being brought to light by the Jan 6 commission are, Garland has to eventually decide to go after Trump and start the trial and there will be constant delays so that could take forever. Georgia seems like our best chance of taking him down.

[dudog]

(calling OPK, our resident counsel).

Needs to change is name to PPK.
Professor Phi Kap

Just call me The Dude.

The privilege question for the White House Counsel is murky, as is the potential application of the crime-fraud exception. I think the J6C agreed not to ask about conversations he had with Trump, which avoids some of the problem but will leave gaps. Ultimately, for now at least, I think the J6C would rather get as much as they can from Cipollone now as opposed to maybe getting more after months of legal wrangling. Especially since come January the House likely will be more interested in investigating Hunter Biden than Donald J. Trump and this committee will be disbanded.

Do you mind if I call you El Duderino? I'm not into the whole brevity thing.

[OPK]

Needs to change is name to PPK.
Professor Phi Kap

Just call me The Dude.

The privilege question for the White House Counsel is murky, as is the potential application of the crime-fraud exception. I think the J6C agreed not to ask about conversations he had with Trump, which avoids some of the problem but will leave gaps. Ultimately, for now at least, I think the J6C would rather get as much as they can from Cipollone now as opposed to maybe getting more after months of legal wrangling. Especially since come January the House likely will be more interested in investigating Hunter Biden than Donald J. Trump and this committee will be disbanded.

Do you mind if I call you El Duderino? I'm not into the whole brevity thing.

This aggression will not stand, man.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Needs to change is name to PPK.
Professor Phi Kap

Just call me The Dude.

The privilege question for the White House Counsel is murky, as is the potential application of the crime-fraud exception. I think the J6C agreed not to ask about conversations he had with Trump, which avoids some of the problem but will leave gaps. Ultimately, for now at least, I think the J6C would rather get as much as they can from Cipollone now as opposed to maybe getting more after months of legal wrangling. Especially since come January the House likely will be more interested in investigating Hunter Biden than Donald J. Trump and this committee will be disbanded.

Do you mind if I call you El Duderino? I'm not into the whole brevity thing.

What's wrong with Brevity? Seems like a good poster. Does great halftime trivia during the in-game chats.

[dudog]

Just call me The Dude.

The privilege question for the White House Counsel is murky, as is the potential application of the crime-fraud exception. I think the J6C agreed not to ask about conversations he had with Trump, which avoids some of the problem but will leave gaps. Ultimately, for now at least, I think the J6C would rather get as much as they can from Cipollone now as opposed to maybe getting more after months of legal wrangling. Especially since come January the House likely will be more interested in investigating Hunter Biden than Donald J. Trump and this committee will be disbanded.

Do you mind if I call you El Duderino? I'm not into the whole brevity thing.

This aggression will not stand, man.

That rug really did tie the room together.

[Phredd3]

A good ruling from Judge McBurney in the Georgia case (as reported by my friend and hopefully the next Attorney General of the Great State of Georgia, Jen Jordan):

https://twitter.com/senatorjen/status/1 ... tyOn3k38Rw

Does this basically say that the GA legislators have to testify about what they were talking about when discussing throwing out the election results?

I'm no expert, but my reading is that it depends on who they were talking to. For example, let's say Rudy called a Georgia legislator to discuss illegally throwing out the Georgia election results. The contents of that call must be disclosed (in both directions, i.e. what Rudy said and what the legislator said are both open to inquiry). On the other hand, the grand jury cannot ask what the legislator thought about that plan, and if the legislator then went down the hall to his co-legislator's staff and discussed any legislative actions they might take, including legislative reports they might produce, in reaction to that call, that conversation is privileged, even if the legislative plans they were considering would have helped further Rudy's plan.

So it's helpful, for sure, but it's not carte blanche. There are acres of grey to be navigated, which the decision says the court will weigh in on if a dispute arises, as it almost inevitably will. I refer to the Official OPK Rule of Thumb:

You can do it, but it’s not as quick and easy as one might hope.

[dudog]

On the other hand, the grand jury cannot ask what the legislator thought about that plan, and if the legislator then went down the hall to his co-legislator's staff and discussed any legislative actions they might take, including legislative reports they might produce, in reaction to that call, that conversation is privileged, even if the legislative plans they were considering would have helped further Rudy's plan.

Depends on if they have a Sunshine Law (like Florida) and if it's enforced. Florida touts theirs, but I'm not sure it's followed. People try to hold legislators' feet to the fire, but we all know how that goes.

[Phredd3]

On the other hand, the grand jury cannot ask what the legislator thought about that plan, and if the legislator then went down the hall to his co-legislator's staff and discussed any legislative actions they might take, including legislative reports they might produce, in reaction to that call, that conversation is privileged, even if the legislative plans they were considering would have helped further Rudy's plan.

Depends on if they have a Sunshine Law (like Florida) and if it's enforced. Florida touts theirs, but I'm not sure it's followed. People try to hold legislators' feet to the fire, but we all know how that goes.

My understanding of the decision is that it is based on a provision in the Georgia Constitution, which would obviously be enforceable regardless of any Georgia legislation on the same subject.

[dudog]

Here's a 'hot off the press' example of how Florida's Sunshine Law was supposed to work. I think the legislators do what the heck they want.

Florida's Sunshine Laws, which are intended to guarantee public access to meetings among elected officials

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/photo ... li=BBnb7Kz

I'm guessing Georgia doesn't have such a law, or it's as toothless as Florida's.

[OPK]

On the other hand, the grand jury cannot ask what the legislator thought about that plan, and if the legislator then went down the hall to his co-legislator's staff and discussed any legislative actions they might take, including legislative reports they might produce, in reaction to that call, that conversation is privileged, even if the legislative plans they were considering would have helped further Rudy's plan.

Depends on if they have a Sunshine Law (like Florida) and if it's enforced. Florida touts theirs, but I'm not sure it's followed. People try to hold legislators' feet to the fire, but we all know how that goes.

My understanding of the decision is that it is based on a provision in the Georgia Constitution, which would obviously be enforceable regardless of any Georgia legislation on the same subject.

I haven’t read the order yet, but many of our immunity laws arise from the state constitution. And here you also have some separation of powers concerns between co-equal branches. Look forward to actudd as lot digging into the order when I can.

[OPK]

Here's a 'hot off the press' example of how Florida's Sunshine Law was supposed to work. I think the legislators do what the heck they want.

Florida's Sunshine Laws, which are intended to guarantee public access to meetings among elected officials

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/photo ... li=BBnb7Kz

I'm guessing Georgia doesn't have such a law, or it's as toothless as Florida's.

We got ‘em and they have some teeth.

[Furniture]

So Bannon wants to testify. I would not touch that with a barge pole.. it has to be a setup.

[CameronBornAndBred]

So Bannon wants to testify. I would not touch that with a barge pole.. it has to be a setup.

Well, since Trump waived executive privilege claims, I'm sure it is. That being said, the committee HAS to take his testimony. I'm sure they will be smart in their questioning, and hopefully have an idea of the truth (with ways to back it up) ahead of time.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

So Bannon wants to testify. I would not touch that with a barge pole.. it has to be a setup.

Well, since Trump waived executive privilege claims, I'm sure it is. That being said, the committee HAS to take his testimony. I'm sure they will be smart in their questioning, and hopefully have an idea of the truth (with ways to back it up) ahead of time.

The whole "he is testifying with Trump's blessing" makes me ill and is so symbolic of what is wrong with America today. There is a huge portion of our country that completely defers to Trump. It is really scary how deferential people are to him and his psychotic whims.

I assume Bannon will be warned repeatedly about lying during testimony. And remember that he is testifying in private. The commission is only publicly showing clips that help their case. So if he provides them with garbage, rather than giving him a platform, they will show a bare minimum.

[dudog]

So Bannon wants to testify. I would not touch that with a barge pole.. it has to be a setup.

Well, since Trump waived executive privilege claims, I'm sure it is. That being said, the committee HAS to take his testimony. I'm sure they will be smart in their questioning, and hopefully have an idea of the truth (with ways to back it up) ahead of time.

It's all bullshit. Bannon was not a member/employee of the executive branch, therefore executive privilege does not exist.

[dudog]

Unfortunately, this just makes these states dumber.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/some- ... li=BBnb7Kz