9500 turkeys -" Subpoenas are just in invitations, that's why."
DPST's are free to ignore the Invitations all they want.
LOL
9500 turkeys -" Subpoenas are just in invitations, that's why."It's been transparently obvious from the beginning of the Scam/Sham Investigation to determine whether articles of impeachment against Trump would be "viable" .... as to why a subpoena wasn't "served" and "enforced" ....
DPST's are free to ignore the Invitations all they want.
LOL Originally Posted by oeb11
So what, she can walk in and plead the fifth, or she can tell the court to go to hell and ignore the orders
Their case will have to get in line behind the fat lying bastards and his associates like Rudy. Get over it. Originally Posted by Jaxson66
like the fat lying bastard ignores court decisions.And what court decisions would those be?
Was there someone on the current White House staff who got a "subpoena" to testify before the House Scam Investigation Committee and who declined the "invitation"? If so, please name the person(s). And a legitimate source would be nice of your FACTS! Originally Posted by LexusLoverThe current administration staff is a revolving and devolving door. I suppose current is the key word, right?
So what, she can walk in and plead the fifth, or she can tell the court to go to hell and ignore the orders like the fat lying bastard ignores court decisions.Alas, If only she were POTUS.
Their case will have to get in line behind the fat lying bastards and his associates like Rudy. Get over it. Originally Posted by Jaxson66
The current administration staff is a revolving and devolving door. I suppose current is the key word, right? Originally Posted by eccieuser9500No, not right. As usual you are wrong again!!!!
Thanks for proving once again that you do not understand the law .... Originally Posted by HedonistForeverThe Captain sucking on the taxpayers' hind tit doesn't need to know.
No, not right. As usual you are wrong again!!!!As before, you use lots of words to say little. Point was regarding John Bolton. Nobody can compel him to testify. It's just an invitation. Freedom of speech and right to remain silent, you know.
Past administrative staff (as well as department heads and their former staff members who are under "executive privilege" while employed with the administration) have to maintain the confidentiality.
Liken it to a "legal secretary" who departs a law office: they are prohibited from talking about your disclosed information to their boss while they were employed.
Or do you think otherwise just because the LameStreamSocialist media spouts off otherwise ... unless of course if it's their shit!!!!
If you are concerned about that concept, just look at the Loons pretending to be someone on here while they post .... they are the ones toying with outing the others!!!! SocialistLiberalLoons feel free to out and disclose others' personal/private information, but scream bloody murder when it's their privacy being invaded and disclosed ...
... you think Cortez would like her stinky pussy problem being publicly discussed on Hannity's show? Originally Posted by LexusLover
9500 - a subpoena may be contested in court - and a court does have the authority to order a subpoena enforced. Originally Posted by oeb11It's a challenge for the LameStreamMedia as well ... when to call it a criminal proceeding and when it's a civil one (as opposed to "civilized one"). PussLousy and her sorry band of public servants have been failing at that task as well.
Since hoehummer is concealing his true identity I have decided to put him on ignore. Originally Posted by the_real_BarleycornDon't gives yourself too much credit, barleysoup. Your identity is as open as a greek goddesses arse. I am flattereds that yous had to announce your momentous decisions with us all.
I am surprised that considering the behavior on Forum, that YR-HH has not been "Band" long previously. Originally Posted by oeb11Not for lacks of trying, eh oebsy???