Constitutional Crisis Cometh - Court Of Appeals Orals On Why Don McGahn Does Not Have To Tell House Judiciary About The Detroit Land Bank Authority

See, this just sucks.

All the U.S. House Judiciary Committee had to do was to just put in their filings Don McGahn's role in the Michigan Emergency Manager Law, Detroit Bankruptcy, Detroit Grand Bargain and the Detroit Land Bank Authority, but, alas, they did not, and now there is no de novo review on stealin' the children, land and vote.

These interbranch dispute arguments is dumb.

He is how I would approach this tripartite quagmire:

1. Were you stealin', either, children, land or votes?
2. If you say, 'no', then you are lying based upon multiple attestation in the public record, under arms of the seals of governance.
3. That means you breached your duties as officeholder of the children's trust, which means you can be defrocked, to fall from the heavens, to be held to the laws of the land, in the right of the vote of a grand jury..
4. Ergo, you were lying, and you better not bear false witness in the public record, again, which makes the opportunity of subpoena a right of due process of the public's right to a civil society.

So, instead of listening to the "Legal Geniuses" (trademark pending), I shall provide my summation:

They were stealin'.

What if there is a "Whistleblower, protected by the Orders of Highest Authority", who has everything these people are averring about with Judiciary, already in the public record?

This is fun, because you do not need a subpoena if one is indicted, oops, I mean, arrested, but that is a completely different jurisdiction and we know it is only constitutional for feds to trump States rights...in federal grand juries....ooooohhhh....chaos......baby........mmmmmm.........

Everything you wanted to know about Don McGahn.

This is about the Kavanaugh argument on attorney-client privilege in Whitewater in the Vince Foster case, when a client is deceased, like my Sweetie...

This is about the trafficking of tiny humans, which is why you shall hear the battle of Valhala, which shall allow the heavens to fall.

#maytheheavensfall

LISTEN: Appeals court wrestles with subpoena for ex-White House aide McGahn

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal appellate judges are wrestling with whether courts should be refereeing a dispute between the House of Representatives and the Trump administration over the testimony of former White House counsel Don McGahn, even in the face of what one judge called the White House’s “broad-scale defiance of congressional investigation.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard arguments Friday over the House Judiciary Committee’s effort to compel McGahn’s testimony. The administration appealed after a trial judge rejected its broad claim that close advisers to President Donald Trump have complete immunity from congressional subpoenas for their testimony.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, pressed tough questions on both sides Friday, describing Trump’s directive not to cooperate with congressional investigations as “broad-scale defiance” that is possibly unprecedented in U.S. history. Even so, Griffith wondered whether courts should get in the middle of a political dispute between the other two branches of government, especially when Congress has other powers available, including cutting off appropriations, stopping the confirmation of judges, even impeachment. “That’s what the separation of powers means,” he said.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The committee wants McGahn’s testimony as it examines potential obstruction of justice by the Republican president during special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. But it has held open the possibility that McGahn’s testimony could be important in impeachment, even though the two articles of impeachment adopted last month by the House focus on Ukraine and events that occurred after McGahn left his White House post.

Even if McGahn eventually shows up at the committee, it’s unclear whether he would have much to say. Trump could assert executive privilege over some matters, though he allowed McGahn to talk extensively to Mueller’s investigators.

“What happens then? You’re back here?” Griffith asked.

The other two judges on the panel are Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush.

Rogers seemed likely to side with the House. Henderson had only a few questions, although she indicated McGahn might have a strong interest in saying little to the committee to protect his conversations with Trump, his former client.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn well before the start this fall of an impeachment inquiry centered on Trump’s request to Ukraine’s president that he investigate Trump’s Democratic rival Joe Biden and Biden’s son as well as an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory alleging Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The Justice Department has asked the appeals court to dismiss the case, saying there’s no reason for judges to become involved in a political dispute.

The department also says the need for resolving the case is less urgent now that the House has moved ahead with impeachment articles even without McGahn’s testimony.

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©