WH officials refuse to testify

Adding to the body of evidence of obstruction.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2019/11/04/white-house-officials-testify-impeachment-065318

1 Like

This is a tired old saw. Collusion didn’t fly, then obstruction, which fell flat, now quid pro quo and again obstruction. Give it up. The dems can’t win on 'hate Trump; People have gotten wise to your ilk’s Marxist tactics.

Adam Schitt " “ Efforts to intimidate or threaten witnesses will further build the case for obstruction, itself an impeachable offense .”" i.e he has no case, but will develop one on obstruction, this time, maybe

Those witnesses, including the White House’s top national security lawyer John Eisenberg, blew off subpoenas to testify, underscoring the likelihood that Democrats are already sitting on the evidence they’ll have for impeachment as they move toward public hearings.

1 Like

They have nothing, zero, nada or else they would bring charges. They are fishing.

Oh they are refusing to testify like how Ben Rhodes refused to testify? Thanks for the update.

4 Likes

Any of them can refuse to testify which isn’t obstruction

1 Like

So when you say obstruction do you mean obstruction of justice because in order for that to be the case there would need to be a criminal proceeding and this is administrative in nature… and doesn’t actually count for anything.

2 Likes

Obstructing congress from doing their job. You agree that they have subpoena power right. If not that’s fine, I’m sure you’ll not complain if Democrats ever ignore subpoenas.

1 Like

Ah yes the so called subpoena power!:rofl:

This is where your ignorance of the details comes into full view here! Schiff and his clown car that you are so gayfully hitching you’re wagon to has no legal enforcement mechanism. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know that what Schiff sent as a request for Whitehouse staff to appear was actually a letter not an official subpoena and for obvious reasons! Holy crap! I thought you suppose to be knowledgeable about this stuff?

All too funny!

2 Likes

Well, Eric Holder didn’t have an issue thumbing his nose at the subpoena from Issa on the Fast and Furious scandal.

The day the House held him in contempt he was off to Disney World.

If no one is going to use the teeth of a subpoena, then it simply has no value.

2 Likes

It definitely is but it will go on another 5 years because President Trump will certainly win a 2nd term and the only way to get decency & sanity back into Government is 1) Term limits and 2) get the damned Dems out of there!

1 Like

Remember what Reagan said "it’s not that liberals aren’t smart, its that so much of what they know isn’t so"

Yesteryear’s liberals were much smarter and nicer then the bunch of thug liberals today who are dumb as dirt and meaner then a junk yard dog.

2 Likes

The term “liberal” is becoming a oxymoron.:rofl:

More like the “progressive Marxists “ is an accurate descriptor to describe today’s so called liberal.

1 Like

I still haven’t seen a reply about why Ben Rhodes was able to refuse to testify on Benghazi.

@Rheingold made a great point and it deserves a follow-up.

You got to check this out! This is all too funny! I think Monte’s identity has been reveled!:rofl:

Monte is actually Brian Stelter! :rofl::rofl: LMAO!

Read the comments! :laughing:

1 Like

Poor Schitt, WH staff don’t want to be a part of his circle jerk.

Oh Reagan, the guy that covertly sold weapons to a sanctioned country while testifying that he didn’t recall doing so. Yeah.

1 Like

No one should ever be allowed to refuse subpoena. I would have supported his arrest and Eisenbergs arrest.

1 Like