Judge rules MCGAHN must testify to House Judiciary Committee

Really? Can you link the prior precedents that you’re basing that on?

Of course Mark Levin yelled that the judge is a disgrace.
Anyone who dares side against The Chosen One™ is a disgrace.

Here you go- enjoy!


He stated why and it wasn’t based on feelings…like this thread is.

Based on his feelings?
Then why did he call the judge a disgrace?

Thank you.

“Now, this is what you need to understand, a president must be able to have legal advice. Must be able to have legal advice without Congress interfering,” Levin said. “Whether it’s an impeachment proceeding or any other proceeding. Otherwise, there’s no balance of power because the House of Representatives, unless there’s a criminal investigation, is not subject to any subpoenas.”

“If a president can’t turn to a lawyer for legal advice, then it’s a disaster,” Levin added, saying the ruling would be appealed.

LMAO…For those uneducated in what you just did, judges CITE precedence in their rulings, kinda comes with the job.

I have not read the entire ruling or the precedent ruling as yet, but it boils down to not being able to claim executive privilege as a means to dodge a subpeona completely (you can, of course, still claim executive privilege on a question by question basis). Not particularly a “law guy” but that makes sense to me - I’ll leave it to the rulings etc for constitutionality.

Yes, absolute immunity is fan fiction for the right…

He avoids mentioning that executive privilege still applies, but only on a question-by-question basis not on a “completely avoid subpeona” basis.

1 Like

“She’s a radical leftist and this is truly outrageous,” Levin said on his radio show.

So he’s providing his feelings on the decision.

“So, what she’s doing is she’s tilting the balance of power far away from the president to the Congress. Changing the structure of our government,” Levin said. “And the ability of the chief executive to function, to function. There is a circle of advice that a president gets in the inner circle that should be unmolested by these subpoenas.”

Congress has the power of subpoena. The President’s inner circle cannot just ignore subpoenas. And they are not immune. If this case sets a prescient, then the President could name anyone he wants as part of his inner circle and then ignore subpoenas.

The precedents are the Executive Privilege rulings in the Nixon impeachment. The last was the ruling in the Tapes case (Nixon v. Jaworski I think) in 1974 was 9 - 0 against the assertion of an absolute existence of Executive Privilege.

“You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?”

“Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Fifth Amendment. Horrible.”


Feelings. Lol. Nope founding principles.

From the opinion.

“In reality, it is a core tenet of this Nation’s founding that the powers of a monarch must be split between the branches of the government to prevent tyranny.”

They separated the powers so that we don’t have a king or queen.




Not only will “They” appeal, but this judge will be over ruled.

BTW…How is this whole “Impeachment” thing going? When are they gonna hold a vote. I dont want any of this silly “Censure” stuff. I want an impeachment. When is it gonna happen already? Weve been promised this for the last three years. Lets make it happen.

Impeach 45!

Not happening. Won’t even make it to the Supreme Court.

It’s heresy if someone goes against the orange “Chosen One”…as per Rick Perry.

The President has the Office of the White House Counsel that has a team of lawyers whose sole purpose is to advise the President, Vice President, and White House Staff on legal matters pertaining to the President and operations of the White House.

Gulliani was/is the attorney for Donald J. Trump (personal attorney). Or maybe a “Special Envoy” depending on it it’s Tuesday or Thursday.