You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Land of the Free
Adam Schiff complains that ‘Trump's lawyers convinced two judges' to rule against him
2020-03-02
[Twitchy] Earlier this week, a federal appeals court ruled that Congress cannot sue to enforce outstanding subpoenas against the Trump administration and executive branch. The ruling basically means former White House counsel Don McGahn will not have to testify before Congress.

The ruling did not sit well with House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff, who complains that Trump’s lawyers “convinced” two judges to make an “unprecedented” ruling.
Related:
Don McGahn: 2019-12-01 Judges place temporary hold on ex-White House lawyer ruling
Don McGahn: 2019-11-28 US Justice Department asks court to block ex-White House lawyer ruling
Don McGahn: 2018-09-22 National Review - Grassley's Kangaroo Court
Related:
Adam Schiff: 2020-02-27 Carter Page at CPAC: Congress Should Pass Reparations for Victims of Deep State Wiretapping
Adam Schiff: 2020-02-24 Richard Grenell Begins Overhauling Intelligence Office
Adam Schiff: 2020-02-24 Dems Reportedly Severely Butt Hurt over Orange Man's Firing of DNI
Posted by:DarthVader

#12  Can the White House have Schiff's staff all be deposed just... because as well?

Is "deposed" that thing where you skin them and make a pyramid with their skulls on the lawn?
Posted by: SteveS   2020-03-02 22:15  

#11  Attorney-Client relationship has something to do with that, too.
Causing an Attorney to testify on a "fishing expedition" was several steps too far. Can the White House have Schiff's staff all be deposed just... because as well?
Posted by: magpie   2020-03-02 21:35  

#10  Implicit in his statement is the assumption that the judiciary is 'suppose' to rule against Trump without having to provide sufficient ground to do so.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2020-03-02 16:08  

#9  ostensibly, that is why lawyers exist; but this statement was probably just an attempt to get a talking point out to his media allies.

wall-to-wall coverage, 'we're getting more news on the 2 judges who ruled in favor of Trump'
Posted by: Bob Grorong1136   2020-03-02 15:10  

#8  I was hoping Trump's lawyers would convince the two judges to keelhaul slimy Schiff.
Posted by: JohnQC   2020-03-02 14:12  

#7  The problem, Mr. Schiff, is that your reputation precedes you. The colloquial expression is that you are telling tall tales out of school. The crude, more direct expression is that you are a liar and full of sh*t.

Attorney-Client relationship has something to do with that, too. Some subpoenas are quashed. Some are squashed. The President follows the law. Sometimes he wins. Sometimes he loses. Get over it, Narcissus.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2020-03-02 13:40  

#6  Buffoon. Moron.

Meet my Arab friend, FOAD.
Posted by: Lex   2020-03-02 12:40  

#5  In heavily left leaning courts no less.
Posted by: Iblis   2020-03-02 12:22  

#4  Dear Rep. Schiff -

Sorry about that, Sugarplum. This sorta thing works both ways, ya know.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2020-03-02 11:37  

#3  I'm not a lawyer, but isn't that what those in the business call a "trial"?
Posted by: SteveS   2020-03-02 11:30  

#2  "The force schadenfreude is strong with this one."
Posted by: PBMcL   2020-03-02 11:12  

#1  Then come up with a better argument or go fuck yourself, pencil dick.
Posted by: DarthVader   2020-03-02 10:04  

00:00