Clinton's personal sex life wasn't even a proper question concerning Ken Starr's whitewater investigation. It had no relevance to his job performance. It was only asked because Starr is a republican perve.
Yes, clinton could have just taken the 5th and been done with it. Instead he did what millions of husbands do. He lied about where his pecker had been. Not even close to what your criminal hero would have to do if he ever got a wild hair and decided to conform to the rule of law by going under oath.
You just cannot get it through your head that you support a pathological liar.
* That strategy is based on a nonexistent legal theory claiming "absolute immunity" from legislative oversight.
* In ruling that the former White House counsel Don McGahn must comply with a congressional hearing in the impeachment inquiry .. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-impeachment-major-players-timeline-what-comes-next-2019-11, US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings."
* The Justice Department said it would appeal Jackson's ruling.
* But as of now, the decision not only means McGahn will have to testify, but allows Congress to haul in the multitude of firsthand witnesses who have refused to comply with subpoenas at Trump's orders.
* Rep. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, signaled that he may very well go down that route.
* "I am pleased the court has recognized that the Trump Administration has no grounds to withhold critical witness testimony from the House during its impeachment inquiry," Nadler said after the ruling.
Barr's DOJ argues, since we have fractured his skull already, kneecapping him, in both legs, would cause no further harm to him.
A judge blasts Trump’s DOJ — again
A federal judge has ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before Congress, in a setback to President Trump’s effort to keep his top aides from testifying. (Saul Loeb/AP)
U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who last week harshly rejected President Trump’s claim of absolute immunity to prevent testimony of former White House counsel Donald McGahn, struck another blow for legal integrity in a devastating opinion denying McGahn a stay to appeal the ruling.
- DOJ’s stay motion fails to demonstrate that any portion of this Court’s legal analysis is erroneous, or even that the legal issues raised in this case “represent fair ground for litigation[.]” . . . . Moreover, neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has ever previously held that the significance of the issues presented in a case, standing alone, is enough to warrant a stay pending appeal. To the contrary, it is well established that “[s]imply calling an issue important— primarily because it involves the relationship of the political branches—does not transform the Executive’s weak arguments into a likelihood of success or a substantial appellate issue.” -
The court dismissed DOJ’s cheeky claim that the House would not really suffer harm from loss of McGahn’s testimony. “DOJ’s argument that the Judiciary Committee will not be meaningfully harmed by a stay of this Court’s Order pending appeal seems disingenuous, and therefore, is unpersuasive,” Jackson wrote. She continued, “Thus, DOJ’s argument here that any further delay will not be harmful to the Judiciary Committee because, in essence, DOJ has already harmed the Committee’s interests by successfully delaying its access to other materials strikes this Court as an unacceptable mischaracterization of the injury at issue. And, indeed, DOJ cites no authority for its suggestion that, if a stay movant has already successfully forestalled an opponent’s vindication of its rights, any additional delay that a stay in the instant matter would cause should not count as harm.”
Jackson concluded, “This Court has no doubt that further delay of the Judiciary Committee’s enforcement of its valid subpoena causes grave harm to both the Committee’s investigation and the interests of the public more broadly.”
The judge also knocked down the argument that the House didn’t really need McGahn’s testimony because it really only cares about the Ukraine scandal. “For one thing, it is the Judiciary Committee, and not DOJ, that gets to establish the scope of its own Article I investigation, and the Committee has repeatedly represented that it is, in fact, reviewing the Mueller Report as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” She added, “DOJ also does not, and cannot, deny that whatever additional information that the Committee (and the public) might glean from McGahn’s live testimony will be lost if the Judiciary Committee does not have an opportunity to question him prior to any House vote on impeachment.”
McGahn still may raise executive privilege when he appears in response to individual questions, but he’s got no excuse now absent a lightning-quick reprieve from the court of appeals. Other witnesses (e.g., John Bolton) holding out for a higher-court ruling on the subject should take note. They should not be able to hide behind a ludicrously weak absolute immunity defense, and their attorneys as officers of the court should shy away from making patently frivolous arguments.
McGahn’s appearance could well affect the scope of the articles of impeachment. Depending on what the court of appeals and/or Supreme Court decide, Jackson’s ruling might unleash a torrent of new evidence and witnesses, both in the Russia/Mueller report case and in the Ukraine matter.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
