Prime content is available to paid members, please join us
Wanker of the Day: Maggie Haberman
Discussion
Join our users to read our prime articles
Moral obligation? What about her legal obligation? I guess the current Republican definition of a Congressional subpoena is: “a suggestion.”
In fairness to Haberman, she does mention that there is a legal obligation. That’s the whole point of the article. But she doesn’t suggest there is any moral obligation.
Not only that first you need to negotiate the kinds of questions that are acceptable. It’s a bit of a joke.
She wouldn’t be the subject of anything without her physical attributes. Just another repub crook.
Right, which is why so she is so invisible that we need a glamour shot to make her come to life.
She wouldn’t have gotten anywhere near the White House without her attributes, either. She was an assistant of some kind with Ivanka’s clothing brand.
But she’s the ideal Trump woman — looks like that, never disagrees with you, and can’t think for herself. (The whole clan is so shallow and tacky and horrible.)
Imagine that she is considering whether to honor a subpoena? I never thought one of those things was a maybe appearance. What do we need to do to have those little legal things obeyed? Why not put her in jail?
>>I never thought one of those things was a maybe appearance.
despite having the same name as a real court document that a judge can enforce with jail, a congressional “subpoena” is a sternly worded letter without much enforcement mechanism behind it.
Sees so, but I understand if there is a legislative reason behind it , like an impeachment inquiry, it can be enforced with jail. If so that seems to be the way to go. We are either serious about this or why bother since any witness can blow it off.