BREAKING: White House Wins DC Appeals Court Ruling Blocking Don McGahn Testimony…

In the background of the impeachment effort the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler was seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these cases were then argued in federal court, appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance.

The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds.  Today a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position.

WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled Democrats have no right to hear testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s ruling overturned a lower court decision requiring McGahn’s testimony and told the judge presiding over the case to dismiss it outright. The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses. (link)

This ruling also undermines the ridiculous “obstruction” article of impeachment because it shows the White House had a justifiable and constitutional argument to make against the House in the judicial branch.  The issue at stake was  whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

After the November ruling, House Judiciary Committee counsel Doug Letter argued to the DC Appeals Court that the forced testimony of White House counsel Don McGahn was needed for evidence in their impeachment trial. [Court pdf Avail Here]  The DC appeals court decision rebuked the House position that penetrating the constitutional firewall was adequately predicated:

The House Judiciary Committee could appeal for an en banc hearing of the full DC Appeals Court.  We’ll have to wait and see if they do.  However, it’s unlikely the HJC would succeed.  The central issue is separation of power. DC Circuit spells out the deadline House Democrats for a rehearing before the entire DC Circuit is March 9th.


This entry was posted in 6th Amendment, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, USA. Bookmark the permalink.

145 Responses to BREAKING: White House Wins DC Appeals Court Ruling Blocking Don McGahn Testimony…

  1. Maquis says:

    WINNING! 💥

    Liked by 35 people

    • luke says:

      This is a BIG WIN correct? That’s what I’m thinking. This is a middle finger in the face kinda WIN.

      Liked by 20 people

    • carterzest says:


      Liked by 20 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Throws a wrench in the next impeachment attempt which we know is coming.

      Corona virus is a perfect opening to come up with a bevy of charges. House democrats will have no problem rubber stamping whatever Schiff and Nadler create. Rosenstein’s sister from the CDC will be the star witness, keeping the next impeachment all in the family.

      Liked by 7 people

      • patti says:

        “Rosenstein’s sister from the CDC will be the star witness,”

        Flashback: CDC Workers Were “Crying in the Hallways” When Trump Was Elected President

        The WABE article details a somber, depressing, tearful, binge eating reaction by CDC staff:

        Liked by 4 people

        • Your Tour Guide says:

          Patti, others:

          Encourage others to think, think, who a “female microbioligist
          that consoles herself with bagel cravings” might be.

          Re-read the posted link. The whole interview is a set up.
          The “microbiologist?”. A little higher ranking then that. It’s
          Rosenstein’s sister. That’s her job description and training,
          she’s just at the head of the food chain. She even has throws
          in little hints to let the big boys know that she’s on the job.

          “I’m eating a bagel”. Wouldn’t that be a little hint that you
          MIGHT be jewish? Know any other religions that would start
          a statement like that. Maiden name Rosenstein? How much
          more of that faith could a name be?

          So, we have a “man on the street” interview, on NPR ( hates
          Trump, Republican, is swamp support). The person that JUST
          happens to speak let’s everybody know that she’s a microbiolgist
          at the CDC, female, and probably jewish. Narrows the field down
          quite a bit, especially in an international area like Atlanta.

          By starting the story with the superflous asides that it’s a female
          microbiologist ( wouldn’t most TERRIFIED of TRUMP persons
          not out themselves by stating their gender and job?), she’s
          signaling. By throwing in the sudden bagel craving aside, she’s
          signaling big time. That’s she’s on the job. The rest of the statement?

          Doesn’t it read like a press release from Swalwell, Pelosi, AOC, or
          damn near any swampster DEM politician? NOBODY speaks like
          that. Even the most crazed, around the bends lefties I know have
          no sentences remotely like that in their speech pattern. This is not
          the statement that comes from the heart. This is narrative speak.
          Rosenstein already had his sister on retainer to help with the cause
          from the get go. The facts that others that worked with her years
          ago know that she’s an around the bend frothing lefty is icing on the

          Liked by 3 people

        • TJ says:

          The WABE article also talks about Obamacare and fear that money for a project won’t be available.

          So the people who dislike or despise President Trump, have no vested financial interest in leaking, lying, and hyping, to defame the person they perceive as an existential threat to their financial livelihood, a racist, a rapist, and/or a murderer of immigrant children and mother earth?

          Brooklyn bridge for sale!

          “These people are sick.” “They go into the next room and laugh”, says President Trump.

          “Impeachment is sad and somber.”…as the crowd cheers and erupts in laughter.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Les D says:
        Here’s the opinion, safe link, from the Court
        Bertdilbert post above is correct, it’s actually a win for next time. I’d rather have the two from the Nutty Ninth today. Still, this ruling reverses one of Obama’s worst activist trial judges in DC, Ketanji Brown Jackson, so that’s always good. 2-1 opinion, one nominated by each Bush, the dissenter by slick willy.
        Actually, the appellate court for DC is not that bad if you put stock in who nominated who. Can’t always, baby Bush’s e.g. too often flippers (Chief Judge Roberts?). The lineup is:
        Of the total 17 currently sitting on DC App Ct, Obama 5; Clinton 2; Carter 1; Reagan 4, Old Bush 2, Baby Bush 1, Trump 2.

        Liked by 3 people

    • AustinHoldout says:

      Yet, our President is still “impeached forever” for “obstructing congress” because McGahn was not allowed to testify.


      • TJ says:

        “Impeached forever” is the equivalent of “sad and somber”.

        It also makes it easier to identify the Coup Clutz Clan, they announce themselves.

        It’s like having a sign on your back that says, “Kick Me”.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Chip Doctor says:

    Sorry Nancy, no mpeachment II. 😂😂

    Liked by 15 people

  3. littleanniefannie says:

    How about the taxes? How about the Weissmann material (there is no Mueller material—he couldn’t find it anyway)?

    Liked by 7 people

  4. thedoc00 says:

    We, here on CTH had speculated the cases before the Courts were not going well, which was the reason for the rush to impeach. The big one is still waiting in the Supreme Court.

    Schiff and crew may especially rue insulting the Chief Justice or maybe the President has discovered and removed the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of Justice Roberts.

    Liked by 21 people

  5. California Joe says:

    Not to mention President Trump’s right to attorney client privilege which is sacrosanct! He should have never waived it for Mueller’s grand jury!!! When you’re dealing with thugs like Weissman you can never expect them to be fair.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Dutchman says:

      The WHITE HOISE COUNCIL is NOT PDJT’s attorney, and he does NOT have ‘Attorney/client priviledge’.

      The WHC represents the OFFICE of the Presidency, not the man. Thats why PDJT had private council, to represent him.

      However, the WHC would be considered a “senior advisor to the President”, and so covered by Executive Priviledge.

      As stated, this totally destroys one of the two articles of Impeachment, that of “Obstruction of Congress”.

      Not tired, yet! Hasn’t PDJT won every legal case, eventually?

      Liked by 12 people

      • calbear84 says:

        He SHOULD win them all, as he has done nothing illegal.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Of coarse. But while his predessor did many things later ruled Unconstitutional (and he who taught Constitutional law), such as DAPA and therefore DACA, etc. PDJT, accused of being a tyrant has been upheld EVERY SINGLE TIME.

          Another narrative destroyed!

          Liked by 8 people

          • WES says:

            Dutchman:. What has surprised me is President Trump winning these 2 cases without having to go all the way to SCOTUS.

            Liked by 4 people

            • Raptors2020 says:

              All leftists believe in strong, central government.

              They are comfortable removing Trump from office. They are not comfortable with diluting his power.

              They want him gone. They don’t want him weakened. That’s the absurd paradox at the heart of their ambitions.

              Leftism is a neo-feudalist doctrine. The ruler is expected to be a benevolent dictator. They worship a Castro or a Chavez. They dislike the tumult of democracy.

              Liking the leader is essential. Agreeing with him is irrelevant.

              Check out Trudeau in Canada. He’s an idiot. Everyone knows it. To his followers, it doesn’t matter. They like him. Try to get your mind around that.

              Liked by 2 people

            • Dutchman says:

              The decisions by the first, libertard Judge are,so obviously wrong, it doesn’t require SCOTUS.
              I don’t THINK either Flynn or Stone case,will need to go to SCOTUS, because its,so obvious. Same thing.

              Liked by 1 person

      • California Joe says:

        I don’t see the difference between President Trump and the Office of the President when the attorney-client communications are directly related to the job of being President.


        • Dutchman says:

          There is the OFFICE of the President, and then there is the current occupant.

          For instance, the House was trying to establish that PDJT was trying to cover something up, and Obstruct Congress, by using executive priviledge, to block Natl. Sec. Advisor and WH Council from testifying.
          They KNEW PDJT would claim Executive priviledge, and why, but they wanted the narrative.
          These advisors were not going to say anything that was impeachable, but thats not the point.
          The,House,Dems wanted the NARRATIVE of “he’s covering up!”

          It would have been best for PDJT, the man and CURRENT occupant, to let them testify.
          BUT, he would be setting a PRECEDENT, which would be binding on FUTURE Presidents, and erode the seperation of powers, and future Presidents executive priviledge.
          Therefore, while his private attorney would probably advise him to ‘call their bluff’, and allow the,advisers to testify, the WH Council would advise “Mr. President, you CAN NOT waive Executive Priviledge, and allow them to testify. You MUST fight this in court, in order to preserve this priviledge for future holders of the OFFICE.
          Hence, WH Council is the attorney representing the OFFICE of the POTUS, …NOT the current occupant.
          Does this clarify, or is it clear as mud?

          Liked by 2 people

  6. This is wonderful news and a great MAGA way to end the week, as we celebrate with tonight’s rally.

    Liked by 13 people

  7. CharterOakie says:

    BOOM, like that! (To quote the title of a Mark Knopfler song.)

    Liked by 6 people

  8. GB Bari says:

    Big win for President Trump, the U.S. Constitution, and the long-standing rule of attorney-client privilege. Good to know that this D.C. Court of Appeals is able to kneecap the horribly biased DC lower courts’ bad rulings.

    Liked by 11 people

  9. Janice says:


    Liked by 4 people

  10. Steve in MT says:

    No one who understands privilege ever had a doubt about this issue. Just the silly DC court judge who was driven more by partisanship than by the law. I am thinking that judge and Roger Stone’s judge should be the first impeached when Republicans retake the House next year.

    Liked by 12 people

  11. KMD says:

    Whipped em again, Josey!

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Patience says:

    Hahaha…. Lotta-waste no-neck-Nadler & Naggin-Nancy Schitting

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Jerry? Jerry? Did you hear that Jerry???🤣🤣🤣

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Your Royal Highness says:

    Just curious whatever happened to our little country lawyer Rivistan?! Anyone heard any “analysis” from him lately???

    Liked by 4 people

    • boogywstew says:

      His wife was sick and apparently recovered somewhat. Let’s pray she hasn’t relapsed. I miss his measured comments.

      Liked by 16 people

      • Daniel M. Camac says:

        I miss his legal input as well but I’d rather have him caring for his wife than educating me more about these court matters. Wishing only the best for both of them.

        Liked by 11 people

      • bessie2003 says:

        He wrote two very in-depth articles on this virus that is happening, they were posted on the wattsupwiththat website, over a week ago. They were very helpful in understanding what is happening while also making it easy to see beyond the political scare mongering that is currently going on in the media over this. (didn’t re-post them here, some scuttlebutt about something or other, but the articles and the comments within them are well worth the time to find and read them for those interested.)

        Liked by 4 people

    • Some one said he doesn’t come here anymore because he was attacked or verbally assaulted by someone but I find that hard to believe because lawyers are used to that kind of thing I would thing.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Remington says:

        No, actually Rivistan himself mentioned that in one of his last writings. He felt that he was attacked to often; so was going to stop posting. I miss his contributions…

        Liked by 2 people

  15. TrumpPatriot says:

    I am with Mike R. I think the President should sue Congress over the Impeachment to have it declared illegal.

    Liked by 5 people

  16. Charlie Currie says:

    Well, you win some, you lose some. 9th Circuit shoots down Remain in Mexico.


  17. DeWalt says:

    For the amount of money the LawFare Lawyers are charging the taxpayers to harass our President, they sure are incompetent. We shouldn’t pay them. sarc

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

    Good news Friday!

    And POTUS just re-nominated John Ratcliffe for DNI.

    Time to smoke out some Senate Republi-RATS.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Robert Smith says:

      Oh, yeah!

      God bless the USA, President Donald J. Trump, and John Ratcliffe.

      Liked by 6 people

    • cow wow says:

      I LOVE love love this!!!!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • DeWalt says:

      Well Sundance looks as though you were right. Maybe (cough) we can sundown FISA next go around. Ratliff is a decent consolation if he can kick some butts.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        Congress can shut down FISA ANYTIME.
        We just need to put enough folks there with the cohones to do it.
        It’s the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT.
        Congress made it. They can unmake it.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Was wondering if he was going to do this, or nominate Nunes.

      Either one is sticking a thumb in the eye of McConnell, Graham, Burr and the rest of the Decepticons.

      He is QUALIFIED. Advise and CONSENT in the Constitution inherently implies APPROVAL. Senate may advise the POTUS they have muh reservations, but Constitutionally they are OBLIGATED, in the end to give their approval.

      Only grounds for not, traditionally would be someone OBVIOUSLY unqualified. Ratcliff isn’t.

      Will they ‘tie it up, in committee’?
      Will McConnell allow it to come to a vote of the full Senate?

      Will McConnell use his squishies, to deny the nomination? Enabling traitors like Graham to vote yes, to cover their hinies, while pierre disgusting and murkowski torpedo the nomination?

      They, Graham, McConnell etc. don’t want Ratcliff as ODNI, under any circumstances. But, how out of the closet are they willing to come, to deny him the nomination?

      Liked by 5 people

      • OhNoYouDont says:

        Between a rock and a hard place …Ratcliff or Grenell as head nof ODNI.

        Looks like Schiff prefers neither.


        • Dutchman says:

          Schiff is irrelevant. Its McConnell and Graham that are ordering more depends.
          What is really going on, IMHO, is this is about DECLASSIFICATION of Sundances wish list.

          When PDJT expressed interest in declassifying, and Rosie threatened/advised he could be impeached if he did, the ODNI was the one who COULD have decalssified, but it was run by a swamp rat.
          PDJT delegated his declass authority to Barr, and gave him and Durham a year to do something.

          Now, thru Grinnell and Ratcliff, PDJT is putting pressure on McConnell ,Graham, Burr AND Barr.

          Dangling Declass over their heads, RIGHT when FISA,is coming up for renewal. Some heavy stuff going on!

          Liked by 2 people

      • Robert Smith says:

        It is a clear sign to Trump’s opponents that he will not let the issue drop – no matter the outcome of the Ratcliffe nomination. At the very least I think the odds of much better with Grenell in place.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          Agree. It is a major chess move, now we watch to see what his chess opponent, McConnell does.

          It was ALWAYS going to come down to this, eventually. This is Declass, this is FISA renewal (or not), this is confirming nominations (or not) and this is confronting McConnells perfidy, I suspect. IMHO

          Liked by 1 person

      • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

        They, Graham, McConnell etc. don’t want Ratcliff as ODNI, under any circumstances. But, how out of the closet are they willing to come, to deny him the nomination?
        That’s the brilliance of POTUS’s move.

        BTW: Both McConnell and Burr have issued statements that Ratcliffe should
        “sail through” confirmation.

        Did some quick research (excluding “Acting DNI’s”
        …the first DNI was John Negraponte (2005-2007)
        Claim to fame: Ambassador
        Mike McConnell: Navy, Intelligence
        Dennis Blair: Navy, Intelligence
        James Clapper: USAF, DIA
        Dan Coates: Ambassador, Senator

        Proving prior official INTELLIGENCE position NOT a prerequisite.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Dutchman says:

          Exactly. Ratcliffs resume is essentially the same as Dan Coates.
          He SHOULD be confirmed, and if you believe McConnell and Burr on this, got a bridge I’ll sell ya.

          McConnell and the Decepticons SAY one thing, DO the opposite, ALL THE TIME.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

            Passing on what is said is not an indicator of my belief or it’s truth.
            Validity is always the LAST thing I consider,

            But tell me more about this bridge of yours…..

            Liked by 1 person

  19. CountryClassVulgarian says:

    Mr . President, Mr. President, I’m…ummm let’s see…

    NAH. not tired of winning yet.

    Liked by 3 people

  20. chuckyschmucky says:

    “The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses.”

    Intransigent? Is intransigent a synonym for “correct” or “constitutional?”

    Liked by 6 people

  21. AnotherView says:

    Suck on that Nadler, you ugly evil toad.

    Liked by 7 people

  22. well with the ratcliffe nomination did PT and mcconnell strike a deal on the fisa?


  23. MIKE says:

    Ouch the Hammer of Trump just fell on Jerry’s Nadlers!

    Liked by 4 people

  24. USA First! says:

    Every time we get a court ruling, it seems to me that 99% of the time the judges that are appointed by Democrats are going to vote opposite of the constitution and past precedents.

    It should be obvious to everyone by now the liberal judges on the Supreme Court as well as other courts are doing nothing more then advancing agendas by those that placed them there.

    It’s one big charade.

    Liked by 6 people

    • DeWalt says:

      When you have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Defenders of the Constitution, overseeing a blatant violation of our Fourth Amendment. Yea, I’d say it’s a charade.

      Liked by 2 people

  25. Ellis says:

    Confirms the second article of impeachment was invalid.

    Liked by 3 people

  26. Jim says:

    Not looking at these specific judges here. However, as much as I complain about Mitch M and things he does or doesn’t do, I have to give him a lot of credit for getting the President’s judges approved.

    Very important for the future. Thanks leader McConnell for the judges.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dutchman says:

      Jim, I like judges as much as anyone,…
      But McConnell has consistently, in violation of the intent of the Constitution, deprived PDJT of the nominees he would WANT for the cabinet.
      He has denied PDJT recess appointments.
      He has tried to hamstring PDJT on his legislative agenda.
      McConnell has undermined the President in every way he could.

      McConnell, by not holding hearings to investigate the coup, has signalled to the swamp that he approves.

      IMHO, McConnell and Ryan greenlighted the coup, from day one.

      McConnell led the Congressional Chorus in a,rousing rendition of “Oh, Muellers an HONORABLE man, his investigation must continue!”

      Given all that, thanking McConnell for the Judges, is like thanking the waiter, for putting a cherry on your excrement sundae.

      Can’t bring myself to do it, no.

      Liked by 9 people

      • Jeff says:

        I’ll buy that for a buck and a quarter.


      • EXCELLENT STATEMENT: “…..thanking McConnell for the Judges, is like thanking the waiter, for putting a cherry on your excrement sundae.”

        Nice job D-man.

        Liked by 1 person

      • tdwesselman says:

        i disagree with you on recess appointments. The house has to give permission for the senate to go into recess and there is no way they will give it. Paul Ryan refused when the house was in GOP hands.


        • Dutchman says:

          Not sure I ever heard that before. In MOST things, the two houses act seperately, although Ryan is most definetly a traitorous snake, and up to his skinny neck in coup resistance.


          • WRB says:

            The Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn under Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which provides that both Houses must consent to an adjournment.[11] This tactic is especially used when either House of Congress is controlled by a different party than that of the President, the Senate or House may seek to block potential recess appointments by not allowing the Senate to adjourn for more than three days, blocking a longer adjournment that would allow recess appointments to be made.[12]



            • Dutchman says:

              Ah, so clarification of that, thanks. So, since the House transferred to Dem majority in 2018, we can’t blame McConnell. Before that, we can blame both McConnell and Ryan.
              Moreover, fron day one, McConnell has dictated PDJT’s nominees, by having his staff tell PDJT’s staff “Sorry, no way he/she can be confirmed!”

              And as a result, McConnell has played a major role in seeding PDJT’s administration with traitors, nevertrumpers, anonymous underminers, etc.

              So, theres that. However, I WILL remove ‘blocking recess appointments’ from my long list of examples of McConnell undermining MAGA and PDJT.

              Did I mention maintaining the fillibuster rule on legislation, despite Nanzi gutting the rules in the House, to achieve one party rule,…AND several Dem 2020 POTUS candidates suggesting it should be eliminated?

              So much of PDJT’s legislative agenda could have been enacted, if McConnell had made this simple change.

              He’s a snake.


  27. christian says:

    F..k Nadler, schift and Nanzy!!!


  28. calbear84 says:

    How DARE you obstruct our coup d’etat!

    Liked by 6 people

    • Dutchman says:

      Step one; Expose their true nature, check.
      Step two; as a result of step one, DISCREDIT. As they lose credibility, PDJT GAINS credibility.

      Since Power is the ability to effect events, and perceptions (“public opinion”) as credibility shifts from his enemies to PDJT, he GAINS power, and they LOSE power.

      Does anybody really CARE,who Shiftless or Nadles call as witnesses, or what they say or do?

      Liked by 1 person

  29. lansdalechip says:

    The DC Court of Appeals is a breeding ground for Supreme Court nominees.
    Looks as if there are a few candidates there, alive and thriving.


  30. T2020 says:



  31. Ironclaw says:

    HAHAHAHAHA! Communists are SO STUPID…


  32. Troublemaker10 says:

    Liked by 9 people

  33. jx says:

    Good that the fishing expedition is shut down.

    Wise latina will have a fit.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. hope durham and jensen say “can’t comment on an ongoing investigation”

    Liked by 3 people

  35. John says:

    Don McGahn was probably the most passive White House Counsel in my memory. The Office of White House Counsel is supposed to be full of pit bulls and velociraptors. Not a guy that let’s the FBI send agents into the White House to entrap a senior administration official. McGahn should have stomped a puddle in Yates and McCord’s buts when he met with them after the Flynn FBI interview. A real White House Counsel would have been filing ethics and Bar Association complaints against them for interviewing Flynn without notifying his office. What they did was the same as interviewing a suspect that they knew was represented by a attorney without that attorney being present.

    Liked by 4 people

    • ann says:

      Thank you for explaiation. I knew Yates & company were stalking, not acting in good faith.p.

      Never understood the passivity. The coordinated DoJ/FIB set up was contemporaneosly OBVIOUS – even to a humble nonlawyer me.

      I’ve interpreted the DoJ actions as knowingly malicious, as the commanders had foreknowledge of the tainted source. Plus the posit of Putin’s Tool is prima facie preposterous, a ridiculous premise.

      I’m still confused why their vicious Russian/Trump malinformation was not immediately disqualified by the principle of poisonous fruit from the toxic tree.

      Does the poisoned basis of discovery not apply?

      Alternatively: this absurd package of malicious lies given credence by biased judges and /or “institutional advocates”?

      IMHO,Yates, Comey, Baker & Associates, under false pretext, , brazenly intruded into the orderly peaceful transition, & successfully blocked full compliance with an orderly peaceful transfer of power.

      The transfer of power, a lawful legitimate succession, the preventiuon of civil war, is an acid test of governance, They flunked.


  36. hawkins6 says:

    3 things that are not surprising about this decision.
    1. Judge’s Griffith and Henderson are G.W. Bush appointees
    2. Dissenting Judge J.A.W. Rogers is a Clinton appointee
    3. Lawfare strongly disagrees with the decision

    Of course politics is never a factor in a Judge’s decision. It’s just a miraculous run of coincidences.

    Liked by 1 person

  37. zekness says:

    Today, I am not tired of winning.

    God is answering prayers….a patriots are working hard and effective against the evil disease that has captured the left socialist prog commie DIM’s mind and spirit.

    Winning has not made be tired.

    I tip my hat toward Sundance for following this case to …that worthy of another patriots meritorious service medal….Sundance, I can refer you to a good tailor to resize your breast size…you’ll need it before this is over.

    I also tip my hat to John Turley. I’ve not seen such splendid consistency from someone who is attached to the democratic party in a very long time. With any luck and divine intervention, his views will enlighten some defeated hearts and open some minds to the realities of the corrupt house democrats departure from reason and speculative and dubious plots.

    peloser, schittstains and no-nads achieved peak retard. It’s all downhill from this point forward. Destroyed again by their own freakish slapstick. Typical.

    I want to know a little more about the judge who handled this case. I’m very interested in the person behind this ruling. And who represented the case defending this president.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. republicanvet91 says:

    “break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses.”

    As if these clowns have never heard of Executive Privilege before.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. BTW, this case wasn’t even close on the merits.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. sundance says:


    • republicanvet91 says:

      Pffft. I can’t recall a saying that would express how futile her effort is. Maybe “peace in our time”?

      Seriously, what is the point of her action?


  41. I know a whole lotta Dems that are getting really tired of all this WINNING!!

    Liked by 1 person

  42. Ray Hardy says:



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s