Discussion: Inside The Possible Legal Ramifications Of Trump's Executive Privilege Play

As I understand it, all bets are off for invoking executive privilege if there are ongoing impeachment proceedings. This is exactly the reason the House needs to begin impeachment yesterday. Without them this Cheif [sic] Hostage Negotiator will continue to hold this country — indeed, democracy itself — hostage.

It’s also worth noting that should the House institute such proceedings the DC Court will more than likely fast track every lawsuit it files, just as it did with Nixon.

23 Likes

I glanced at CNN at the gym yesterday and saw a headline about some Democrat (s) threatening jail for the subpoenas dismissers. Haven’t seen it anywhere else yet – sure hope it’s true.

19 Likes

“No collusion, no obstruction,” eh? That’s some geometric logic there, Prez. Queeg. Only problem with your super-strong premise is that it’s contradicted on both counts by the actual Mueller report. So, oops, there goes your whole ballgame. Better find that duplicate key to the wardroom, pronto.

6 Likes

“Recent presidents have leaned on the approach. President George W. Bush used it to shield some sensitive information from Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks. The Clinton administration used it to try to keep private Hillary Clinton’s answers during the Monica Lewinsky investigation.”

Hillary-itis, fully expected at Faux Noise, has infected AP. They’ve gotta mean Bill.

11 Likes

“They believe a drawn-out court fight could tire voters’ patience and shift public opinion their way. While they are hopeful that the courts support them, a legal battle that ends in defeat could stretch close to the 2020 election and make it easier for Republicans to claim the other party was predominantly interested in playing politics.”

Look at all the partisan chicanery the Republicans pulled while Obama was in office. Crazy demands for lifting the debt ceiling. Shutting down the government. Seven year Benghazi investigation. Ridiculous obstruction - (an attempt at) no legislative accomplishments, no nominations. All of these actions were unpopular. Yet they didn’t pay a price. By the end of Obama’s term, Republican’s controlled all three branches of government and a majority of state governments.

Throwing poop at the other party, creating crazy conspiracy theories out of thin air, lying your tail off about what your platform actually represents, that stuff works. It may be unpopular with the voters, but such actions turn off more voters to the other side than it turns off on your side.

10 Likes

This is the part I find fascinating:

“In a regular administration, we expect the White House to make aggressive constitutional arguments,” Schwinn said. “But what President Trump is doing is something different. He’s making these assertions that are both overly broad, even ridiculously broad, and in a slippery way so that we can’t get our arms around what he is asserting.”

It doesn’t seem to be some genius move by Trump’s lawyers, it’s just his natural instinct to block cooperation as if he was running a business. He has no idea at all about the way this is usually done. He’s not listening to anyone’s advice because lately he’s been flying solo, after kicking out Kelly and the other adults in the room. Even his lawyers are just watching the circus from the sidelines now. This makes the obstruction even more effective (at least temporarily) at achieving his goals, than if he’d handled it in the conventional way.

It’s fascinating, in a horrific, watching a house burn down kind of way. Just one more indication of how the system of government in this country was never designed to handle an outsider like Trump reaching the office of President.

I don’t know how any of this can be prevented in the future after he’s out of office. I sure hope someone is thinking about what kind of structural changes could prevent the worst of it, while remaining within the Constitutional guard rails.

17 Likes

Schwinn said. “But what President Trump is doing is something different. He’s making these assertions that are both overly broad, even ridiculously broad, and in a slippery way so that we can’t get our arms around what he is asserting.”

What he’s asserting is that he will not cooperate or act in a rational or legal manner … he’ll keep trying to impede, obstruct, and cover up, and that he has no understanding of, respect for, or intention of following our Constitution and system of laws and government because he’s the most corrupt president in our history who is quite afraid of, but determined not to face, any consequences for his multitude of crimes over many years.

17 Likes

The house needs to open impeachment hearings. At this point you have to stop the energy to the crazy train. The Muller report is some damn fine ammunition.

8 Likes

“I am not a crook.”
– Richard M. Nixon

“Yeah, I’m a crook, but there’s fuck all you can do about it.”
– Donald J. Trump

21 Likes

According to the Dailybeast, they are getting closer because the stonewalling is pissing them off.

7 Likes

Besides Miller the only other people Trump takes advise from is Fox News, and since Fox publicly broadcasts positions for Trump to take, and then members of staff to appear on shows to appeal to Trump’s whatever then how could he use privilege to shield his decision making process-it’s all out there in the open.

5 Likes

That’s a really good point and if I was a lawyer involved in this I’d make that argument.

8 Likes

How is it the a POTUS who is so innocent keeps trying to block investigations that can show his innocence?

10 Likes

Good point, should be made over and over.

6 Likes

MSNBC also had it.

Three questions:

  1. CAN the House order the arrest of officials who won’t appear at hearings?

  2. If so, is there any reason not to do it?

  3. If McGahn wants to testify against Trump’s wishes, how can they stop him from doing so?

I’ve been critical of excessive focus on Mueller-related issues but having come to this point, the House must have an aggressive response to this stonewalling or risk branding themselves as 98 lb. weaklings.

This is so obvious, that I’m sure they will do it.

5 Likes

“the aftermath of the special counsel’s probe, which ended last month without concluding the president colluded with Russia or obstructed justice.”

As Josh and The NY Times op-ed he referenced pointed out, the Mueller Report DID find collusion, coordination and conspiracy with Russia or its agents/representatives, as well as obstruction of justice. The conclusion of the report was sitting presidents can not be indicted given DOJ rules and that the obstruction will make it difficult or impossible to prove the collaboration beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the broad conclusion and reflects on the administration, including the president, and Republican Party as a whole.

Narrowing the focus to just what the president knew or did undermines the truly astonishing and dangerous conclusion of the report, let’s Trump set the message and provides cover for the Republican Party.

The context is important. Limiting it to a narrow point muddies the water to allow plausible deniability letting the bad actors off the hook.

7 Likes

Yes. I’ve followed Josh’s arguments against rushing to impeachment closely and generally agreed with him and with Pelosi. To me, the House investigations are impeachment hearings in all but name. And I see a new poll opposing impeachment while agreeing Trump broke the law.

But Trump’s defiance of the Congressional subpoenas changes the calculus. He’s successfully packed the Supreme Court, which is likely to twist itself into legal knots to defend him. The House has a much better chance of winning the court battle if it demands documents or witnesses as part of an impeachment inquiry than if it demands them as part of its general oversight functions.

Think the House leadership needs to reconsider its stance on impeachment. The arguments in favor of it on grounds of principal—we cannot tolerate obstruction of justice from the Oval Office—have now been joined by arguments in favor of it on grounds of timing and the need to address politically motivated obstruction from the bench.

9 Likes

They can’t unless they can get a court to stop him and I don’t see how.

7 Likes

Trump doesn’t care about the legal consequences of his actions.

What Trump cares about is impeachment, which he thinks is inevitable. And because he cannot control IF impeachment happens, he needs to control how, when and why it happens, and how it is perceived.

which is really all that his current obstruction is about. He wants the issue to be “process”, and he wants it to come about because he is resisting a slew of “subpoenas from angry Democrats” trying to find dirt on him.

Trump keeps repeating “no collusion, no obstruction” to create/sustain a narrative of Democrats obsessed with “getting him”. He presents himself as having committed no crime in order to reinforce the “Presidential harrassment” narrative.

And everything the Democrats are doing is playing into his hands.

The “legal” result is a very likely “worst case scenario”. Trump will successfully delay a supreme court decision until after the election – and when he loses, the cases are considered moot. The Democrats will have established the precedent that Trump’s abuse of power with regard to the Russia investigation did not even rise to the level of starting an impeachment investigation, let alone be considered a “high crime or misdemeanor”. And Trump’s strategy of obstruction of Congress will remain available to future presidents who don’t care about our Constitutional system of government.

5 Likes