Time for another sternly written letter!
Uppity prick is going to find his balls in a vise
That was the intention. Mano a Mano.
Well then, bring him backā¦
Send the Sargent at Arms out with a subpoena, arrest him if necessary. Congress has not had to do this since 1935, but with Trumpās bunch of crooks and grifters, it is good to be prepared. Then ask the same questions under compulsion. If he refuses to answer, then hold him in contempt and let him litigate his refusal to not answerā¦
p.s. he is really out there, refusing to answer direct questions (currently from Demings) on what he discussed with Trump about the investigation. This is directly relevant and an appropriate subject of oversight. Nadler really needs to push this issue via a subpoena and then make Whitaker go to court to argue that he does not have to answer as the acting AG on whether he discussed an ongoing investigation with the subject of that investigation.
Days like today, Iām sure Whitaker misses his days on the set of āThe Shieldā
Nadler backing down at the first peep of resistance from Whitaker is not a good sign. He should have issued the subpoenas then and there.
I am so tired of Democrats trying to be accommodating.
All this ādramaāā¦Procedural maneuvering turned into handwringing exercises. We know who is trying to uphold the Rule of Law. We know who is trying to evade it.
Whitaker canāt get out of this.
And how, pray tell, does he enforce them? Have the Capitol cops arrest the nominal head of the DOJ? Take him to court and get a civil (not criminal) judgment? What have I missed here among the options?
Yes, have him arrested for criminal contempt of Congress. Because if he willfully ignores a subpoena, then that is what it is.
Thereās also the goal of bringing him in to answer questions in the first place. If you insist on subpoenas and he gets back on his bicycle, you lose another couple of weeks. I think the publicās been wanting to see these people facing questions. If theyāre evasive, then you can see what the available remedies are for that. But getting their asses in that chair is a good first step.
Why canāt we just wait until Barr is sworn in and subpoena Whitaker then?
This is much better. The republicans bayed ābut, but, but he has not done anything wrong, we canāt assume he wouldā well now they have proof of his dishonesty, and Nadler is in a much stronger position.
And @schmed Yes, if Whitaker does not appear per the subpeona (or contest it in court) then you hold him in contempt, and yes, they can arrest (and actually hold him in custody)
Last time this happened was in 1934, and the Senate (note each house can do this themselves, they donāt need the participation of the other house of congress) actually sentenced someone to 10 days in jail. The Supreme Court (Brandeis, J writing) upheld the 10 days in jail stating that:
āFirst. The main contention of MacCracken is that the so-called power to punish for contempt may never be exerted, in the case of a private citizen, solely qua punishment. The argument is that the power may be used by the legislative body merely as a means of removing an existing obstruction to the performance of its duties; that the power to punish ceases as soon as the obstruction has been removed or its removal has become impossible, and hence that there is no power to punish a witness who, having been requested to produce papers, destroys them after service of the subpoena. The contention rests upon a misconception of the limitations upon the power of the Houses of Congress to punish for contempt. It is true that the scope of the power is narrow. No act is so punishable unless it is of a nature to obstruct the performance of the duties of the Legislature. There may be lack of power because, as in Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 168, there was no legislative duty to be performed, or because, as in Marshall v. Gordon, 243 U. S. 521, the act complained of is deemed not to be of a character to obstruct the legislative process. But, where the offending act was of a nature to obstruct the legislative process, the fact that the obstruction has since been removed, or that its removal has become impossible, is without legal significance.ā
Jurney v. MacCracken, 294 U.S. 125 (1935).
So if Trumpās fat grifter does not want to appear, stick some leg irons on him and frog march him in.
The question becomes; āHow did Nadler allow himself to be played?ā Or, is this an example of things to come; too timid and being to fearful of confrontations?
If he wants all niceties go sit on a park bench and chat with fellow bench-sitters.
Moreover, the nation can see the evasiveness, the arrogance, the churlishness and the stoopid.
Think Ehrlichman, Watergateā¦
ā¦and then Republicans gloat about Nadler āCavingā.
Republicans. What a bunch of slime balls. This guy needs to go back to selling hot combs or whatever he was doing.
A disappointing morning. Whitaker won, hands down. Dems who have been looking forward to a moment of accountability, at long last, will be frustrated. GOP hacks who were fearing their own future questioning will be reassured. But some context is required.
First, itās very difficult to break a case open with pure cross-examination. Cross-examination only really has that effect if you have documents to hand, and the witness contradicts the documentary evidence. Second, the House examiners are bound by five-minute time limits. That works if you have a co-operative good faith witness, but is crippling if you have a time-wasting dodger, even one as stupid as Whitaker evidently is. Third, the televised politics of the process is distracting from the fact-finding mission. The Committee members waste a lot of time trying to raise their personal profile.
All that said, there is reason to ask more from our House Dems. More coordination (much more); more adaptability; more preparation and plan Bs, plan Cs, plan Ds. For example: when Whitaker says he wonāt discuss āprivate conversationsā with the president, the obvious response is to note his assertion that he has had āprivate conversationsā and then to ask him to define what he means by āprivateā. Then press him on whatever answer he gives. Take him out of his comfort zone, out of the boilerplate Q & A realm. Do that early. Get your best x-examiner to press him on this stuff right away.
Itās not just a matter of questioning tactics: itās a question of deciding what the objectives are. A dramatic āconfrontationā hardly moves the needle. What would be much more useful (as Frankenās questioning used to reveal) was to ask very specific questions and get Whitaker on the record. Then subpoena the relevant documents and cross-check. Even better would be to subpoena the documents before the hearing, but I have to assume that this wasnāt feasible, because itās a no-brainer.
So itās a tough job the Dems have got, but they could do it a lot better.
I agree. The caveat, of course, is that Whitaker is on the Thug Team and his success is the kind a master criminal would brag about when confronting the authoritiesā¦and those rooting for Whitaker would be rooting for gangsters in another setting.
Democrats have always been on the defensive with GOP thugs for decades because of different permutations of this basic dynamic.
Your point about preparation points to one of the ways in which GOP methods and strategies can be neutralizedā¦Which reminds me of Mueller.