Discussion: White House Rejects House Obstruction Probe In Letter Blasting The Investigation

This is beginning to sound like another ‘sport’ that Trump likes to participate in.

1 Like

Isn’t the legislative purpose clear enough? To examine Trump’s dubious behavior so that Congress can pass some tax laws and anti-corruprion laws.

5 Likes

And then Mulvaney shit his pants in defiance

1 Like

Years after the fact, we find out that the whole House Benghazi investigation was in fact illegal! Funny how it took until now for the GOP to figure that out.

5 Likes

Under their ridiculous reading of the Constitution, Congress also cannot EVER perform Impeachment as that would be “investigation” of the President, which they state Congress has no right to do (despite the clear text of Article 1 of the Constitution.)
This would also mean that Trump could ignore any election results, jail his political opponents, ignore any laws he chooses, and remain President for Life and nobody could do anything about it because, as President, he cannot be indicted nor investigated.
It is another version of Nixon’s: “If the President does it, it is not illegal.” statement.

Santayana: “Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

15 Likes

a third of the letter is pure BS – claims about how transparent the White House has been.

a third is a BS argument about a lack of “legislative purpose.” But the Mueller investigation was done under a new iteration of the Special Prosecutor law. Congress has an obligation to find out how that law operated, and what, if any, changes are needed. And it needs everything that Mueller saw to do that job fully.

the last third actually contains valid executive privilege arguments.
Overcoming those argument is simple though. Under US v Nixon, “executive privilege” must give way to the search for evidence of criminality if its part of a judicial proceeding. Impeachment, under the constitution, fits within the “part of a judicial proceeding” stuff. Ergo, start an official impeachment inquiry, and issue subpoenas by the tankerfull.

8 Likes

We had a constitutional crisis the day the Russian puppet orange demon became president elect.

4 Likes

“This month’s meeting of Obnoxious GOOPer Assholes is called to order…”

6 Likes

“Unfortunately, it appears that you have already decided to press ahead with a duplicative investigation, including by issuing subpoenas, to replow the same ground the Special Counsel has already covered. I ask that you reconsider that approach,” White House counsel Pat Cipollone wrote in a letter to Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY).

Dear Mr. Cipollone,

As you indicate your feeling that our fulfilling our constitutional duites is “a duplicative investigation” you can resolve this by immediately providing the complete, unredacted Special Counsel report along with unredacted supporting materials.

As you have consistently refused to do so, the only way for Congress to fulfill it’s obligations is to duplicate the work already done. Please be aware, that with no DOJ “restrictions” on our actions, the result may not be what YOU and the White House would prefer.

Sincerely

15 Likes

Bring these fuckers to heal, NOW!

2 Likes

Sorry bozos …

no way to stop this train ! ----

1 Like

These smug bastards are beyond belief. Whether the Orange Toad likes it or not there are other branches of government which that pesky Constitution the repubs claim to love says outright are co-equal branches. For some White House lackey to decide unilaterally that Congress just doesn’t need to be doing their job is truly mind-boggling.

5 Likes

I don’t think they are saying that.

If you read the letter itself, its framed as being in response to Nadler’s Mar 4 document request – that was the one where he sent requests to 81 different people/entities on the same day.

The request was made as part of Congress’ oversight function – and was not about impeachment. The argument that the White House is making concerns the abuse of oversight powers per se.

What is most remarkable about this whole thing is that the March 4 letter requested ONLY materials that had already been provided to other investigations. IMHO, the White House completely shot itself in the foot here, because this is a blanket refusal for a perfectly legitimate request, which can be used in court cases to argue that this is general defiance of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” framework – and that implicate the Courts as well.

The courts aren’t gonna like that…

4 Likes

I think the house has just been goaded.

3 Likes

unfortunately, goading Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership is like goading a vat full of Nickelodian slime. You can goad all you want – but within seconds the surface of the vat appears undisturbed, and the contents remain almost complelely unaffected.

(the slime that gets on the goading stick might result in a sternly worded letter, however)

“In the letter, Cipollone did not exert executive privilege over the materials requested by Nadler, but he argued that the White House would be within its right to do so. The White House counsel urged Nadler to narrow his request.”

Of course. They want two bites at the apple in order to cause more delay. If the court rules against this nonsense, they’ll then assert executive privilege in order to try to force it to have to go through the entire process all over again.

10 Likes

I hate to break it to you, but IMPEACHMENT is the ultimate “oversight”.

It is a purely POLITICAL FUNCTION and requires no proof of illegality or criminal behavior on the President’s part.

Thus, as a purely POLITICAL OVERSIGHT TOOL this reading of the Constitution (stupid as it is) says it can NEVER be employed as it has nothing to do with Specific Pending Legislation.

3 Likes

I am sure they have their reasons and fear but so do I. It is all a risk, it is a matter of which risk one is willing take. The WH has taken the defense so it leaves the offense to the house.

2 Likes

could someone explain to this person that “oversight” as it is used within the current context, is something that takes places pursuant to Congress’s Article 1 sect 1 “legislative” powers.

And that impeachment is completely different --its Article 1 sec 2 - and has nothing to do with legislating?