DOJ On McGahn: Courts Have No Role In Fights Between Congress, White House | Talking Points Memo

[evave2]

Well, poor Mr. Moopan. I wonder if he will be employable after this?

Remember the woman who went to court to argue that soap and toilet paper were not ‘necessities’ so that ICE did not have to give them to child detainees?

[jonney_5]

Isn’t resolving issues between the executive and legislative branches one of the main functions of the judicial branch?

Aren’rt they arguing this to the Judicial branch?

What if they rule that judges haven’t the authority to settle disputes between executive and legislative branches?

Does it even count? I mean isn’t that ruling settling a dispute?

[civarum]

The point isn’t necessarily to win the argument but to draw out the whole process for as long as possible. As long as Barr is attorney general there will be no danger of being jailed for defying a subpoena no matter how the courts rule

[AM_PM]

Judge Karen Henderson asked Mooppan at one point whether McGahn would assert attorney-client or executive privilege if made to testify.

“If Mr. McGahn were to have to testify,” Mooppan said, “he would not just have attorney-client, but a host of executive-privilege-based objections,” the DOJ attorney replied.

McGahn was/is not the personal attorney for Trump. How would the question of attorney-client privilege even apply here?

Mcgahn must testify to whether the President was acting within the bounds of the Article II (which as White House Council it’s McGahn’s responsibility to protect and defend) or in political self interest (which would be the job of Trump’s personal attorney.)

The judges are asking all the right questions and Trump’s attorneys–aka the DoJ–are pretending they have a valid argument. IANAL and even I can see that the argument is based on thin air.

[civarum]

Time wasting is the goal

[jonney_5]

Did they just, on the record and in open court, deny the role of the judiciary to resolve disputes between the other two branches of government?

…while trying to have this dispute resolved, yes.

[jonney_5]

even I can see that the argument is based on thin air.

Which is what resides in between the ears of most Republicans.

[jtx]

They came up with they cant indict a sitting President.

[katscherger]

As long as Barr is attorney general there will be no danger of being jailed for defying a subpoena no matter how the courts rule

That’s just for the chosen ones. Everyday people will have to obey them.

[musgrove]

Stall stall stall stall, then when/if the courts finally say they must, then they don’t and dare someone to do something about it.

[bkmn]

That’s an argument for a side with no valid argument.

[george_c]

I’ll give these a shot, moon:

2. Why DOJ involved? Because when DOJ wants to weigh in, a federal court is not likely to say no. DOJ’s arguments can be dismissed or ignored, but they get to participate if they want to.

3. “case after case.” This is a typical argument: if you allow this case, you’ll “open the floodgates” and be inundated with frivolous cases. The answer to the assertion is no – if the courts hold that they have power under Article 3 of the Constitution to step in when the Executive refuses to comply with Congress’ oversight function and order the Executive to comply on pain of contempt, there won’t be any more of this blatant obstruction.

Attorney-client? During the Whitewater investigation, Starr’s grand jury wanted to question Deputy White House counsel Bruce Lindsey regarding the advice he gave Clinton. The DC Circuit (the same court hearing the argument in this article) held that there is no attorney-client relationship. In any event, even if there were, there’s a crime exception – preventing invocation of the privilege to protect criminal activity – that could be applicable here, because McGahn would be called to testify about all of the crimes he had to talk Trump out of committing.

[rick]

I think you need to add something to convey just how quickly Sundance said that, like
“123go!”

[nycabj]

Totally consistent argument with their view that the executive can do anything it wants. To the Trumpists, the executive is supreme. The idea of three separate and equal branches of government is anathema to them.

[sickneffintired]

But now the DOJ is actually arguing that the courts have no authority in disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches ? That seems a unique interpretation of our system.

You’re confusing the DOJ with previous incarnations

Federal courts should not rule on separation-of-powers disputes between Congress and the White House, the Trump/Barr Justice for Trump Department argued Friday.

[paulw]

Can courts decide on their own to sanction lawyers who waste their time with crap like this?

Of course at this point there may be a majority for crap like this at the supremes, so who knows.

[meri]

If a Democrat said that they’d have bullseyes on their backs, with regards to the Third Branch, until the end of time.

[fiftygigs]

to enforce a subpoena

Do the courts know the subpoena is just a political tool?

[srfromgr]

So basically its three branches of government reduced to two, in which case only one side of Congress, the Senate, is empowered to make decisions so long as Republicans hold the majority. Or is it now three branches reduced to one? Yeah, that’s more like what I think they’re saying.

DoJ’s revisionism has really taken shape under AG Barr, hasn’t it? An AG that doesn’t want to follow the law can decide just about anything. Soon he’ll be rewriting the US Constitution and submitting it to tRump for his approval, which he alone will have the power to approve I suppose. I know that because it says so in the new US Constitution according to Barr under the former Article 2 which has now become Article 1.

[formerchild]

People still teach civics? Nah. Pull the other one.