I agree. It’s to the office’s great credit that they gave the clerks their proper due.
3 Likes
It’s the right time. We tend to think it moral terms and “should” and “must.” Politicians think in political terms and “when” and “whether.”
Pelosi and the Democrats kept the impeachment sword sheathed while keeping an eye on (1) Trump administration responses to requests for information and subpoenas; (2) the Democratic caucus’s stomach for impeachment; (3) public sentiment; (4) GOP obstruction in the House and Senate; and (5) the US Supreme Court.
But, having built a mountain of evidence on White House stonewalling, they’ve now flashed the impeachment sword at least twice in the last couple of weeks. The Roberts court could of course go full bore in support of theories of a unitary executive, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Pelosi & Co took the time to get their ducks in a row. Because they did, when the big issues reach the Supreme Court, they should prevail on the constitutional merits.
5 Likes
that isn’t stopping Trump’s lawyers (and the DoJ) from making that claim in the Mazar’s case/
actually, they are arguing that executive privilege will not apply to what they are requesting – stating the (somewhat dubious) proposition that by cooperating with Mueller, privilege was waived.
Cite, please? I am legitimately unfamiliar with that argument.
The first half of that is correct. The Committee is definitely arguing that executive privilege has been waived as to anything the White House previously allowed McGahn to testify about to the Special Counsel. But it is the exact opposite of “dubious” that waiving privilege means privilege has not been waived.
Example:
Me: I did not act with the requisite level of of intent for a criminal charge because my lawyer told me it would be totally legal to so act.
Opposing counsel: Tell me what your lawyer said about that.
My lawyer: Objection, calls for attorney-client communications.
Judge: Overruled.
Carter - “Banged my thumb with a hammer while building housing for asylum refugees.”
3 Likes
Here’s yesterday’s article on the DoJ filing
Its literally “argument 1” (caps are in the original, not shouting) starting on page 4
I. THE HOUSE MUST CLEARLY AUTHORIZE A SUBPOENA
DIRECTED AT THE PRESIDENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE INFORMATION IS SOUGHT
MUST BE SPECIFIED WITH SUFFICIENT PARTICULARITY … 4
And Trump/DoJ will argue that executive privilege has not been waived for use by Congress – rather, the waiver was specific to the special counsel’s operation. Further, they will argue that because the Mueller’s office was part of the executive branch, privilege still applies. I think that the first argument has considerable weight IF Trump can demonstrate that there was a prior understanding (preferably, in writing) regarding the specific waiver. And the second is an argument that AFAIK, has never been ajudicated.
Where Trump’s argument fails is
- any grand jury testimony provided by McGahn is no longer covered by exec privilege, because it goes outside the office of the special counsel to the Judicial Branch
- Trump publicly said that McGahn was a liar. He pretty much voided all claim to privilege with that kind of characterization.
(and don’t quote me on this, but i think I heard Rachel say tonight that McGahn’s lawyer released a statement saying that McGahn doesn’t have to testify because of atty - client privilege. Don’t think that is going to work at all, however)
ETA: McGahn’s lawyer did release a statement, saying that Trump was McGahn’s client…
In a statement ahead of the filing, McGahn’s lawyer William A. Burck said his client “does not believe he witnessed any violation of law” by the president, adding that McGahn “has an ethical obligation to protect client confidences.”
“[T]he president instructed Don to cooperate fully with the special counsel but directed him not to testify to Congress unless the White House and the committee reached an accommodation,” Burck said. “When faced with competing demands from co-equal branches of government, Don will follow his former client’s instruction, absent a contrary decision from the federal judiciary.”
1 Like
This assumes it will reach the court prior to election day.
Trump is betting it wont.
1 Like
I’d pay good money to see that.
3 Likes
Judiciary has specific investigatory powers and is using those to determine if articles of impeachment are necessary here. Before Judiciary starts impeachment inquiries (which I believe add additional force in the eyes of the court) they will determine if their ‘typical’ inquiries/investigations have been fruitful enough to draft articles of impeachment. Once an impeachment inquiry process has begun, resistance to co-operate by not responding to subpoenas or refusal to answer questions based upon 'executive privilege/immunity", most assuredly, would be viewed as obstruction. It seems a necessary, albeit snail-paced, mechanism to endure. If the Judiciary does this properly, we will reach the articles of impeachment stage.
1 Like
Viewed as obstruction … and then what?
I could be mistaken, but I don’t think the full House voted on the Oversight Committee subpoena. It would be awfully stupid of the DOJ to claim otherwise if, in fact, the full House did vote.
Also, the Special Counsel was part of the Department of Justice, not the Judicial Branch. Article II for the former, Article III for the latter. McGahn’s testimony to the SC was still a waiver of privilege, however, because his client was a separate entity, the Office of the White House.
1 Like
Yes. More of this, please.
Okay, how’s this?
To the extent that DOJ attempts to argue that the White House did not waive executive privilege because the DOJ is still part of the Executive Branch, any privilege was still waived when Bill Barr disclosed the Mueller report to the entire world. That disclosure was so broad that it also serves as a subject matter waiver, not just a waiver for the specific words on the page.
1 Like
Thank you.
1 Like
Seeing McGahn’s role in getting him on the bench, does anybody here believe that Kavanaughty will recuse himself when (not if) this goes to the supremes?
I fully expect him to attempt to Pardon Himself (there is no text in the pardon clause stating he can’t) after he is absolutely destroyed in the 2020 election. Expect him to do this sometime late in Dec. 2020 while Congress is retired and prior to the new Congress taking office (pardoning all his kids and their spouses is a forgone conclusion.)
Failing that, he will pardon EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE who kisses his ass sufficiently (along with half the Republicans in Congress) so that nobody can be pressured to testify against him once he is out of office.
This will spectacularly backfire on him however, as that will free up all those people to testify on their own accord, totally free of any consequences. The backstabbing bloodbath that will result from that will be a true sight to behold as the Republican Party descends into “Lord of the Flies” territory.
2 Likes
If he resigns, he will be indicted.
The only way that the so-called president can avoid impeachment, is to keep the facts hidden.
If all the facts come out, The Donald is a goner, and a goner is what he deserves to be.
Congress could hold someone in contempt of Congress and that person can be brought to the floor and be told to answer questions. Non-compliance can lead to imprisonment. It is uncommon. But so is this administration.
1 Like
No need. He pardons Pence, then resigns, and Pence pardons him. The double-reacharound pardon.
1 Like
He will NEVER RESIGN. His ego won’t let him put his fate in someone else’s hands like that.
Would YOU trust Mike Pence to pardon you after you already pardoned him? I sure wouldn’t.