The White House blocked two former staffers’ testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, but it’s allowing former 2016 Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to speak, according to the New York Times and the Associated Press.
"The plan is to make a determination on whether it will recommend the House take an impeachment vote by the end of the year.
This course of action sounds entirely too decisive for any group of Democrats to be considering.
“Or maybe just take a nap” was left out of the story.
Let’s see, Lewandowski will lie his ass off or just appear totally unhinged, Dearborn and Porter might be tempted to tell the truth.
So, yeah, Corey can talk.
Cause he’s in their pocket and they know he won’t talk?
Democrats need to play hardball. Use full subpoena power and use it quickly. If still no cooperation, then cut off their funding. House has power of the purse, use it to the max.
Nah, that would result in future invitations for tea & bisquits going unanswered.
Hey Dems! Enforce the subpoenas. Hold all of them in contempt, and then have them all, starting with Trump henchmen Barr, arrested, fined, and imprisoned. Stop stalling. Do your jobs.
So the WH is “letting” Lewandowski testify?
Isn’t it more the fact Lewandowski never worked in the WH the reason they can’t claim executive privilege, thus can’t cover Lewandowski’s ass for not showing up?
I’ve always been curious about Executive Privilege as far as how far and to whom does it extend? A President isn’t required by law to seek counsel solely from people in the employ of the Federal government. What if a President has a meeting with the Governor of a State? That Governor is on a State payroll, not the Federal payroll. Yet it would seem plausible to claim a President needs to be able to talk to the Governor of Texas about a proposed policy without the discussion any more subject to unreasonable scrutiny than a talk held with one of his/her Oval Office advisors.
Is the invocation of Executive Privilege statutorily limited to persons in the paid employ of the Executive Branch, or not?
Executive privilege is a legal assertion. It is not in any statute.
Most Transparent in History Indeed
Mike Pence is Big Lickspittle, Corey Lewandowski is Li’l Lickspittle.
The Trumpp administration ignores all “can’ts” and “shouldn’ts” that they don’t find useful. Those terms are reserved to attack Comey, McCabe, etc., where a minor deviation from a loosely defined/enforced policy suddenly becomes a case of treason.
I wonder what the WH has on Lewandowski. There’s no way he isn’t being blackmailed to control his testimony.
So, it is nowhere in the law? Are there statutes or laws dealing with its assertion? If not, we have a right that the Executive does not possess by virtue of any law? It’s a what? A custom? A quasi-legal practice? Something the President asserts the right to do, and if you don’t like it, suck on it, despite the fact it has not been bequeathed them by virtue of any statute? Can a President just arbitrarily create new rights not codified in the law, and thereafter he gets to do them, just because he presumes the right to do so? If it’s not dealt with in the law as to its limitations or boundaries why shouldn’t a President assert every single things he says and does, involving anyone anywhere, is covered by Executive Privilege, no one gets to see any of it? Since the right isn’t defined by any law it would seem it’s whatever a President wants to assert it is. No?
This presidency has shown that we have long depended on customs and norms to constrain a president from running amok and that perhaps it’s past time to codify some things into law.
The Judiciary Committee should vote to recommend impeachment for Trump on the basis of his blocking the testimony of witnesses. Simple.
This Judiciary Committee?
By whom? See the problem?