President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, who features prominently in a lengthy whistleblower complaint on the administration’s response to COVID-19, declined an invitation to testify at a House hearing on the matter.
The White House declined the invitation to have Navarro testify “based on the longstanding precedent, followed by administrations of both political parties, rooted in clearly established constitutional doctrines, and supported by the Department of Justice, that senior advisors to the President generally do not testify before Congress,” spokesperson Judd Deere [told the Washington Post]
Yeah, yeah, yeah…We’re going to drive a Mack truck through that word “generally”.
“It’s unfortunate the administration is not willing to make witnesses available to the House,” she said.
“Well, it turns out I’m the most — and I think most of you would agree to this — I’m the most transparent President, probably in the history of this country.” - DJT, May 22, 2019
Discuss.
As they eliminate everyone in DC who has a functioning brain, will we recognize the point at which we are doomed? I am pretty sure we don’t have a functioning government anymore, and the states are going bankrupt. Next steps?
Have courts ever ruled on just how deep into the Executive Branch the alleged privilege extends granting a President a shield on advisors from giving testimony or being subject to oversight? Seems to me a President could assert he’s received advice and counsel, at some time or another, from every single person in the Executive.
“They all talk to me, I solicit opinions from all of them. I deliberate with all of them, collectively, before I make a decision.”
Here’s the truth: Navarro was on Dr. Bright’s side and THAT’S why he needs to be locked in the White Dungeon.
Can’t defend the indefensible, I guess…
It’s also starting to appear as if Trump has Polaroids in the Oval Office safe of Dr. Birx, doing something…something…
This is another indicator on the path someone should have taken at the Supreme Court yesterday. “We issue invitations for oversight. They decline. We issue subpoenas for oversight. They decline. They dare us to enforce them and we turn to you for a decision. If you decline then you have effectively dismantled the tripartite form of government the Constitution calls for.” (I’d go further and say they are destroying the Constitution they claim to worship but that only antagonizes the people I need on my side.) “If we have no recourse through the courts then we will have to resort to the law enforcement solution of sending the Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest these people so they can be questioned. For oversight.”
" Schumer goes off on Trump for muzzling the CDC: Anyone who says to drink bleach is not a ‘stable genius’"
Someone who knows her says she is unrecognizable, Trump might have offered her something, or it may be simply the fact that she is seeing her name on the headlines, and see it as the recognition that she yearned for, the thing is that she will do anything and say anything to continue to be in the spotlight and in Trump good graces.
The White House declined the invitation to have Navarro testify “based on the longstanding precedent, followed by administrations of both political parties, rooted in clearly established constitutional doctrines, and supported by the Department of Justice, that senior advisors to the President generally do not testify before Congress,”
Blatant, even.
ThE preSident haS thE artiCle 2. He CAn “you’re firEd” whoeVer he wants, partiClerly if they’re disloyAlly blowing whistles.
Well, his lies, claims to greatness and self-soothing aggrandisment are transparent.
The chief power of the House is the power of the purse. So whenever Democrats can get control of passing some legislation, some clear legislation has to be passed about “if you take money appropriated by the Congress then you have to respond to their sub poenas, and if you don’t you are barred from receiving or handling in any form any more federal money, even if the money has been previously appropriated/granted”. Clearly there has to be some nuance around that, and we can leave that to the Constitutional experts and lawyers. But something with that force is needed to keep the tri-partite government going.
The idea of sending the Sgt-in-arms to arrest people or for the Congress to have its own law enforcement division is, IMO, a generally bad idea. rather, Congress should exercise the power granted to it more deftly.
From an year ago:
The foundation of the doctrine of immunity is a statement by then-Assistant Attorney General William Rehnquist: “The President and his immediate advisers—that is, those who customarily meet with the President on a regular or frequent basis—should be deemed absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional committee. They not only may not be examined with respect to their official duties, but they may not even be compelled to appear before a congressional committee.” Initially, the doctrine was justified as a matter of comity. As Assistant Attorney General Theodore Olson explained in 1982, “The President is a separate branch of government. He may not compel congressmen to appear before him. As a matter of separation of powers, Congress may not compel him to appear before it. The President’s close advisors are an extension of the President.” The executive branch found support for that statement in the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the immunity provided to members of Congress by the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution also provides immunity to congressional aides because those aides are the “alter egos” of the members. Because Congress may not compel the president to provide testimony, in the executive branch’s view, the same analysis applies to compelled testimony of presidential advisers.
Over time, the executive branch has expanded that position and explained more fully the basis for its immunity position. The most extensive public explication of the doctrine is in the 2014 OLC opinion concluding that David Simas, a senior adviser to President Obama, was immune from compliance with the House oversight committee’s subpoena. Although some have questioned whether the Obama administration took this position, the OLC opinion and the letter from White House Counsel Neil Eggleston to the committee make it clear that the administration believed “Mr. Simas is immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his officials duties” and, accordingly, would not appear as the subpoena required.
The fact that this position has been asserted by administrations of both parties does not, of course, make it valid. Indeed, the only court to have addressed a claim of presidential adviser immunity has resoundingly rejected both the claimed absolute immunity and a qualified immunity. But the 2014 OLC opinion makes it clear the executive branch does not accept the analysis in that nonprecedential decision. Thus, the administration and McGahn may decide to claim immunity, particularly given the unlikelihood that the resulting court dispute, and its appeals, would be resolved quickly.
Book title available:
The Imperial Presidency and Its Fall
It’s even worse. Both Navarro & Bright were/are RIGHT.
They TRIED & Trump administration ignored them. They rip apart ANY February alibi from Trump.
OBama said 3 people are responsible for this disaster. Azar, Hahn & Redfield.
This shows how AzAr ignored Navarro & Bright.
So, yes Navarro gets to go to dungeon for being right. Just like the IG Grimm was fired by a liar for telling the truth.
The rumor was dt was going to give her HHS when he fired Azar. Her latest arguing that the CDC numbers are too high, never mind her previous statement on how well dt absorbs the scientific knowledge would seem to support this is what she wants.
