Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This just out. Looks like trump's in-house lawyer is happy to spill the beans on his boss, who he has called King Kong because of trump's temper tantrums.
Yes, McGahn cooperated extensively and told Mueller what he already knew...Hillary paid our foriegn adversaries to make up fiction on Trump in order to spy on his campaign and when that didn't work, try to depose the President with the Fake Mueller investigation.
My question is what recourse does the House have if subpoenas are ignored
I know they can go to court to get them enforced but what is the legal remedy?
Fine—jail until the person responds???
Google is my friend—should have looked first https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...o-testify.html
The only problem is that it goes to the AG’s office to enforce and take to a court to get the penalty...
That might be thorny...
This piece might shed light on some of your questions:
Will the White House or Trump’s lawyers block Don McGahn from testifying?
President’s team is examining case law for possible claim of executive privilege or immunity
Quote:
Should the Trump team or the McGahn camp attempt to claim immunity, the House Judiciary Democrats would be able to sue, sending the matter to the courts.
Case law in which POTUS made analogous claim:
Quote:
Notably, a GOP White House and a Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee have been here before: More than a decade ago, President George W. Bush’s former top counsel, Harriet Miers, and former chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, refused to comply with subpoenas issued by the committee.
Bush “asserted executive privilege in each case, asserting that the subpoenaed testimony and documents involved protected White House communications. Both Miers and Bolten relied on the President’s determination as justification for non-compliance with the committee subpoenas,” according to a Congressional Research Service report from last month.
The Court's ruling; legal remedy is underlined:
Quote:
The D.C. district court judge who heard the case, John D. Bates, ruled for the Judiciary Committee. He wrote in his opinion that he “reject[ed] the Executive’s claim of absolute immunity for senior presidential aides,” directing Miers and Bolten to comply with the subpoenas.
The Court's reasoning:
Quote:
“Congress’s power of inquiry is as broad as its power to legislate and lies at the very heart of Congress’s constitutional role,” wrote Bates, a Bush appointee. “Presidential autonomy, such as it is, cannot mean that the Executive’s actions are totally insulated from scrutiny by Congress. That would eviscerate the Congress’s oversight functions.”
This is an example of our Constitutional system of checks & balances at work, imho.
I remember that vaguely
Thanks for a better example than the Slate article
Of course the Supreme Court has been weaponized with its last two appointments and I don’t think John Roberts has the stones to set himself against Trump
The Bush case didn’t go to the Supreme Court—
Trump would push it there and not give up at a lower level...
I remember that vaguely
Thanks for a better example than the Slate article
Of course the Supreme Court has been weaponized with its last two appointments and I don’t think John Roberts has the stones to set himself against Trump
The Bush case didn’t go to the Supreme Court—
Trump would push it there and not give up at a lower level...
You're welcome.
"Weaponizing" the SCOTUS is an abuse of power of the office:
Quote:
The duty of a President to ``preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution'' to the best of his ability includes the duty not to
abuse his powers or transgress their limits--not to violate the rights
of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to
act in derogration of powers vested elsewhere by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has already confirmed the fundamental role of the federal courts is to resolve separation of powers issues:
From the Text of Committee on the Judiciary v. Meiers from US Courts website:
On the merits, the Executive argues that sound principles of separation of powers and presidential autonomy dictate that the President’s closest advisors must be absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress, and that the Committee has no authority to demand a privilege log from the White House.
Notwithstanding that the opposing litigants in this case are co-equal branches of the federal government, at bottom this lawsuit involves a basic judicial task -- subpoena enforcement -- with which federal courts are very familiar. The executive privilege claims that form the foundation of the Executive’s resistance to the Committee’s subpoenas are not foreign to federal courts either. After all, from Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803) (“[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”), through United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705 (1974) (the judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of claims of executive privilege), to Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ---, 128 S. Ct. 2229, 2259 (2008) (rejecting regime in which the political branches may “switch the Constitution on or off at will” and, rather than the judiciary, “say ‘what the law is’”), the Supreme Court has confirmed the fundamental role of the federal courts to resolve the most sensitive issues of separation of powers. In the thirty-four years since United States v. Nixon was decided, the courts have routinely considered questions of executive privilege or immunity, and those issues are now “of a type that are traditionally justiciable” in federal courts, United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 697 (citation omitted), and certainly not unprecedented, as the Executive contends.
Indeed, the aspect of this lawsuit that is unprecedented is the notion that Ms. Miers is absolutely immune from compelled congressional process. The Supreme Court has reserved absolute immunity for very narrow circumstances, involving the President’s personal exposure to suits for money damages based on his official conduct or concerning matters of national security or foreign affairs. The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law. The fallacy of that claim was presaged in United States v. Nixon itself (id. at 706):
neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high- level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial [or congressional] process under all circumstances.
My feeling is that Chief Justice Roberts will not allow the reputation of the SCOTUS to be sullied by such a one as Mr. Trump.
Roberts is going to allow the census question that Ross conspired with Bannon and others to add—that will unduly effect states like CA with democratic voting patterns and strong numbers of immigrants
So I don’t think Roberts really has the strength to keep the Court on an unbiased footing
Likely going to be more gerrymandering by GOP cases coming up
Wisconsin just lost on the Federal level—that will be appealed
If the Supremes agree to hear it then it is because the political knives are out
PS==I totally agree that Trump is out over his skis but he anticipates the system is rigged in his favor (which he thinks will happen at the Supreme Court now)
And he has plenty of people in the WH and other places willing to tell him that all day and night long...that he can do no wrong
Why do you think he gets so upset when his desires ARE thwarted??
Like the drilling on Federal lands decision...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
