White House moves to block official from congressional testimony despite subpoena

MTAtech said:

Executive Privilege isn't absolute either. From Cornell Law School:


President Trump threatened to broadly assert executive privilege to block a number of current and former aides from testifying, including some who have cooperated with special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. That's a mischievous and illegal use of executive privilege. He's using executive privilege as means to a cover up.

Click to expand...

You just do not get it do you? Ofcourse executive privilege is not absolute. However Trump cooperated with the Mueller investigation at unprecedented levels. McGann for instance testified for over 30 hours. And everyone else was made available. Over a million documents were turned over. Now the democrats who are still butthurt over the results of the 2016 election want to repeat the Mueller investigation and more. And they intend to do it indefinitely. They will never be satisfied. And yet again, you do lack even a 3rd grade level of understanding regarding executive privilege.

Dittohead not! said:

No, I'm actually talking about this parallel universe, not one in which the Russians helped Bernie.

Click to expand...

You don't want to talk about Sanders took illegal campaign contrabutions, either. Why not?

ObamacareFail said:

The poor lad evidently thinks Trump should be blamed for Russian attempts at interference that Obama was well aware of long before Trump ever ran for president and did nothing about.

Click to expand...

Yes, that cant be repeated often enough either--that all of this Russian skullduggery took place right under Obamas incompetent nose.

Dittohead not! said:

No, I'm actually talking about this parallel universe, not one in which the Russians helped Bernie.

Click to expand...

They did help Bernie. Its in the report.

Fletch said:

They did help Bernie. Its in the report.

Click to expand...

So, somewhere buried in that 400 page report is something about the Russians helping Bernie Sanders? Really? Well, please do quote it then.

Dittohead not! said:

It's never been about favoring a particular candidate until now. It's no secret that Putin didn't like Clinton, and thought he'd have a better chance of getting sanctions lifted if Trump won.

Click to expand...

Nobody really likes Hillary. She has never been anything but goal oriented and simply does not connect with people, however as Mueller pointed out, Russia attempted to assist crazy Bernie. After all, Bernie is the closest thing to a communist in present US politics.

But, you're right: The main goal of Russia is to undermine democracy. That imperative supersedes getting a particular American candidate elected over another.

Click to expand...

Then why the selective outrage against Trump when Russia has been doing that for over 100 years?

Update:

White House approves official’s testimony after contempt threat

4/27/19
The Trump administration has agreed to allow a former White House personnel security director, who House Democrats threatened with contempt, to testify on May 1 — a de-escalation move after President Trump said he would ignore “all the subpoenas.” The White House had blocked Kline from showing up for a subpoenaed deposition earlier this week, leading Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) to announce that he’d hold Kline in contempt for ignoring a compulsory Hill summons.

Click to expand...

It seems GOP Rep. Jim Jordan appealed to Trump directly with a personal letter in order to avoid a Constitutional crisis.

apdst said:

Congress needs a legitimate legislative purpose before requesting the tax returns.

Passing legislation that would curtail a president's diplomatic authority wouldn't be legitimate.

Click to expand...

I never said anything about curtailing a presidents diplomatic authority. Take that straw man back into the barn. They can hold the hearing using their powers of oversight apart from legislation.

Do you not accept that?

Fletch said:

How many times does it have to be explained to you that Mueller found no evidence of coordination or conspiracy between any American and Russia. In other news haymarket, the Earth is round

Click to expand...

The Mueller Report - IF YOU BOTHER TO READ IT - is filled with contacts between Trump campaign and Russia. Mueller could not file charges for conspiracy but that does NOT mean there is not plenty of cooperation between the Russians the the Trump campaign because the Report is filled with it.

And that becomes a question of political ethics and political morality.

chuckiechan said:

Actually the DoJ initiates the investigation through the FBI, who then provides their report to DoJ who passes it along to the House.

The Obama Administration didn't even share their suspicions with the incoming new administration.

Click to expand...

Unless the House decides to do their own investigation using their own powers of oversight. That is the other alternative open to them.

Rogue Valley said:

Update:

White House approves official’s testimony after contempt threat



It seems GOP Rep. Jim Jordan appealed to Trump directly with a personal letter in order to avoid a Constitutional crisis.

Click to expand...

From your link:

"Cipollone’s offer is unlikely to mollify panel Democrats: He said the scope of the interview would be limited to “policy and practices” of the security clearance office."

The granting of security clearances does at some level fall under congressional oversight. That's why the testimony will be limited to "policy and practices", none of which has anything to do with the Mueller investigation. Personally, I think it's all hogwash. If we applied the same rules on security clearances that the democrats now want to claim on presidential candidates, Bill, Hillary, and Obama never would have been granted security clearances.

haymarket said:

I never said anything about curtailing a presidents diplomatic authority. Take that straw man back into the barn. They can hold the hearing using their powers of oversight apart from legislation.

Do you not accept that?

Click to expand...

No, I don't accept that, because they can't do it without a legitimate legislative reason.

Fletch said:

Mueller didnt charge anyone. How come?

Click to expand...

Justice department policy and to my surprise, ignorance of election law IS an excuse.

The legalese in the actual part that addresses this is as close as I can quote, they didn't think they could "convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that they had a general knowledge that what they were doing was agqinst tthe law". That may jot he word for word but it is clear that's what it says.

Didn't manafort leave that meeting right at the beginning? Interesting on the light of the above. Because Manafort likely did know.

haymarket said:

There is lots of evidence - in fact, entire books worth.

RUSSIAN ROULETTE by Isikoff & Corn
HOUSE OF TRUMP HOUSE OF PUTIN by Craig Unger
THE APPRENTICE by Greg Miller I have read all three and they contain tons of evidence.

In addition, I understand that Malcolm Nance has also wrote extensively about the Trump and Russia ties in three different books all published over the last two years.

Click to expand...

i didnt see any of this evidence used or referenced in the Mueller papers...why not? is it because it cant be used? or are you calling Mueller an idiot for bypassing all this so called evidence that you say is out there....

Dittohead not! said:

Russian interference in an American election to favor a particular candidate isn't probable cause enough to start an investigation? Really?

Click to expand...

show where that candidate had anything to do with that involvement, and i am with you

Mueller just spent two years trying to prove such a connection, and was unable to under our standards of law

ObamacareFail said:

You just do not get it do you? Ofcourse executive privilege is not absolute. However Trump cooperated with the Mueller investigation at unprecedented levels. McGann for instance testified for over 30 hours. And everyone else was made available. Over a million documents were turned over. Now the democrats who are still butthurt over the results of the 2016 election want to repeat the Mueller investigation and more. And they intend to do it indefinitely. They will never be satisfied. And yet again, you do lack even a 3rd grade level of understanding regarding executive privilege.

Click to expand...

Did Donald Trump ‘fully’ cooperate with Mueller investigation? No

MTAtech said:

Did Donald Trump ‘fully’ cooperate with Mueller investigation? No

Click to expand...

Weak rationales.

1. There remained no reason to interview Trump. As the report concluded, there was no conspiracy. Nothing to interview Trump about. Nothing would not have been discovered had they interviewed the president.

2. There was no obstruction. The article points out that Trunp's hysteria resulted in no prevention of interviews or documents being released. In other words, the president wss cooperative.

Athanasius68 said:

Weak rationales.

1. There remained no reason to interview Trump. As the report concluded, there was no conspiracy. Nothing to interview Trump about. Nothing would not have been discovered had they interviewed the president.

2. There was no obstruction. The article points out that Trunp's hysteria resulted in no prevention of interviews or documents being released. In other words, the president wss cooperative.

Click to expand...

For the millionth time, the Mueller report DID NOT conclude that there was no obstruction of justice.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Fletch said:

What 'wrongdoing' is being alleged? From what charge does he need to 'exonerate' himself?

Click to expand...

Why is he obstructing if there's nothing there?

apdst said:

By that logic, let's just repeal the 4th Amendment. Right?

If you haven't done anything wrong, there's no need to worry about warrantless searches.

Click to expand...

You're deflecting from the topic and trying to make this about the 4th Amendment. That's totally illogical.

HumblePi said:

You're deflecting from the topic and trying to make this about the 4th Amendment. That's totally illogical.

Click to expand...

That sound you heard was the point going over your head. :lamo

MTAtech said:

For the millionth time, the Mueller report DID NOT conclude that there was no obstruction of justice.

“Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”

Click to expand...

The article disputed the assertion that Trump was cooperative. That snippet put up doesn't support a claim that he was not cooperative. Nowhere does it say information was denied.

Read that snippet: it's all theoretical about obstruction- it speaks of attempts to stop something or potential to interfere. So what?

Athanasius68 said:

The article disputed the assertion that Trump was cooperative. That snippet put up doesn't support a claim that he was not cooperative. Nowhere does it say information was denied.

Read that snippet: it's all theoretical about obstruction- it speaks of attempts to stop something or potential to interfere. So what?

Click to expand...

I was disputing your assertion that "there was no obstruction." Here is another:

5 persistent myths about the Mueller report

Athanasius68 said:

Weak rationales.

1. There remained no reason to interview Trump. As the report concluded, there was no conspiracy. Nothing to interview Trump about. Nothing would not have been discovered had they interviewed the president.

2. There was no obstruction. The article points out that Trunp's hysteria resulted in no prevention of interviews or documents being released. In other words, the president wss cooperative.

Click to expand...

Mueller's lawyers attempted to interview Trump in person for one full year. Then after they agreed that written responses to questions would suffice, Trump's lawyers narrowed down the scope of the questions. Negotiations for Trump's testimony lasted for the better part of a year. The two sides nearly reached a deal in January for Trump to be questioned at the presidential retreat in rural Maryland, Camp David, only for talks to break down at the last minute. What followed was a series of letters and meetings -- some hostile -- in which Trump's lawyers raised objections and sought to limit any potential testimony.

Trump's lawyer John Dowd quit because he believed Trump would never heed his advice to avoid an interview at all costs. Trump once publicly said he was "100%" willing to go under oath to answer questions about his decision to fire Comey. That was a lie. Trump's other lawyers, Jane and Marty Raskin, carefully worked behind the scenes with Mueller's team to narrow the topics that Trump could be asked about. Every time Mueller's team came up with an offer, Trump's lawyers countered it, delaying it as much as possible.

After many months, the two sides finally came up with questions for Trump to answer at his convenience and WITH his attorneys. Finally, after nearly one full year of stalling and finally agreeing to answer a narrow set of questions, Trump, in his written answers to special counsel Robert Mueller, said more than 30 times that he did not "recall" or "remember" or have an "independent recollection" of events related to key questions surrounding Russian investigation. Very convenient for a man who boasted that he has "one of the best memories of all time". Suddenly the best memory of all time became a convenient case of amnesia.

Transparent? Forthcoming? Cooperative? Open? Honest? -- no - no - no - no and no.

apdst said:

No, I don't accept that, because they can't do it without a legitimate legislative reason.

Click to expand...

An equal branch of government cannot investigate if another branch has been co-opted by our main foreign adversary!!!!!!!

That is complete insane and irrational and does not deserve any reply beyond utter scorn and contempt for its complete partisan slant.

Shame on you.