• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: 'Our subpoenas are not optional'

LOL! His lawyers punted it to the White House. They're trying to tell the congress that their beef is with the White House and not with them. But that's not going to help him. Eventually he will have to answer to the subpoena.

I don't think so. McGahan was White House counsel.
Executive privilege applies.
 
Disbarment can be one consequence. Fines which accrue with each day he continues to refuse to appear could be another.

Who would decide on his disbarment? What are the fines and who would enforce the collection of said fines?
 
Yet constitutionally all power for the entire executive flows through the President. The AG should never have a power the President does not as it is the legislature passing their oversight to the executive. Then telling the President he has no power over executive employees.

Congress should grow some stones and conduct their oversight more impartially and less politically and people might take it seriously again.

But you can already see the legal entanglements where McGahn would have to advise the President which would make it covered as prvilege.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

A Special Counsel is a different kettle of fish.... even though he reports to the AG, and the scope of his investigation is defined by the AG, the AG specifically has no control over his investigation. What's more, once a Grand Jury has been empanelled, the SC also has a foot within the Judicial branch, so there's that to be considered as well.

To put it succinctly - barring extraordinary circumstances - there's no legitimate reason for a President to take anything but a totally "hands-off" attitude toward a SC. As an individual, he can contest various procedural motions as anyone else can..... but as President, he cannot. As WH Counsel, McGahn's interactions with the President would have been with him as President, and not as an individual.
 
And he will, which is the point I was making in my original post when I said the House won't impeach Trump. The Republicans control the Senate, and they will not vote for the impeachment of Trump.

This seems very complicated for a few of you.

You're wrong again.
The House can still impeach.
 
You are clearly confused, but as least now you are admitting that the Senate does, in fact, vote on impeachment. Which is why I said the House will never impeach Trump. Because the Republicans control the Senate, and they won't vote to impeach Trump.

I'm glad you were able to get a lesson in civics today.

It's "rescind", not "resend", by the way. You kept saying the Senate doesn't vote on impeachment. My links were some easy to read examples for you that prove you wrong.

You're quite welcome.

No. The House votes on impeachment.
If they vote to impeach, the trial is held in the Senate.
What happens in the Senate is not called an impeachment.
However, regardless of how the Senate votes, The person had been impeached.
 
Yet constitutionally all power for the entire executive flows through the President. The AG should never have a power the President does not as it is the legislature passing their oversight to the executive. Then telling the President he has no power over executive employees.

Congress should grow some stones and conduct their oversight more impartially and less politically and people might take it seriously again.

But you can already see the legal entanglements where McGahn would have to advise the President which would make it covered as prvilege.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Cordelier is correct, Trump doesnt have the power to fire Mueller, its not some brand new ad hoc rule.
 
Yet a federal judge allowed Holder to skate.

I can already hear the howls if something similar happens.


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Let them howl.
No federal judge will impose fines on an AG who volunteered to appear in front of the senate and then watched the Dems stage a meltdown when he voluntarily refused to appear on another day.
Plus, there will be no judge who will prosecute an AG doing his job; redacting the Mueller report out of necessity for future judicial investigations.
 
McConnell can stop the impeachment before it goes to vote. He can refuse to hear the senate trial.

I don't think so. The clear implication is that when the House impeaches, the Senate hears the trial.
 
You are clearly confused, but as least now you are admitting that the Senate does, in fact, vote on impeachment. Which is why I said the House will never impeach Trump. Because the Republicans control the Senate, and they won't vote to impeach Trump.

I'm glad you were able to get a lesson in civics today.

It's "rescind", not "resend", by the way. You kept saying the Senate doesn't vote on impeachment. My links were some easy to read examples for you that prove you wrong.

You're quite welcome.

He is not confused at all.
You, OTOH, have it all wrong.
 
But you can already see the legal entanglements where McGahn would have to advise the President which would make it covered as prvilege.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

I don't deny there are potential legal entanglements... but would you agree with me that the potential for legal entanglements doesn't absolve McGahn from responding to the Congressional subpoena at all? Just because he may not be able to answer all of the questions doesn't mean he shouldn't make himself available to answer some of the questions, does it? If he felt the need to invoke executive privilege on a particular question, it would be entirely within his power to do so, would it not?
 
Then again, in the Constitution, the President is the Executive branch. Everyone in that branch is under the President. So, really, who's permission does he need to fire someone in the Executive branch?

Only the AG can fire Mueller. It was smart to pick someone Trump couldnt fire and Trump knew he couldnt fire Mueller which is why he sent McGahn to Rosenstein.
 
Not really.... Comey was an executive appointee, and so it's clearly with the President's Article II power to fire him.

Mueller, on the other hand, was a Justice Department appointee and outside of the scope of the President to fire directly.

Mueller worked in the Justice Department as well.
The claim is that Trump told somebody to fire Mueller. In The end, he wasnt fired.
 
Then again, in the Constitution, the President is the Executive branch. Everyone in that branch is under the President. So, really, who's permission does he need to fire someone in the Executive branch?

Once the SC empanells a Grand Jury, then it becomes a legal proceeding and the Judiciary has a vested interest in the investigation.
 
Mueller worked in the Justice Department as well.
The claim is that Trump told somebody to fire Mueller. In The end, he wasnt fired.

The claim is fully backed up in the Mueller report. Trump told McGahn to deliver the message that Trump wanted Mueller fired to Rosenstein. How many times do we have to educate twumpists?
 
Dean was indicted for several counts of obstruction of justice for his role in a specific CRIME that had been committed and for which there was no dispute that it was a crime. He was not subject to subpoena before Congress until he had been indicted and convicted and/or pled guilty. There was no doubt about it that people broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters located in the Watergate Hotel, and strong evidence that the Administration knew about it. John Dean III was identified by the FBI as the master mind behind the cover up and he was indicted--INDICTED--by the FBI on numerous counts of obstruction of justice mainly paying hush money to keep people quiet.

He plea bargained to turn state's evidence in return for him pleading guilty to one count of obstruction of justice and thereby was an important component to the indictment and imprisonment of others on the White House team. He was sentenced to four years in federal prison, but his cooperation with the prosecution was a factor in him serving only four months of that sentence. He was disbarred however and it ended his legal career.

Up to that point there was nothing to tie President Nixon to the Watergate scandal. Even "Deep Throat" couldn't do that. It was John Dean's testimony re the White House tapes and the fact that John Dean had ordered hush money and John Mitchell, Nixon's A.G., had illegally used campaign funds to pay operatives to spy on the Democratic Party which of course was also a crime. That gave the Supreme Court enough ammo to order the White House to release the tapes and the rest, as we say, is history.

Now compare that with the current situation. No crime has been identified by any legal authority related to President Trump or the Executive Branch. ALL indictments related to the Mueller investigation involving people who at one time were on on the President's campaign thus far have been for crimes totally unrelated to the President or the campaign. Or their indictment/guilty plea was due to having been caught making some kind of error or omission of fact and thereby falling into a perjury trap as a result of their testimony to Mueller and/or his team members. IMO and according to several legal minds, all that latter group would NEVER have been charged with anything if Mueller hadn't hoped to bully, threaten, frighten, extort them into divulging some dirt on the President. As it was their names and reputations were dragged through the mud, their friends and family were threatened, and most were bankrupted in the process. It was a nasty, dirty, indefensible, and unacceptable thing to do to any Americans.

And now the hate masters in Congress are hoping beyond hope to find a crime, ANY crime, to pin on the President in advance of the 2020 election and probably get rid of Barr and his special counsel before they expose any malfeasance and misconduct among their own in the FBI and Obama justice department, or Hillary, or possibly Obama himself. At the very least they intend to keep the negative press going and of course the MSM is cooperating with that as are those on social media, message boards and the such who dutifully parrot the assigned talking points.

So far no identifiable or prosecutable crime has presented itself and time is running out for them as the I.G. and the current Justice Dept. closes in on what could be some very damning news for the Democrats, their surrogate media, and their whole I-hate-Trump scene.

McGahn and nobody else on the White House staff, past or present, should be available to them for a fishing expedition in their attempt to complete a coup of a lawfully elected and inaugurated U.S. President they hate.
My raising the issue of John Dean was merely to undercut your claim that no presidential lawyer has ever testified before Congress.

Moreover, it is not factual that no crime has been identified. The Mueller report makes it very clear that Trump committed obstruction of justice. While Trump couldn't be prosecuted now, under Justice Dept rules, it could be prosecuted at a later time.

But all that you wrote is obfuscation. The documents that could definitively prove whether other crimes are evident are being stonewalled by Trump. Thus, a successful stonewall campaign would result in hiding actual crimes. That isn't the way our system of justice is supposed to work. A murderer can't claim innocence and at the same time prevent the police having access to the body. That's what we have here: Trump claiming vindication while not wanting the full Mueller report released and claiming innocents while hiding evidence that would prove otherwise.
 
The claim is fully backed up in the Mueller report. Trump told McGahn to deliver the message that Trump wanted Mueller fired to Rosenstein. How many times do we have to educate twumpists?

As is the presidents right.
 
My raising the issue of John Dean was merely to undercut your claim that no presidential lawyer has ever testified before Congress.

Moreover, it is not factual that no crime has been identified. The Mueller report makes it very clear that Trump committed obstruction of justice. While Trump couldn't be prosecuted now, under Justice Dept rules, it could be prosecuted at a later time.

But all that you wrote is obfuscation. The documents that could definitively prove whether other crimes are evident are being stonewalled by Trump. Thus, a successful stonewall campaign would result in hiding actual crimes. That isn't the way our system of justice is supposed to work. A murderer can't claim innocence and at the same time prevent the police having access to the body. That's what we have here: Trump claiming vindication while not wanting the full Mueller report released and claiming innocents while hiding evidence that would prove otherwise.

What's preventing the "full Mueller report" from being released are the laws that Congress devised regarding the release of grand jury documents.
Change the law.

As an aside, Mueller did not "clearly" state Trunp obstructed justice. He said he could not exonerate for such a claim. The ten areas though are hypothetical and extremely weak.
 
Only the AG can fire Mueller. It was smart to pick someone Trump couldnt fire and Trump knew he couldnt fire Mueller which is why he sent McGahn to Rosenstein.

And, where in the Constitution does it give the President's power to someone else? I know of nothing to back up what you said. Of course, that's up to you to do.
 
Mueller worked in the Justice Department as well.
The claim is that Trump told somebody to fire Mueller. In The end, he wasnt fired.

It depends on the context.... if Trump was just blowing off steam and expressing his opinion as individual, then he would have been perfectly within his rights to say he wanted the SC fired. However, if he was abusing his power as President to try and actively engineer Mueller's dismissal in an attempt to obstruct justice, well, that's potentially a crime or two.

I honestly don't understand what the White House's problem is with McGahn's testifying... it's on the record that he talked to Mueller, and Mueller obviously didn't find in his testimony compelling enough to seek an indictment against the President. So what's the problem? If the Mueller Report is really the "clean bill of health" that the White House claims it to be, then what do they have to fear?
 
I don't deny there are potential legal entanglements... but would you agree with me that the potential for legal entanglements doesn't absolve McGahn from responding to the Congressional subpoena at all? Just because he may not be able to answer all of the questions doesn't mean he shouldn't make himself available to answer some of the questions, does it? If he felt the need to invoke executive privilege on a particular question, it would be entirely within his power to do so, would it not?

No, but I guarantee you they are going to stray into deliberations and legal advice which they don't have an oversight duty to obtain.
 
Let the drama llamas fume over all those they seek to subpoena while they all end up to be no shows. This investigation is over.
 
Back
Top Bottom