• 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'

j-mac said:
Wouldn't his testimony be covered by executive privilege?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Portions would likely be covered, however, he must appear and assert that during testimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Atomic Kid said:
Very much of what Congress wants to ask Mr McGahn about, such as his testimony to the Mueller, is now a matter of public record now that Mueller’s ‘redacted’ report has been released. And any assertions of executive privilege does not shield him from complying with the subpoena. He still will be required to honor the subpoena and testify before Congress and publicly assert executive privilege on a question by question basis so as to allow the American people the opportunity to judge the merit of his candor and the content of his character. Unless of course he wants to claim his 5th Amendment privilege. Which would be very interesting.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Apparently, the claim is one of immunity.
 
Casper said:
One of the things I find interesting is that Republicans don't seem to grasp the fact that they and Trump are setting a precident for future Presidents to defy Congress and rule of law and the next time it may be a Dem you want investigated and guess what happens then. Me thinks that they will sing a different tune.
As for all the stonewalling, it will be dealt with in the Courts, FYI contempt of court is a Crime, which one can be held liable for to include jail time at the judges discretion.
Click to expand...

It won’t just be the Republicans who flip on the issue, Democrats will be cheering on the White House to continue its attempts to thwart a congressional investigation in your scenario.
 
trixare4kids said:
He is not confused at all.
You, OTOH, have it all wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have it all wrong, do I? Well, isn't that funny. And earlier in this thread you agreed with another poster who said Pelosi won't impeach.

trixare4kids said:
Thanks for your opinion.
I'll concede. You probably are correct.
She knows it will be a losing proposition for the good of the country.

Imagine that... a Democrat who hasn't lost their mind to Trump DS. ;)
Click to expand...

So were you lying when you said the same thing I did, which is that it's a losing proposition for Pelosi to impeach Trump, although my reason, which was crystal clear to those who don't go off on tangents, was that the Republicans control the Senate and will never, ever vote to remove Trump from office?

Are you just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and not even remembering your own posts?

No, I'm not wrong. I'm giving my opinion. The House will not impeach Trump because it will go nowhere. That's my opinion. Opinions about what may or may not happen are not "all wrong".
 
Athanasius68 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another clueless post.

The Senate will never, ever vote to remove Trump from office. That is an opinion most smart people have. Therefore, there is no reason for the House to impeach him. It's nothing but a symbolic waste of time, just like when the Republicans constantly voted to the repeal the ACA knowing that it would never happen.

Pay attention to my posts.
 
trixare4kids said:
It was not ordered by Trump. Reread the O/P and the embedded link.
Trump cannot stop a man from testifying. If he could, McGahn's attorney would have said Trump mandated McGahn NOT appear.
I guess you delude yourself into believing everyone was born yesterday.

No, and you don't always say when you are wrong... RTT. :lol:
Click to expand...

Ah, still pretending you didn't see what was in your own link. Got it.

You lack the honesty gene. Not surprising.
 
hanger4 said:
You didn't say the House would never impeach Trump, you said;



Only the House can impeach, besides the House majority won't impeach because they have no case.
Click to expand...

I can see you still don't get it. I said the House will never impeach him because the Republicans control the Senate and it won't go anywhere.

It's amazing how many ignorant posts about politics the citizens of Trump Fan Nation can actually make on a board about politics.
 
Mueller doesn't want to participate in the legislative circus either:
Special counsel Robert Mueller's team has expressed reluctance to him testifying publicly in front of the House Judiciary Committee, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The special counsel's team has conveyed the notion that Mueller does not want to appear political after staying behind the scenes for two years and not speaking as he conducted his investigation into President Donald Trump. One option is to have him testify behind closed doors. But the notion that Mueller would only answer questions in private has become a sticking point, according to a source, as Democrats believe the public needs to hear directly from the special counsel.

Rank-and-file Democrats made clear Tuesday they believe Mueller must testify publicly given the gravity of the investigation. Special counsel's team hesitant about Mueller testifying publicly, part of hold up securing testimony - CNNPolitics
Click to expand...
It appears clear the Congressional Judiciary Committee is sending out subpoenas not to enquire into matters of their concern, but to put on a show.
 
Last edited:
jimbo said:
In the case of Clinton, the Senate voted on two charges. One was obstruction. I don't remember the other one. Probably perjury. They found not guilty on both. They did not vote on impeachment.

The other two? Same thing. They were both impeached. They were not removed from office.
Click to expand...

And your post is relevant because I or someone else said that Clinton and Johnson were removed from office? Or you just post off topic stupid things because you like to see your name in lights?

The Senate in both of those examples was both the judge and the jury on the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson. Clearly you did not know that.

Please nip at someone else's heels. I have no time or interest to continue educating you on politics.
 
j brown's body said:
Its bad for his law firm's business. The House must feel like a lonely outpost of freedom and democracy at this point.

Care to speculate on why Trump wants to muzzle him - not that he can keep him from appearing.
Click to expand...
I might answer this after you first explain why it was okay for every previous president to claim executive privilege.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
 
tres borrachos said:
I can see you still don't get it. I said the House will never impeach him because the Republicans control the Senate and it won't go anywhere.

It's amazing how many ignorant posts about politics the citizens of Trump Fan Nation can actually make on a board about politics.
Click to expand...

1) Again, no, that's not what you said. Here's the entire quote I reaponded to;

tres borrachos said:
There will be no impeachment because the Republicans control the Senate.

There will, however, be investigations. The Democrats control the House, and it's their right.
Click to expand...

1) No tres, that's not what you said;

tres borrachos said:
There will be no impeachment because the Republicans control the Senate.
Click to expand...

You didn't say the House will never impeach. You've added "House" to CYA.

2) Considering Repubs controlling the Senate has nothing to do with the the House impeachment proceedings, I suggest you look in the mirror before you call others ignorant.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Sure there is. The largest issue they wish to address is communications between McGahn and Trump about firing Mueller. They don't have a right to it. The legalities of such a move are at the essence of executive privilege because they are communications between the Executive branch regarding the legality of a move and not the actual action. Congress wants to know what the President is thinking when he didn't take action.
Click to expand...

Assuming such discussions did occur, I have a hard time accepting that they would be covered by executive privilege - barring some extraordinary circumstance. Nixon tried to get the CIA to stop the FBI investigating Watergate for reasons of national security. Nobody doubts that national security is squarely within the powers of the President - but if the President is abusing his power to obstruct justice by invoking national security ("It's not illegal if the President does it"), then that obviously is beyond the scope of executive privilege.

Try as I might, I can't come up with a legitimate reason for the President to seek to fire the Special Prosecutor or to otherwise interfere with his investigation. I'm not saying a legitimate reason doesn't exist - but if one does exist, then the burden of proof is on McGahn to make the case for executive privilege. As Bluetex says, he can't dial it in... he has to show up and support his assertion of the privilege.
 
I don't think McGahn's testimony is a good idea, am concerned over the attorney-client confidentiality, differentiating between an attorney's responsibility to a corporate client and its CEO, and the general erosion of this notion what was discussed with one's lawyer can be made public. People are likely then not to tell their lawyer things they worry he could be forced to disclose, then the lawyer won't be able to do as good a job.
 
hanger4 said:
1) Again, no, that's not what you said. Here's the entire quote I reaponded to;



1) No tres, that's not what you said;



You didn't say the House will never impeach. You've added "House" to CYA.

2) Considering Repubs controlling the Senate has nothing to do with the the House impeachment proceedings, I suggest you look in the mirror before you call others ignorant.
Click to expand...

For the last time, I will explain it to you. If you fail to understand, that's your problem.

There will be no impeachment because the Republicans control the Senate.

There will, however, be investigations. The Democrats control the House, and it's their right.

The Democrats, in my opinion, will not impeach Trump in the House because the Republicans control the Senate and it will go nowhere with them..

The fact that you do not understand how politics works isn't my problem.

And I did say the House will not impeach. My post is right there and you even quoted it.

Now go annoy someone else because i have no time to waste on someone who has no idea how politics works in 2019.
 
j-mac said:
Wouldn't his testimony be covered by executive privilege?

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Any questions that relate to the testimony he gave to Mueller will likely not be covered by executive privilege. Legal experts say that executive privilege, much like attorney-client privilege, is intended to keep private conversations private. Generally speaking once third parties are told about such conversations they are no longer private or secret, and the privilege has been waived.
 
tres borrachos said:
And your post is relevant because I or someone else said that Clinton and Johnson were removed from office? Or you just post off topic stupid things because you like to see your name in lights?

The Senate in both of those examples was both the judge and the jury on the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson. Clearly you did not know that.

Please nip at someone else's heels. I have no time or interest to continue educating you on politics.
Click to expand...

Nice walkback. So far you haven't educated anyone on much of anything. But I'll keep addressing posts. I love the taste of fresh ankle in the morning.
 
Cordelier said:
Assuming such discussions did occur, I have a hard time accepting that they would be covered by executive privilege - barring some extraordinary circumstance. Nixon tried to get the CIA to stop the FBI investigating Watergate for reasons of national security. Nobody doubts that national security is squarely within the powers of the President - but if the President is abusing his power to obstruct justice by invoking national security ("It's not illegal if the President does it"), then that obviously is beyond the scope of executive privilege.

Try as I might, I can't come up with a legitimate reason for the President to seek to fire the Special Prosecutor or to otherwise interfere with his investigation. I'm not saying a legitimate reason doesn't exist - but if one does exist, then the burden of proof is on McGahn to make the case for executive privilege. As Bluetex says, he can't dial it in... he has to show up and support his assertion of the privilege.
Click to expand...
Assertion that privilege occurred and defining it as deliberations and legal advice for an action that didn't even occur is pretty solid. Then look at the concept that firing any executive employee is a presidential power, combine that with the fact Mueller knew there was no collusion a year ago and a very strong case could be made he should have been fired. A President executing his duties constitutionally is almost impossible to impeach. Nixon was covering a crime, Trump isn't.

The last year became less investigation and more politics, entirely due to Mueller's decisions.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
tres borrachos said:
And your post is relevant because I or someone else said that Clinton and Johnson were removed from office? Or you just post off topic stupid things because you like to see your name in lights?

The Senate in both of those examples was both the judge and the jury on the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson. Clearly you did not know that.

Please nip at someone else's heels. I have no time or interest to continue educating you on politics.
Click to expand...

*The Senate in both of those examples was both the judge and the jury*

No tres, in the case of a Presidential impeachment trial the Chief Justice of SCOTUS is the presiding judge, the Senate only sits as jury.
 
jimbo said:
Nice walkback. So far you haven't educated anyone on much of anything. But I'll keep addressing posts. I love the taste of fresh ankle in the morning.
Click to expand...

It isn't my fault that you don't understand posts and don't understand politics. There is nothing to walk back. I've been saying for a year that the House will never impeach Trump because the GOP controls the Senate. Maybe you don't understand how politics works in this country. But I do.

Fail less. If that's even possible.
 
Plus Ultra said:
I don't think McGahn's testimony is a good idea, am concerned over the attorney-client confidentiality, differentiating between an attorney's responsibility to a corporate client and its CEO, and the general erosion of this notion what was discussed with one's lawyer can be made public. People are likely then not to tell their lawyer things they worry he could be forced to disclose, then the lawyer won't be able to do as good a job.
Click to expand...
There is no attorney-client privileged in this case. See: Attorney-Client Privilege in Government and Congressional Investigations: Key Considerations and Recent Developments | Business Law Today from ABA

Congress maintains that it is not obligated to recognize common law privileges established by courts, such as the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other non-constitutional privileges.[10] Congress bases this assertion on (1) the separation of powers, dictating that Congress is not bound by courts’ common law practices and (2) Congress’s inherent legislative right to investigate. Congress has nearly limitless powers to investigate anything within the “legitimate legislative sphere.”[11]
Click to expand...
 
hanger4 said:
*The Senate in both of those examples was both the judge and the jury*

No tres, in the case of a Presidential impeachment trial the Chief Justice of SCOTUS is the presiding judge, the Senate only sits as jury.
Click to expand...

Next time just post "Derp, I want your attention badly Tres so I'm going to keep posting things that have nothing to do with your posts in this thread". It would be more honest and my eyes would bleed less.
 
tres borrachos said:
The first paragraph of your Fox News link (which is what you used to start this thread) says this:


The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee vowed Tuesday to go to court if necessary to seek former White House Counsel Don McGahn's testimony, after he defied a subpoena and skipped a committee hearing at President Trump's direction.
Click to expand...
What difference does this make? I guess Fox was wrong, move on.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom