• 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!

Ex White House Counsel Don McGahn

NWRatCon said:
Sorry YOU had a derp moment there. ;)

While it is true that waiver on one matter doesn't waive all matters, it applies to the issues that are covered by previous discussions. That's really not the issue here, is it? This is a blanket denial of access. Nothing justifies that, does it?
Click to expand...

McGahn's privilege is in the areas of decision making in the executive branch and the legality of those decisions. He cannot discuss them without consent. He can discuss meetings and non specific details, but waiving privilege in certain meetings and discussion doesn't waive it in all WH matters, as the privilege being broke isn't his, its the Executive branch.

Its not a simple, cut and dried issue that it is being made out to be.
 
OpportunityCost said:
McGahn's privilege is in the areas of decision making in the executive branch and the legality of those decisions. He cannot discuss them without consent. He can discuss meetings and non specific details, but waiving privilege in certain meetings and discussion doesn't waive it in all WH matters, as the privilege being broke isn't his, its the Executive branch.

Its not a simple, cut and dried issue that it is being made out to be.
Click to expand...

So, are you conceding that a blanket refusal to testify is unjustified?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Why should I answer a question that doesn't the questiondescribe what is occurring?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Are you not paying attention? And yes, you should answer, to establish a baseline for discussion. Is a blanket refusal to testify justified? If not, then we can dicker over the price.
 
wellwisher said:
Trump was very transparent to the Mueller investigation. He did not use Executive privilege, once, even though, by law, he had this right. He had to right to fire Mueller and put someone else in. Trump knew he was innocent, so he let the rigged process reach a conclusion without using Executive privilege.

The collusion delusion should now be done, since he did everything the Democrats asked, including not using his Constitutional power. But since the Democrats are not showing any good faith, in the conclusions of their own stacked investigation, there is no need to be a nice guy, anymore. Being nice and cooperative does not matter to the angry two-faced Democrats.

Trump is starting to play hardball, using his Constitutional right to exert Executive privilege. He does not have to jump hoops for angry Democrats and fake news. Nothing will satisfy them, other than him resigning. Trump has gotten sick of being a guy nice, to dumb angry people. Now it is time to go on the offensive, and dope slap them. This change of strategy, is part of a larger offense, that will begin by show the roar of the Democrats, is nothing but fake power coming from a corrupt paper tiger.
Click to expand...

Actually Trump told mcgahn to tell Rosenstein to fire Mueller just like he sent mcghan to deliver a stronlgly worded message to Sessions. So yeah he did try to get rid of Mueller. You are lying Can Trump Fire Mueller? - FactCheck.org

Only Rosenstein could have fired Mueller.
 
NWRatCon said:
Yes it is. Are you not paying attention? And yes, you should answer, to establish a baseline for discussion. Is a blanket refusal to testify justified? If not, then we can dicker over the price.
Click to expand...

A blanket refusal to testify isn't happening. The conditions the Democrats want to set up for testifying are being refused, outside parties do not have a constitutional duty, Congress does.

Be clear and be truthful. Right now your statements are neither.
 
McGahn faces a moral dilemma . If he testifies his conservative bona fides and future employment opportunities are in jeopardy for years. His testimony was the basis for many of the obstruction charges against 45 and the most quoted in Vol. 2 of Mueller's report.
 
Parrish said:
McGahn faces a moral dilemma . If he testifies his conservative bona fides and future employment opportunities are in jeopardy for years. His testimony was the basis for many of the obstruction charges against 45 and the most quoted in Vol. 2 of Mueller's report.
Click to expand...
I think you make a good point, but I am going to file a concurring and dissenting opinion. McGahn may not be a loyal Trumpist in the end, but I don't think that affects his conservative bona fides. His greater sin was being in the Trump White House, but there are many conservatives that appreciated his efforts to pack the courts with Right Wing Zealots/Ideologues (I can't remember which they prefer). That will keep him in good stead with the "real" fake conservatives.
 
Rexedgar said:
What authority does the White House have over Don McGahn? What power do they have to coerce McGahn to ignore a subpoena? McGahn is a private citizen, right?
Click to expand...

He is still covered by executive privilege for his time with the administration.

The dems know that. Its just their platform. “Dump Trump so the multinationals can go back to ripping us off again!”
 
chuckiechan said:
He is still covered by executive privilege for his time with the administration.

The dems know that. Its just their platform. “Dump Trump so the multinationals can go back to ripping us off again!”
Click to expand...

So you are saying that “executive privilege” can be used/waived at will? If McGahn has been interviewed for approximately 30hrs without “ep”, the Administration can now claw back “ep?”
 
Rexedgar said:
What authority does the White House have over Don McGahn? What power do they have to coerce McGahn to ignore a subpoena? McGahn is a private citizen, right?
Click to expand...

As White House counsel, anything he said belongs to the Executive Branch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom