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

[tres borrachos]

That's not what my link says.
My link says this: Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: ‘Our subpoenas are not optional’ | Fox News

The embedded link says this: McGahn confirms he will skip House hearing, as DOJ asserts '''immunity''' and Nadler fumes | Fox News

I don't know what O/P you are viewing, but it's not mine. :mrgreen:

eace

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.

 

[What if...?]

Yeah, that must be it.
NOT.

She, for now, shows she has a functioning brain. She is being put under enormous pressure by some from her party to act impetuously.
IF one is going to impeach a president, perhaps Pelosi realizes there had better be grounds to impeach.

High drama coming from the usual Democrats doesn't count. :mrgreen:

Actually if you're going to impeach you better not have a McConnell in the senate.

Trump could eat a baby on live TV and McConnell wouldn't allow an impeachment.

 

[trixare4kids]

Silly, silly comments! By the way Trix is not a man...... The only facts you seem to like are the ones you agree with.

Some people don't like to read sources.
I've provided two within the first post.

Not my fault when some don't read or scrutinize facts, so it comes as no surprise to me that they also don't read about a poster's political lean or gender when it's put right in front of their faces either.

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

Yeah, I know it says that, but his attorneys made the final decision.
You apparently don't read either.

In a letter to Nadler, McGahn attorney William Burck said his client won't show up. Burck said current White House Counsel Pat Cipollone had communicated that Trump had instructed McGahn not to testify, and that Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel had said McGahn was immune from testifying.

"Mr. McGahn understands from your prior correspondence that the Committee would vote to hold him in contempt should he not appear tomorrow and the House of Representatives may follow suit," Burck wrote to Nadler. "While we disagree with the Committee’s position and hope it will instead seek an accommodation with the White House, Mr. McGahn also must honor his ethical and legal obligations as a former senior lawyer and senior advisor to the President. In short, it is our view that the Committee’s dispute is not with Mr. McGahn but with the White House."

Done here.

 

[Obscurity]

What dirty laundry will be laid out? You mean he won the election fair and square?

Yes, I think he would welcome the Democrats making assholes out of themselves like they have been doing since Nov. 8, 2016.
If they are going to keep stirring the **** pot, they should at least be willing to lick their spoons.

Man, it seems to me, this potus and his reign has been so ****ing awful you lot want to just focus on the fact that he won the election.

We know. It's the only win in this scenario.

Can we move on now? It's 2019.

oversight is a congressional authority. deal with it.

 

[tres borrachos]

Yeah, I know it says that, but his attorneys made the final decision.
You apparently don't read either.



Done here.

I did read it, which is why I and obviously many other posters knew you were wrong when you said this:

You should familiarize yourself with facts before guessing.
The attorneys for McGahn made the decision for him not to appear, and not Trump.

 

[gdgyva]

Do you honestly think Twump is itching for an impeachment battle? He's terrified of it. It will mean weeks and months of congressional hearings where all his dirty laundry is laid out. At the end it is unlikely he'll be removed unless the Senate grows a spine, but it'll sink his reelection chances. In fact, if SDNY carries on, it may come out by then he'll be disqualified from running again.

He's terrified of it. It will mean weeks and months of congressional hearings where all his dirty laundry is laid out.

well, you have all the evidence you are going to get....

lets see your case.....

Mueller had almost two years....surely you have something, right?

 

[trixare4kids]

Actually if you're going to impeach you better not have a McConnell in the senate.

Trump could eat a baby on live TV and McConnell wouldn't allow an impeachment.

He has the Constitutional power NOT to allow an impeachment.

in this time of disregard and erosion of established institutional practices and norms, the current leadership of the Senate could choose to abrogate them once more. The same Mitch McConnell who blocked the Senate’s exercise of its authority to advise and consent to the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland, could attempt to prevent the trial of a House impeachment of Donald Trump. And he would not have to look far to find the constitutional arguments and the flexibility to revise Senate rules and procedures to accomplish this purpose.

The Constitution does not by its express terms direct the Senate to try an impeachment. In fact, it confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution couches the power to impeach in the same terms: it is the House’s “sole power.” The House may choose to impeach or not, and one can imagine an argument that the Senate is just as free, in the exercise of its own “sole power,” to decline to try any impeachment that the House elects to vote.

Can the Senate Decline to Try an Impeachment Case? - Lawfare

 

[uptower]

What dirty laundry will be laid out? You mean he won the election fair and square?

It always seems to come back to 'he won, so there'. Should that have been the Clinton defence when he was caught lying to congress? 'I won, so I can get a BJ in the Oval Office if I want, so there.' Well he lost 2018 fair and square so now he has some spoons to lick of his own.

What will come out - and possibly more will be a mix of what we already know and suspect. Tax fraud, insurance fraud, campaign finance violations, emoluments, obstruction - these are the ones we already know about and more than enough to sink any other president.

In addition, suspected money laundering, more mistresses and cover ups, more financial crimes, and whatever he really did know about 'The Russia Thing'. These have yet to come out but after all we already know it is inconceivable there won't be more wrongdoing. And none of this is 'jaywalking' so can that deflection.

For Chrissakes, if it had been any other congress than a bunch os sycophants terrified of his base he'd have been impeached already. That's something Trump supporters have to admit as much as they think his detractors have yet to 'accept' the results of the election.

 

[trixare4kids]

well, you have all the evidence you are going to get....

lets see your case.....

Mueller had almost two years....surely you have something, right?

They have nothing but, but, but Trump is a bad, bad man. :lamo

 

[jimbo]

I can't wait for impeachment.
That's really going to be the real show I won't miss.
I think our president is waiting for that one to begin too. :lol:
Do you think Pelosi could be that dumb?

I don't. Pelosi is emerging as the voice of reason in the Democrat party, which says more about the rest of the party than Pelosi.

 

[trixare4kids]

It always seems to come back to 'he won, so there'. Should that have been the Clinton defence when he was caught lying to congress? 'I won, so I can get a BJ in the Oval Office if I want, so there.' Well he lost 2018 fair and square so now he has some spoons to lick of his own.

What will come out - and possibly more will be a mix of what we already know and suspect. Tax fraud, insurance fraud, campaign finance violations, emoluments, obstruction - these are the ones we already know about and more than enough to sink any other president.

In addition, suspected money laundering, more mistresses and cover ups, more financial crimes, and whatever he really did know about 'The Russia Thing'. These have yet to come out but after all we already know it is inconceivable there won't be more wrongdoing. And none of this is 'jaywalking' so can that deflection.

For Chrissakes, if it had been any other congress than a bunch os sycophants terrified of his base he'd have been impeached already. That's something Trump supporters have to admit as much as they think his detractors have yet to 'accept' the results of the election.

What WILL come out?
I am so sick of hearing the same stale, lame hypotheticals... The Democrats have to SHOW proof.

Where is it? :coffeepap

 

[jimbo]

They have nothing but, but, but Trump is a bad, bad man. :lamo

Wrong. They also have race. Often both in the same sentence.

 

[uptower]

Mueller had almost two years....surely you have something, right?

The Mueller report already put together a strong case for obstruction.

As for tax evasion, tax fraud and insurance fraud, we've already seen the receipts in the NYT. This is all public knowledge to those who don't watch Fox.

We will also be reminded (one would hope) of his campaign finance violations - for which his so-conspirator has already been found guilty.

So no, "I" don't "have" anything. It's all out there already.

 

[trixare4kids]

I don't. Pelosi is emerging as the voice of reason in the Democrat party, which says more about the rest of the party than Pelosi.

Agree.

Just my opinion, but do you suppose she is stalling because she is waiting to preview the alleged "financial papers" that according to the Nadler possee will sink Trump's ship?

 

[trixare4kids]

The Mueller report already put together a strong case for obstruction.

As for tax evasion, tax fraud and insurance fraud, we've already seen the receipts in the NYT. This is all public knowledge to those who don't watch Fox.

Keep wishing, and stop with the Fox ad homs. They went out with Bush, or at least they should have.

 

[jimbo]

Agree.

Just my opinion, but do you suppose she is stalling because she is waiting preview the alleged "financial papers" that according to the Nadler possee will sink Trump's ship?

I don't. I think Pelosi meant it when she said there would be no impeachment.

 

[trixare4kids]

Wrong. They also have race. Often both in the same sentence.

They'll quickly 86 that narrative should 'old white man' Biden get the nomination. Lol! Liberals.

 

[tres borrachos]

I don't. I think Pelosi meant it when she said there would be no impeachment.

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.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They'll quickly 86 that narrative should 'old white man' Biden get the nomination. Lol! Liberals.

Like Trump isn't an old white man. :rofl

 

[trixare4kids]

I don't. I think Pelosi meant it when she said there would be no impeachment.

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.

 

[trixare4kids]

Like Trump isn't an old white man. :rofl

:Whooooosh:

 

[uptower]

What will come out
The Democrats have to SHOW proof.

Where is it? :coffeepap

I already outlined what will (and has already) come out. Pwoof TM? The way to do that is to hold impeachment hearings. Till then it is not Pwoof TM, it is just evidence. And there's more than enough to impeach already. So you claim to want to see it, then sit back, enjoy your coffee and hope that congress initiates impeachment articles that will surely show us all the evidence (and pwoof) and eventually exonerate Trump in full of any wrongdoing. Right?

But it's disingenuous to sit there and demand Pwoof TM from some $#!tkicker on the internet who only knows as much as the rest of the world (which is a lot already) while insisting no actual congressional investigations or inquiries should take place.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Democrats fume as McGahn skips House hearing: ‘Our subpoenas are not optional’ | Fox News



When isn't Nadler and the House Judiciary Committee fuming?
Obviously, they're so fumed up they refuse to recognize that McGahn cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.

Congress has oversight responsibility and authority. But that does not override constitutional separation of powers or the authority of the Executive Branch of government.

I have wracked my brain and done at least a cursory internet search, and I can find NO INSTANCE in which Congress has even asked, much less compelled, White House counsel to testify before any congressional panel. In all such circumstances the President is within full protection of the law when he enacts executive authority to protect his ability to perform the required functions of the Executive. If any staff member at any time is compelled to testify before Congress and divulge what he/she knows, has heard, what has been discussed, what people have thought about and then moved on, etc., the President would have no authority at all and would be almost rendered powerless to do his job.

Cabinet heads yes. White House staff no.

With full permission of the President, McGahn testified 30 hours for the Mueller investigation. That is because Mueller himself was part of and acting on behalf of the Executive Branch. Anything Congress wants to know re that testimony, they should ask Mueller if President Trump allows him to testify. And I believe President Trump will not disallow that. They should have no direct access to White House counsel.

 

[Trump]

Congress has oversight responsibility and authority. But that does not override constitutional separation of powers or the authority of the Executive Branch of government.

I have wracked my brain and done at least a cursory internet search, and I can find NO INSTANCE in which Congress has even asked, much less compelled, White House counsel to testify before any congressional panel. In all such circumstances the President is within full protection of the law when he enacts executive authority to protect his ability to perform the required functions of the Executive. If any staff member at any time is compelled to testify before Congress and divulge what he/she knows, has heard, what has been discussed, what people have thought about and then moved on, etc., the President would have no authority at all and would be almost rendered powerless to do his job.

With full permission of the President, McGahn testified 30 hours for the Mueller investigation. That is because Mueller himself was part of and acting on behalf of the Executive Branch. Anything Congress wants to know re that testimony, they should ask Mueller if President Trump allows him to testify. And I believe President Trump will not disallow that. They should have no direct access to White House counsel.

PLEASE PLEASE

what fun that would be