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

[gdgyva]

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.

times article is behind a paywall...and no i dont get the times

but it is an "opinion" piece...not the news...that much i saw

campaign finance violations....well...i guess we will see when and if this gets inside an actual courtroom

and good luck with the obstruction case....i think it is a Don Quixote type of case myself....but keep swinging at those windmills

 

[uptower]

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

Not intended as an ad-hom. Fox intentionally underreports these developments so those who rely on it for news are therefore underinformed as to certain aspects. They are also likely possessed of the misconception that the "real" investigation - into the Mueller probe - is just warming up, because Fox has been peddling that fantasy of late. It is a sad truth that viewers of Fox are less informed about facts, because Fox is very selective in its 'reporting'. It is not an attack on the viewers themselves.

 

[hanger4]

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.

I'm assuming you know the Senate doesn't "impeach" so I won't go there.

As far as the House Majority investigations, without impeachment proceedings they're all talk and no walk. It's no more than political theater to bludgeon an incumbent Repub Presidential candidate.

 

[Casper]

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.

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

Very good summary. You are right on the money.
I have come to the conclusion that Nadler and the rest of his ilk are no longer interested in reviewing the Mueller report. They may as well use it as TP. They are interested in relitigating everything that the Mueller report was supposed to do.
They are making fools of themselves with all these vapid requests they OUGHT to know carry no weight.
Nobody is going to tell me that Nadler did not know McGahn has no "LEGAL obligation" to appear. <<----- Nader's claim in quotes.

This is all grand political theater!
Have they held Wm. Barr in contempt yet?
No.
They won't hold McGahn in contempt either....

 

[Rogue Valley]

Don McGahn's relatives (Joesph and Patrick) ran Atlantic City in the roaring 80's (of course in complicity with Atlantic City mob boss Nicky Scarfo). They helped Trump obtain a piece of property (for the Taj Mahal Casino) that was partially owned by Scarfo. The McGahn family is no stranger to corruption and underworld connections. I hope no one thought Don McGahn wound up in Trumps White House on his lawyerly merits.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm assuming you know the Senate doesn't "impeach" so I won't go there.

As far as the House Majority investigations, without impeachment proceedings they're all talk and no walk. It's no more than political theater to bludgeon an incumbent Repub Presidential candidate.

I assume you know that the Senate has to vote on impeachment? It requires 2/3 vote in the Senate to impeach and remove a President from office? Well, apparently you don't.

 

[uptower]

times article is behind a paywall...and no i dont get the times

but it is an "opinion" piece...not the news...that much i saw

Paywall allows five views a month, guess I'm still in the game.

Yes it is an opinion piece that summarizes the news, because there's no need to post a dozen articles. Google "Trump obstruction" or "Trump tax fraud" and there'll be enough articles to keep you busy till christmas.

I'm not here to litigate or provide Pwoof TM. I'm merely showing all the evidence out there. As you said the courts, (and congress) can decide but it looks bad for Trump. Bad enough for congress to consider impeachment hearings. Because all it takes is evidence and political will.

 

[tres borrachos]

Very good summary. You are right on the money.
I have come to the conclusion that Nadler and the rest of his ilk are no longer interested in reviewing the Mueller report. They may as well use it as TP. They are interested in relitigating everything that the Mueller report was supposed to do.
They are making fools of themselves with all these vapid requests they OUGHT to know carry no weight.
Nobody is going to tell me that Nadler did not know McGahn has no "LEGAL obligation" to appear. <<----- Nader's claim in quotes.

This is all grand political theater!
Have they held Wm. Barr in contempt yet?
No.They won't hold McGahn in contempt either....

Yes, they have held Barr in contempt.

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, escalating the looming constitutional collision over the Mueller report between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration.

House committee votes to hold William Barr in contempt after Trump invokes executive privilege - CNNPolitics

 

[MTAtech]

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.

NO instance, huh? Then you didn't look very hard. This took me about 30 seconds to find. John Dean III served as White House Counsel for United States President Richard Nixon.

 

[trixare4kids]

They have hours of his testimony given to Muller but they want a dog and pony show for TV. Not going to happen.
They are not looking for facts just the drama!

They must really think the viewing public is stupid.

Well, they are political elitists.
Just ask them.

:lol:

 

[trixare4kids]

McGahn cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties so long as those duties are consistent with the powers granted to the President under Article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, any communications between the White House Counsel and the President pertaining to the Mueller Investigation would presumably be outside of the realm of executive privilege unless it can ascertained that they pertained to national security.

Hence, why McGahn's attorneys counseled their client to not appear.

Thank you for reiterating my previous points.
IF some around here would only learn the facts.

 

[Acadia]

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.

Maybe fuming helps Nadler burn calories...

 

[akyron]

They have hours of his testimony given to Muller but they want a dog and pony show for TV. Not going to happen.
They are not looking for facts just the drama!

I am getting more and more interested in the other 29 hours and 59 minutes of testimony that was skipped.

 

[trixare4kids]

So is there something Mghan forgot tell Mueller in his 30000000000000000000000000 hours of investigation?

The senate judiciary committee Democrats are too good to review that part of the 16 month, 25 million dollar taxpayer funded report.

 

[Cordelier]

Hence, why McGahn's attorneys counseled their client to not appear.

Thank you for reiterating my previous points.
IF some around here would only learn the facts.

I'm glad you agree with me, Trix.

So how do you figure President Trump's communications with McGhan pertaining to the Mueller Investigation pertain to national security?

 

[trixare4kids]

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.

Strawman
You didn't answer my question because YOU can't.

 

[trixare4kids]

I'm glad you agree with me, Trix.

So how do you figure President Trump's communications with McGhan pertaining to the Mueller Investigation pertain to national security?

Oh, so you were just testing your skills at sarcasm then?

Sorry, but I misread your intent. Lol!

 

[bomberfox]

McGahn cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties so long as those duties are consistent with the powers granted to the President under Article II of the Constitution. Accordingly, any communications between the White House Counsel and the President pertaining to the Mueller Investigation would presumably be outside of the realm of executive privilege unless it can ascertained that they pertained to national security.

Good to see ya again.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm glad you agree with me, Trix.

So how do you figure President Trump's communications with McGhan pertaining to the Mueller Investigation pertain to national security?

Because he is White House legal counsel and many of the areas touched on by the Mueller investigation pertained to official duties.

For example: firing Comey.

 

[bomberfox]

In a way yes.

Why? Because Trump and Barr are stonewalling due process and fighting this battle on Fox and Friends. They're the ones who want it fought publicly, in the media - at least they want all their side of it televised - because behind closed doors they know the results will be both cryptic, dull, but also legally devastating for them. They don't want McGahn's testimony public because they want to claim they know what he said and it's all 'total exoneration'.

Simply put Trump's media campaign will reach more people than obscure hearings.

So the Dems, slow to catch on as they are, are realizing they have to fight trump on his ground: on TV. By putting McGahn out there for all to see, Barr doesn't get to step in and 'summarize' for him again.

I saw Twump was about to call fox news fake news recently and got angry they dared to interview democrats. The guy is all about the media circus.

 

[Cordelier]

Good to see ya again.

Same here. Still fighting the good fight?

 

[bomberfox]

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.

Oh dear! Trix showing they only read the headlines again:lamo

 

[trixare4kids]

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

Though I said I was done with this silliness, I feel compelled to say again, I wasn't wrong.
If you are willing to think more about this, you will come to the same conclusion most will.
Trump can give McGahn direction, but the final say came from McGahn who made the decision not to appear before the senate judiciary hacks. Read McGahn's attorney's statement if you still won't allow yourself to believe it.

:2wave:

 

[bomberfox]

Same here. Still fighting the good fight?

Da comrade . Perhaps changing tact but still goin.