Election 2020

[Bernie Brewer]

His investigation lasted what half the time of Pres. Clinton's investigation? Democrats didn't control the house or senate until this January. He held both chambers for 2 years and the investigation was run without democrats controlling anything in the House or Senate so he only has his only party and appointees to blame for it happening.

We have people now flatly ignoring subpoenas from the House now that the Democrats are in charge, I will eagerly await a similar situation playing out and Republicans saying that it is ok because the Democratic President felt harassed by a special counsel investigation that wasn't even started when the opposition party controlled any chamber of Congress.

I can understand how you feel, but the way a lot of people on the other side of the aisle feel is that there shouldn’t be subpoenas in the first place. Democratic grandstanding and overreach.

And, I eagerly await (truth is, I don’t really, as I wish it would all just stop, and we proved to ourselves and those we elect to represent us that we are all better than this) the Republicans ramping up this polarizing BS up significantly when a Democratic president is in office as a response to the Trump era Democrats overplay. Are used to think that the Republicans were really good at learning nasty tricks from the Democrats and ratcheting up them up by 11, but the Democrats have been really good at ratcheting up the GOPs treatment of Obama. Can’t wait to see what’s next level!!!

[onejayhawk]

He is directing people to ignore subpoenas. Unless we are going to not give congress oversite and subpoena power anymore that is a pretty big black mark for transparency and I can't wait for a Democrat to do that to a Republican-controlled House and hear what Fox News has to say.

If I am not mistaken, the White House Counsel, on due consideration of the law and precedent, has directed a number of people to ignore subpoenas. Mueller already covered the ground, so read his report.

You don't have to wait. See the Hillary Clinton investigations. She actually destroyed subpoenaed material.

J

[frae]

It seems pretty complicated to me, but that Trump and his legal team are doing everything they can to protect anyone at a senior level from talking to Congress and we are going to see what the courts say, but this shows it isn't very clear that they have legal precedent to protect McGahn...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/21/mcgahn-ignored-congressional-subpoena-legal-mess-will-follow/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2cf4e7d39254

McGahn and Hicks seem on shaky ground to me as private citizens now.


"The OLC’s argument is that certain senior presidential advisers — including the White House counsel — are so closely associated with the president that they can no more be compelled to appear before Congress than can the president himself.

The OLC’s opinion is long on argument and citations to its own previous opinions, and short on case citations. In fact, there is no case support for its broad position, and the only issued opinion on direct point — a district court opinion in the Harriet Miers litigation over the 2006 U.S. attorneys’ firings — went the other way. (The case settled before the court of appeals took it up, so its precedential value is limited.)"

[Bernie Brewer]

It seems pretty complicated to me, but that Trump and his legal team are doing everything they can to protect anyone at a senior level from talking to Congress and we are going to see what the courts say, but this shows it isn't very clear that they have legal precedent to protect McGahn...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/05/21/mcgahn-ignored-congressional-subpoena-legal-mess-will-follow/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2cf4e7d39254

McGahn and Hicks seem on shaky ground to me as private citizens now.


"The OLC’s argument is that certain senior presidential advisers — including the White House counsel — are so closely associated with the president that they can no more be compelled to appear before Congress than can the president himself.

The OLC’s opinion is long on argument and citations to its own previous opinions, and short on case citations. In fact, there is no case support for its broad position, and the only issued opinion on direct point — a district court opinion in the Harriet Miers litigation over the 2006 U.S. attorneys’ firings — went the other way. (The case settled before the court of appeals took it up, so its precedential value is limited.)"

I can already hear it echoing in my brain, before I even write this. That’s Whataboutery.

Nevertheless, But, Obama. See post 7052 in the President Donald Trump thread.

[frae]

I can already hear it echoing in my brain, before I even write this. That’s Whataboutery.

Nevertheless, But, Obama. See post 7052 in the President Donald Trump thread.

It is, which is why I didn't address Hillary. I thought we were trying to get beyond that now I haven't sited GW in a negative way in quite a while and this will go to the courts so we will all see regardless of the whataboutism.

[frae]

I can already hear it echoing in my brain, before I even write this. That’s Whataboutery.

Nevertheless, But, Obama. See post 7052 in the President Donald Trump thread.

But since ware having fun here...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/congresss-subpoena-power-is-not-what-it-used-to-be/2019/04/03/cf32e1de-5638-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.3fbdd67801ad

Similarly, in 2007, Congress held then-former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt after President George W. Bush claimed executive privilege to prevent her testimony in an investigation of the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

The Justice Department refused to prosecute her, forcing Congress into a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case took two years, with Congress prevailing in the lower court. But the appeals court dragged its heels, and while the case was awaiting a decision, the 110th Congress went out of business on Jan. 3, 2009.


An article that explains the courts ruling on it...

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01subpoena.html

[Bernie Brewer]

But since ware having fun here...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/congresss-subpoena-power-is-not-what-it-used-to-be/2019/04/03/cf32e1de-5638-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.3fbdd67801ad

Similarly, in 2007, Congress held then-former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt after President George W. Bush claimed executive privilege to prevent her testimony in an investigation of the mass firings of U.S. attorneys.

The Justice Department refused to prosecute her, forcing Congress into a civil suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case took two years, with Congress prevailing in the lower court. But the appeals court dragged its heels, and while the case was awaiting a decision, the 110th Congress went out of business on Jan. 3, 2009.


An article that explains the courts ruling on it...

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/us/01subpoena.html

Yup. All true. But the point is Bush was before Obama and that Miers case already took place yet Obama’s White House Counsel still ignited it.

[frae]

Yup. All true. But the point is Bush was before Obama and that Miers case already took place yet Obama’s White House Counsel still ignited it.

Bush ran out the clock on Congress in appeals courts where nothing was decided until 2009. So Obama played the exact same game letting it play out in court. If you want me to go back Cheney refused a subpoena in 91 when defense secretary...

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-08-13-9103280374-story.html

So yes everyone plays this court game, and the fact that executive priv is so vague is problematic. I am sure we can both keep going back to Nixon and find things. Pre-Nixon my history isn't really very good.

[Judge Jude]

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches are co-equal.

Democrats seem to think it's 1. Supreme Court 2. Congress. 3 President

Republicans seem to think it's 1. President

[revo]

From the "Whoa!" Department comes this latest poll from North Carolina, which Trump won by 3.7% over Clinton in 2016:

North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden	    Emerson	Biden 56, Trump 44	[B]Biden +12[/B]
North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders	Emerson	Trump 46, Sanders 54	[B]Sanders +8[/B]
North Carolina: Trump vs. Harris	Emerson	Trump 51, Harris 49	Trump +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Warren	Emerson	Trump 50, Warren 50	Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Emerson	Buttigieg 52, Trump 48	[B]Buttigieg +4[/B]

[B-Fly]

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the fact that the judiciary, legislative, and executive branches are co-equal.

Democrats seem to think it's 1. Supreme Court 2. Congress. 3 President

Republicans seem to think it's 1. President

They're "co-equal", but the checks and balances give each specific authority over the others on certain matters. On interpretation of the constitution and the laws, the Supreme Court gets the final word. They can't have three "co-equal" opinions on what the constitution or the law requires/permits/precludes.

[Judge Jude]

well, you're the lawyer - but how much case law is there on that?

[B-Fly]

From the "Whoa!" Department comes this latest poll from North Carolina, which Trump won by 3.7% over Clinton in 2016:

North Carolina: Trump vs. Biden	    Emerson	Biden 56, Trump 44	[B]Biden +12[/B]
North Carolina: Trump vs. Sanders	Emerson	Trump 46, Sanders 54	[B]Sanders +8[/B]
North Carolina: Trump vs. Harris	Emerson	Trump 51, Harris 49	Trump +2
North Carolina: Trump vs. Warren	Emerson	Trump 50, Warren 50	Tie
North Carolina: Trump vs. Buttigieg	Emerson	Buttigieg 52, Trump 48	[B]Buttigieg +4[/B]

Yeah, that's pretty wild. Beyond the "whoa" of how far behind Trump is in head-to-head matchups with three of the highest polling Democratic candidates is the fact that neither Harris nor Booker would appear to be drawing any material or consistent support from black voters, who make up a very large percentage of North Carolina Democrats. So far, Biden appears to be doing very well with black voters, presumably on the strength of his strong relationship with President Obama, and presumably despite his support for the 1990's crime bill, his troubling treatment of Anita Hill, his gaffe calling Obama "clean and articulate" in the 2008 primaries. Despite all that, he appears to have President Obama's coattails, which could ultimately be decisive in these primaries and in the general election. President Obama is still "the most admired person in America" for 11 years running.

[B-Fly]

well, you're the lawyer - but how much case law is there on that?

LOL, seriously? Marbury vs. Madison and the many thousands of cases decided since then that re-affirm it.

[Judge Jude]

LOL, seriously? Marbury vs. Madison and the many thousands of cases decided since then that re-affirm it.

well, I should clarify. I'm talking about this subpoena issue.