General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo trump will not Cooperate with any Oversight by Democrats. Period.
This alone should trigger impeachment.
If this stands he is above the law.
This guy doesn't understand anything other than shoving it down the throat.
watoos
(7,142 posts)cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)sprinkleeninow
(20,133 posts)RockRaven
(14,783 posts)responsible for their failures to comply with lawful Congressional requests and, when issued, subpoenas. Go to court and get writs of mandamus and let these mofos rot in jail if they fail to comply with the court orders. Refer them to DOJ for criminal contempt proceedings. Exercise inherent contempt powers. Make Trump lackeys pay the price for being Trump lackeys.
Bettie
(15,998 posts)proceedings?
That's the problem, too many willing to enable this crap.
Too many willing to declare that laws don't apply to one party.
RockRaven
(14,783 posts)call for extraordinary (though technically possible) responses.
QED
(2,730 posts)His company was privately held so no board of directors to rein him in. Daddy taught him the tricks of the trade. No one has challenged him effectively.
redstatebluegirl
(12,264 posts)bdamomma
(63,657 posts)going to gut the Congress, and only have the repigs who are criminals like him be nothing.
malaise
(267,823 posts)He does not give a shit about the rule of law, the Constitution. Remember now - no one disobeys his orders
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)And neither will the likely strategy. A Congressional subpoena is a Congressional subpoena, whether it's issued from a HJC investigation or under impeachment proceedings.
Impeachment isn't a magic wand the Dems can wave to get anything they want. They will still need to go through the process, the courts, the stonewalling by Trump, etc.
SunSeeker
(51,371 posts)Regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info. Only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
Per the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it before 2020 as Congress is forced to go to court...maybe the Supreme Court, with each witness.
TwilightZone
(25,342 posts)The key words are "judicial proceedings". It says nothing about impeachment being the *only* possible definition of a "judicial proceeding", only that this particular judicial proceeding did involve impeachment.
As I've pointed out before, Nadler clearly believes that an HJC investigation also fits the definition. I think he would probably know.
SunSeeker
(51,371 posts)And he's quoting recent federal case law. House impeachment proceedings are by law judicial proceedings. Regular house oversight hearings are not. That is why impeachment hearings are the only House hearings that will get us grand jury info. Sure, Nadler can try with a regular supboena, just like he initially tried with a mere letter request. It is obvious they are trying the least confrontational approach first. But hopefully they will soon realize this administration will not cooperate and has declared war against Congress. Trump said tonight he will not release anyone who was interviewed by Mueller to talk to House committees. They need to go to formal impeachment investigation hearings.
I gave you plenty of basis for this. As Tribe states in the WaPo piece I keep citing to you:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no inherent power to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committees subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trumps former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barrs decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committees right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadlers committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional oversight committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutors office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a grand jury investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the exception for judicial proceedings and coheres with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is not worth it. That decision may hamstring Nadlers quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government oversight to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee and the public about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trumps selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Is that enough basis for you?
Bradshaw3
(7,455 posts)Literally wrote the book on it (American Constitutional Law). So I'll take his word for it.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)Watch Joy Reed's rerun tonight - she's sitting in for Chris Hayes.
DH and I are seriously worried.
Marthe48
(16,692 posts)I hate this. I hate what is happening to this country.
ChubbyStar
(3,191 posts)He will have to be dragged out screaming to leave, I'm serious.
orangecrush
(19,236 posts)Midnight Writer
(21,548 posts)If he says Trump, than I know I am being unfairly persecuted for being a Hillary voter.
And when that puts me before a judge, I will have to ask the judge who he voted for. If he is a Republican, I know he is part of the Deep State plot against me.
crazytown
(7,277 posts)Start the impeachment.
DallasNE
(7,392 posts)The next step for the IRS Commissioner is to resign. Failure to do that would likely cause him to lose his law license. Then comes the Deputy IRS Commissioner.
Trump doesn't even bother to cite a legal principal like Executive Privilege. He just orders that people not comply with lawful orders. Ordinarily, one would think that the IRS Commissioner would at least ask the courts for a stay rather than risk contempt.
This is all so odd. It has never been done this way before. The laws are there for the little people.
Duppers
(28,094 posts)The courts are stacked. Then who?
certainot
(9,090 posts)there is to republicans. no one's really ever done it before
trump publicized golf with limbaugh right after the mueller report in order to send a message to republicans thinking of crossing trump theyll be getting death threats instead of donations
limbaugh depends on 88 universities to keep broadcasting sports on 260 of his 600 stations.
Nitram
(22,671 posts)spanone
(135,635 posts)Nitram
(22,671 posts)him some time. That's all. In the end it will make him weaker.