HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So trump will not Coopera...

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:25 PM

So 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.


32 replies, 2593 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 32 replies Author Time Post
Reply So trump will not Cooperate with any Oversight by Democrats. Period. (Original post)
spanone Apr 2019 OP
watoos Apr 2019 #1
cstanleytech Apr 2019 #9
sprinkleeninow Apr 24 #30
RockRaven Apr 2019 #2
Bettie Apr 2019 #15
RockRaven Apr 2019 #19
QED Apr 2019 #3
redstatebluegirl Apr 24 #26
bdamomma Apr 2019 #4
malaise Apr 2019 #5
TwilightZone Apr 2019 #6
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #10
TwilightZone Apr 2019 #14
SunSeeker Apr 2019 #17
Bradshaw3 Apr 24 #29
Duppers Apr 2019 #20
Marthe48 Apr 2019 #7
ChubbyStar Apr 2019 #16
orangecrush Apr 2019 #8
Midnight Writer Apr 2019 #11
crazytown Apr 2019 #12
DallasNE Apr 2019 #13
Duppers Apr 2019 #21
certainot Apr 2019 #18
Nitram Apr 24 #22
spanone Apr 24 #23
Nitram Apr 24 #24
NotHardly Apr 24 #25
NotHardly Apr 24 #28
C_U_L8R Apr 24 #27
NotHardly Apr 24 #31
gulliver Apr 24 #32

Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:26 PM

1. Impeachment is the only option

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #1)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:52 PM

9. Agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 04:09 PM

30. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:33 PM

2. All of the Cabinet secretaries, their deputies, acting replacements etc need to be held personally

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RockRaven (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:04 PM

15. Will the DOJ comply with the request for criminal contempt

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #15)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:31 PM

19. Under Barr/Trump? Probably not. But Congress has inherent contempt powers, and extraordinary times

call for extraordinary (though technically possible) responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:34 PM

3. He's never had to be accountable to anyone.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to QED (Reply #3)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:13 PM

26. I don't think he was even held accountable as a child and a young adult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:36 PM

4. Now he is

going to gut the Congress, and only have the repigs who are criminals like him be nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:36 PM

5. He does not read

He does not give a shit about the rule of law, the Constitution. Remember now - no one disobeys his orders

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 07:37 PM

6. His plan won't change because of impeachment.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:54 PM

10. Wrong. Impeachment proceedings are one of the few exceptions to grand jury secrecy.

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:

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.  


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:02 PM

14. You keep making this claim, but there's no basis for your assertion.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #14)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:22 PM

17. I'm not making this claim, Lawrence Tribe is. That's who I'm quoting.

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:

The uncertain prospect that the House Judiciary Committee will receive the raw, unredacted report generated by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III got even less certain Friday. A decision by the federal court of appeals in Washington now confronts the House leadership and Attorney General William P. Barr with some difficult political choices.

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 Committee’s 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 Trump’s 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 Barr’s 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 committee’s 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 Nadler’s 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 prosecutor’s 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 Nadler’s 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. Trump’s 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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #17)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:19 PM

29. Tribe is considered THE expert on constitutional law

Literally wrote the book on it (American Constitutional Law). So I'll take his word for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:48 PM

20. The courts are stacks. Who is going to enforce the laws?

Watch Joy Reed's rerun tonight - she's sitting in for Chris Hayes.

DH and I are seriously worried.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:39 PM

7. I wish he'd take his f'n toys and go the hell home

I hate this. I hate what is happening to this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Marthe48 (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:06 PM

16. His biggest toy is the White House

He will have to be dragged out screaming to leave, I'm serious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:46 PM

8. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:58 PM

11. Next time a cop pulls me over, I'll ask him who he voted for.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:00 PM

12. The American Constitution does not elect Kings.

Start the impeachment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:01 PM

13. What Happened To IRS Independence

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DallasNE (Reply #13)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:53 PM

21. Yes...but who will be enforcing the contempt charge(s)?

The courts are stacked. Then who?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Tue Apr 23, 2019, 10:28 PM

18. americans need offense and destroying the talk radio monopoly is the most offensive thing

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:17 AM

22. He didn't cooperate with Mueller, either. Equivalent to confessing guilt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nitram (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:19 AM

23. he allowed his staff to cooperate....now, not so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #23)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 11:23 AM

24. A transparent and ultimately fruitless attempt to avoid the reckoning that is coming. It will buy

him some time. That's all. In the end it will make him weaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:11 PM

25. Welcome to the new normal ... and our new Republican Overlords

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NotHardly (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:18 PM

28. Please understand snark...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 03:14 PM

27. This obstruction could be one of the mounting charges/articles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C_U_L8R (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:44 PM

31. It would be handy if those of us... damn few... who might not swoon..

would be allowed to speak; unless you cannot be bothered by a little less swooning or dog pics. Seriously, I get two warnings because I do not clutch my pearls as hard as the most uninteresting here. Seriously. Go ahead, ban me ... you are a Democrat without the ability to take a bit of heat or greater anger than you have (Tempest). If I'd known that I had to agree with every faint heart meandering here, I might have banned myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Apr 24, 2019, 10:48 PM

32. He's on the lam. Holed up in the White House hiding from the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread