House panel moves to hold former White House official in contempt after he obeys Trump

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post

The House Oversight Committee moved Tuesday to hold a former White House personnel security director in contempt of Congress for failing to appear at a hearing investigating alleged lapses in White House security clearance procedures.

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, said he would consult with the House counsel and members of the panel about scheduling a vote on contempt for former White House personnel security director Carl Kline. At the instruction of the White House, Kline failed to show up for scheduled testimony on security clearances. The move marks a dramatic escalation of tensions between Congress and the Trump White House, which is increasingly resisting requests for information from Capitol Hill.

“The White House and Mr. Kline now stand in open defiance of a duly authorized congressional subpoena with no assertion of any privilege of any kind by President Trump,” Cummings said in a statement. “Based on these actions, it appears that the President believes that the Constitution does not apply to his White House, that he may order officials at will to violate their legal obligations, and that he may obstruct attempts by Congress to conduct oversight.”

The standoff comes as the Trump administration to push back against congressional inquiries targeting the White House, which have proliferated since Democrats took control of the House in January. White House deputy counsel Michael M. Purpura wrote a letter Monday instructing Kline, who now works at the Defense Department, not to show up for a scheduled deposition before the committee Tuesday.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/23/white-house-instructs-official-ignore-democratic-subpoena-over-security-clearances/?utm_term=.0bc0a475ae4b

---

Full title: House panel moves to hold former White House official in contempt after he obeys Trump administration’s instruction not to testify

Original article -

Breaking: House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings said he plans to consult with House Counsel about scheduling a contempt vote.

A former White House personnel security director has been instructed by the White House not to show up Tuesday for questioning by the House Oversight Committee.

The move appears to be the latest effort by the Trump administration to push back against congressional inquiries targeting the White House, which have proliferated since Democrats took control of the House in January.

White House deputy counsel Michael M. Purpura wrote a letter Monday asking the former security director, Carl Kline, not to show up as the committee had requested. Kline is now working at the Defense Department.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/23/white-house-instructs-official-ignore-democratic-subpoena-over-security-clearances/?utm_term=.f30fa20952a2

[COLGATE4]

1. Let's hope for all our sake that they follow through

on this. If not, we can bend over and kiss our collective ass goodbye since Trump will freely thumb his nose at Congress and their 'subpoenas'.

[Chin music]

3. +1

[iluvtennis]

34. + 2

[Amaryllis]

53. +3

[onit2day]

25. Please! It's not a "Democratic" subpoena, it's a "congressional" subpoena

Post and Trump are trying to make it all look like it's just democrats attacking us instead of it's breaking the law and being held accountable. Democrats need to reinforce the truth that breaking thee law is non partisan and should be enforced. If a Dem president told a former employee not to respond to a congressional subpoena there would be 24 hr coverage on all networks and the gov would shut down over it. Right now the media should be asking republicans if they support this, asking them if they support the presidents actions as revealed by the Mueller report. If a dem president did any of what Trump is doing the media would be focused on all elected dems, so why are they not focusing on republicans when it's a repub president?

[COLGATE4]

48. I don't believe I called it a "Democratic subpoena" since I referred

to Congress' subpoena. In any event, to answer your question, have you noticed just who owns the media outlets that are not focusing on republicans when it's a republican president? There's your answer.

[trueblue2007]

35. throw him in the slammer.

[orangecrush]

39. +3

[Pepsidog]

54. Bush used the same playbook and it worked. We need to work outside the box.

[COLGATE4]

55. Yes he did. We need to wake up.

[KPN]

56. I don't doubt that Cummings will. I don't think he's isn't doing this as a threat.

I'm sure he and all of our Congressional leaders (at least on our side of the aisle) understand the gravity of this situation and will not only hold fast, but act diligently and forcefully.

Have faith!

[beachbum bob]

2. trump will learn the power of congressional House over the presidency

[watoos]

4. I hope you are right,

Who is going to enforce the contempt charge?

Looks to me like the only way to go is impeachment.

[MyOwnPeace]

5. It's getting down and dirty............

and it is what we've gotta' do to save the democracy. There can be no let-up - we must fight for truth and law.

I AM NOT THROWING AWAY MY SHOT!

RISE UP, RISE UP!

[Faux pas]

6. The Dems remind me a lot

of the Dodgers, bases loaded, no outs and hit into a triple play. Sheesh.

[KPN]

57. WTF? How so? Holding a person in contempt is hitting into a triple play?

[machoneman]

7. Great! Do not delay Mr. Cummings on other misfits when they also refuse to appear! Lock Them Up!

[wryter2000]

8. Start arresting them

And don't let him out until he testifies under oath.

[cstanleytech]

10. Agree. nt

[pangaia]

12. But, WHO will arrest him?

[onit2day]

26. The FBI unless this is a dictatorship already.

[pangaia]

43. That's my concern.. the "already' part....

Thing is, we will not know when we have become a dictatorship until it is too late. It doesn't happen in one fell swoop...

[paleotn]

58. If the justice department refuses

there’s inherent contempt. The House Sargent at Arms can arrest and detain. It’s been done before.

[pangaia]

61. Really? I had no idea.

In that case I sure hope he/she is 'armed.'

[DallasNE]

9. House Votes Contempt, Trump Issues Pardon

Then what? Do we have a functioning Constitution or a Dictatorship?

[Brother Buzz]

27. A pardon wouldn't do squat and would would be to the orange anus' disadvantage

If you're pardoned, you can still be compelled to testify

[yaesu]

29. He could pardon him, as Bush Sr pardoned those tied to Iran Contra to kill further investigation

Barr was assisting Bush & is assisting tRump now so I think its very possible to do & get way with.

[vsrazdem]

44. He might try, and that definitely would be seen an an obstruction of justice.

[True Blue American]

41. Trump can not give

A pardon on a subpoena. They are just using delay tactics.

[pangaia]

11. Who is going to enforce the contempt charge?

Exactly the issue.
as trump gets more and more fascist federal judges, the rule of law will have less and less of a chance of being followed..

This is a biggie...

[BumRushDaShow]

14. Obama put quite a few judges in at all levels

so even with the GOP ones recently confirmed, they shouldn't have overturned anywhere near what would be needed to make a difference... at least yet.

I like to continue to post this info for FYI -

Obama will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.

Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-judicial-legacy_us_586c1944e4b0de3a08f9eb1f

And regarding the above mention of the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh was replaced 1 GOP to 1 GOP, so the numbers should still be the same.

[onit2day]

30. If only. McConnell is getting judges confirmed after only 2hrs of deliberation

and doing it at an alarmingly fast pace

[BumRushDaShow]

32. But again - they are not *removing* the Obama judges to replace with GOP ones

They may be filling other vacancies but unless Obama judges leave on their own accord or retire (or have some other circumstance occur like death) - and/or if some of the Clinton judges do the same, then those are the ones who would probably be replaced first and could start tilting things. But it will still take a bit of time and I am not hearing of any great exodus of Democratic-appointed judges.

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. A STRONGLY WORDED LETTER IMMEDIATELY!

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Here is the process

So what happens if a witness refuses to cooperate?

Congress can hold people in contempt if they obstruct committee proceedings by refusing to testify or provide documents, or for bribing or libeling a member. In 1821, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress needs the power to hold someone in contempt or else it would be “exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy, may meditate against it.”

The full House or Senate can approve a contempt citation by a majority vote, and then must hand the matter to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, “whose duty it shall be to bring the matter before the grand jury for its action,” according to the law.

http://time.com/5023920/trump-russia-election-congress-capitol-jail/

[ancianita]

16. Doesn't look anything like fast track to me.

[BumRushDaShow]

18. No unfortunately it isn't.

That article mentions that the (GOP) House (specifically dumbass Issa) made attempts at fast-tracking the authority in 2017 in order to go after Eric Holder when they held him in contempt... but that obviously went nowhere.

Link to article on that -

House passes bill to strengthen congressional subpoena enforcement
By Cristina Marcos - 10/23/17 06:15 PM EDT

<...>

Congress currently has the ability to hold people in contempt if they do not comply with subpoenas. Lawmakers can also turn to the courts to enforce a congressional subpoena. Issa himself led the efforts to hold former Attorney General Eric Holder and ex-IRS official Lois Lerner in contempt of Congress while he served as Oversight Committee chairman, a post he relinquished at the end of 2014 due to term limits. The House votes allowed a referral of contempt charges to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.

Issa had sought documents from the Justice Department regarding its “Fast and Furious” operation that allowed about 2,000 guns into Mexico so that authorities could trace them to drug cartels. Two guns linked to the operation were found at the scene of a border patrol agent’s death.

Then-President Obama invoked executive privilege so that the Justice Department wouldn’t have to provide the documents requested by Issa. The 2012 House vote declaring Holder in contempt was the first contempt vote of a sitting attorney general.

The House voted two years later to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify about the IRS scrutiny of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status. Neither contempt case, however, resulted in convictions.


https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/356785-house-passes-bill-to-strengthen-congressional-subpoena-enforcement

The fact that the above 2017 instance where Obama cited "executive privilege" (also doing so in 2012) to withhold docs/testimony is why this go-around, Cummings explicitly mentioned that Drumpf has yet to cite "executive privilege", thus his Committee's moving forward to do the contempt charges.

[ancianita]

21. Fine. We can just drag this out, then. But that's my issue. Get ON with impeachment proceedings

from the very first refusal to honor subpoenas. Period.

Get the evidence. Make the impeachment case.

That faster way will still take long enough. Impeachment might not bore voters or it might, because that's how they are.

A purposeful impeachment proceeding -- which doesn't look like the way they're doing it so far -- will have a better 2020 outcome for Democrats than a pre-impeachment slog.

My stance is to err on impeachment proceedings ASAP. There will be no loss of evidence from that path, and much less loss of time.

Maybe we'll even get on with seeing the Democratic Party primary events and nominee campaign on TV because of that.

Drag this evidence search out -- until 45 pardons himself and it all looks so lame duck -- that there will be too little time, if any, for a positive Democratic nominee to get air time and positive media coverage.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. Guess what? Just posted on LBN

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142306586



So they are at least getting stuff ready. But they really have to comb through what they have AND get the UNREDACTED version of the Mueller Report, so they will have everything they need to get started. They would really only have one chance at this.

[ancianita]

24. Fine. But it's consulting, to schedule, and "getting stuff ready." THEN "comb through...." See

the snail's pace here?

And when, again, do they get the UN-redacted report?

When that snail's pace slogs into the end of May, after weary Mueller's testimony.

I'm not nearly as optimistic as the "take it slow" crowd.

Good luck with that.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. This is basically a legal process

The House becomes the equivalent of a "Grand Jury" with the goal of bringing an indictment that the rest of the House chamber will vote on. You don't just go in there will nilly and random or you are not only guaranteed to fail, but you will make a laughing stock out of the Democrats.

The "impeachment" process has only been done THREE times in the entire 232 year history of the United States (i.e., since the ratification of the Constitution in 1787). Two of those times resulted in "impeachment" (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) but also with NO conviction in the Senate, and the third (against Nixon) resulted in his resigning before the effort reached the Senate.

This is not a "common thing".

[ancianita]

36. Right.It's all that.To drag this out with no impeachment proceeding make it harder than it has to be

I wouldn't let the history of other impeachments be the model this time around.

History is well and good, but results are better. Sooner than later.

All the evidence of crimes will come to light faster, the impeachment case made faster, thereby, with a judicial proceeding than with this arduous process you want to honor.

Democrats can be both thorough and well-paced in a judicial proceeding.

This way looks lame to the public. Social media reveals that. Especially with all the stalling and consulting and scheduling which doesn't look as "legal" to the public as much as it looks like "no productive action."

That's my stance -- to err on the evidence gathering thoroughness and impeachment case at a pace that shows Democratic leaders know what they're doing about this criminal president.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. It's not to "drag" anything out.

THIS is what is done in preparation. I remember both the Nixon and Clinton hearings.

Again, there have only been 3 times in the history that this process has been used and reached a hearing stage and the first one happened before anyone alive today was born - 1868. The other 2 times were during the lifetime of a number of folks and this is what is done.

It is unfortunate that the concern trolling is running rampant around DU today.

[ancianita]

42. I'm no concern troll. I take a stance. I consider context and consequences of pace on the vote.

The historical models were fine. Use them within the criminal context of this presidency so that, after congress people go back home and get feedback over the summer, the public can witness an impeachment vote first thing in the fall. Say, Thanksgiving.

No one will care what Trump does going into Christmas. Any self pardon will ring as wrong to a Christmasy christian-oriented public.

Then we can get on with the 2020 campaign.

I dig you, Bum, but you won't change my mind. Only some results SOON will do that.

We'll see.

EDIT: And don't accuse other DU'ers of concern trolling. It's not fair. They know what these committees can do when they work through an impeachment proceeding.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. If you take a stance

you need to take one based on Civics knowledge. And really, no one gives a shit even now about what goes on with the sausage-making in Washington D.C. either. It's just the political junkies who post on the internet and the paid "political analysts" on cable TV news shows. The public is watching the gasoline prices starting to skyrocket thanks to motor-mouth threats against Iran and I just heard a report this morning that the cost of clothes dryers went up along with washers despite the fact that dryers were not subject to the tariffs (i.e., this was apparently due to greed and is beyond the issues with the aluminum and steel tariffs).

I think everyone is aware of the criminality and the potential for dealing with that, but it is not on the forefront of the average person. You also have huge swaths of the U.S. who have just experienced (or continue to experience) massive flooding and other damage due to tornadoes and severe storms, so there are many just trying to deal with that and obviously don't care about any "pace" of "impeachment".

[ancianita]

46. I can take a stance, and so can the rest of DU and at the same time show Civics knowledge.

Come ON, now.

Re: ...You also have huge swaths of the U.S. who have just experienced (or continue to experience) massive flooding and other damage due to tornadoes and severe storms, so there are many just trying to deal with that and obviously don't care about any "pace" of "impeachment".

People suffering disasters? Really? Can't that also mean they won't deal with any prolonged ordeals that mitigate a government's likelihood of helping them? So maybe it will cause them not to trust that their voting will even matter?

None of that in any way makes our desire for a purposeful, productive pace concern trolling.

Come ON. Give some respect. The pace argument leaves nothing out -- not evidence, thoroughness of case building -- that you want.

[BumRushDaShow]

47. A "pace" argument

again establishes a lack of awareness of the process. There are some good resources on CSPAN (and in their video archives) on what has occurred in the past.

[ancianita]

49. The Pace Argument. The pace of impeachment proceedings inherently respects the process.

Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2019, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Daily, as I saw with the Nixon impeachment proceedings...

The public could easily see, in impeachment proceedings, that all the evidence, testimony, and the uncovered crimes are accounted for, and their faster pace in coming to light -- due to the very jurisdictional power inherent in impeachment proceedings -- in no way compromises the public's understanding of the case building that happens before their eyes.

The pace of impeachment proceedings -- instead of what it looks like we're headed for -- would be gratifying for both parties' voters to see, and would show the good governance that Democratic leadership wants to be known for.

I'm aware of CSPAN video archives. They would not turn off such proceedings the way they do CSPAN.

It's about time. Use of taxpayer dollars. Timely results. Voters will appreciate how impeachment proceedings will help them make more informed, less confused, better presidential voting decisions.

Polling during the impeachment proceedings process will bear this out.

[BumRushDaShow]

50. See what I posted about a most recent timeline and "pace"

here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142306586#post28

[displacedtexan]

62. Your syntax and number agreement choices are fascinating.

It reminds me of my second year undergrad German and French composition skills. By grad school, you completely forget how you used to write.

Thanks for the memories.

[ancianita]

63. Examples that fascinate you?

[onit2day]

33. Plus Mueller already handed them a summary for impeachment to begin.

leaving it to the house to take over and do their duty.

[ancianita]

37. Right. And soon.

Cuz right now I'm gettin' fat on popcorn when I'd prefer to be caffeinated on an impeachment proceeding.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. Mueller handed what to who?

Are you confusing the "Barr Summary" of the Mueller report that Barr gave to Congress, to the actual Mueller Summary of his report (that required no redactions) of the full report?

Mueller didn't give ANYTHING "directly to Congress". He gave his report, BY LAW, to the DOJ.

This is why the House is subpoenaing EVERYTHING.

[paleotn]

59. That depends

on Congess exerting their constitutional power. They can make it happen relatively quickly.

[ancianita]

60. I'm aware. I'm talking about the track they're on now, not the one they can make happen. I

spent half the day yesterday arguing for the soon and more timely implementation of their constitutional power.

So we agree.

[BlueJac]

17. I hope Congress engages in this wrestling match with Trump...

they need to prevail if anything is going to get accomplished.

[lagomorph777]

20. The wrestling match itself shows the public that Trump is desperately hiding something.

And we need to ask every day, in every public forum: "What is Trump hiding? It must be something HUGE."

[Bernardo de La Paz]

19. Tighten the screws in every way possible. . . . nt

[RicROC]

22. Bahr Obstruction.

Mr. Bahr should be arrested for Obstruction for lying about the Mueller Report and then obstructing its release to Congress.

[NYMinute]

31. Lock him up

Yeah … lock him up!

[LonePirate]

51. It's time to start jailing these fuckers.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

52. Lock him up!!!!!!