One more disaster for Trump
- Thread starter The Barbarian
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It means nothing but the fact that McGahn has to show up. Then he can claim executive privilege. And then there is absolutely nothing which compels him to testify about anything.
Evidently the fake news knows nothing about separation of powers and executive privilege or they don't want you to know about those things.
That was what the judge decided. Turns out, in Constitutional issues, the Judicial branch makes the decision. The self-inflicted destruction of the Trump presidency continues.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you saying that McGahn doesn't have the right to claim executive privilege when he appears to testify?
If the Democrats think that they can make him testify then a decision on that will go to the courts and the Democrats have already demonstrated that they do not want to do that! They know they will lose in the courts.
[h=1]Donald Trump Tweet Just Waived Any Hope of Claiming Executive Privilege Over Don McGhan Testimony, Legal Experts Say[/h] President Donald Trump may have spoiled his chance of claiming executive privilege to block the testimony of former White House Counsel Don McGahn, the prominent witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, according to legal experts.
McGahn told Mueller that he refused Trump's 2017 directive to have the special counsel fired for what the president saw as a conflict of interest. On Thursday, Trump fired off a series of tweets denying the event. Afterward, some legal experts made the argument that the president could no longer claim executive privilege to block McGahn from testifying before Congress.
"To the extent [Trump] had any argument about executive privilege (which was clearly already waived) it's 100% gone now," Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, tweeted Thursday. "Can't hide behind legal privilege & then go out & give your (lying) version of the facts. That's the law & it's just common sense."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tweet-executive-privilege-mcgahn-testimony-1406222
McGahn told Mueller that he refused Trump's 2017 directive to have the special counsel fired for what the president saw as a conflict of interest. On Thursday, Trump fired off a series of tweets denying the event. Afterward, some legal experts made the argument that the president could no longer claim executive privilege to block McGahn from testifying before Congress.
"To the extent [Trump] had any argument about executive privilege (which was clearly already waived) it's 100% gone now," Mimi Rocah, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, tweeted Thursday. "Can't hide behind legal privilege & then go out & give your (lying) version of the facts. That's the law & it's just common sense."
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-tweet-executive-privilege-mcgahn-testimony-1406222
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There is a dispute according to legal experts so it will be decided in the courts. And the Democrats have already proven that they don't want to take the time that it will take. The Democrats lose again in their efforts to set precedents which will weaken the power of Presidents in the future. They couldn't care less about the separation of powers which is a foundation of the Constitution of the USA!
Could you provide a legal expert who says that Trump can invoke executive privilege after publicly discussing the matter? Who is that?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
"The Justice Department asked a federal judge Tuesday to put a temporary pause on her ruling that orders former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in the House impeachment probe, saying it needs the delay to pursue an appeal. While expected, the move from DOJ means that the primary congressional panel responsible for drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump likely won’t hear anytime soon from McGahn, one of the star witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report...DOJ’s petition to pause the decision argued that it expects to succeed as it appeals up the legal chain. It maintains that a president’s advisers are, indeed, “absolute immune” from a congressional subpoena. No binding federal appeals court decision has yet touched that question, the department said."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...testify-073923
Yep.
Barbarian asks:
Could you provide a legal expert who says that Trump can invoke executive privilege after publicly discussing the matter? Who is that?
(Jerry can't name one, but he's sure that they are out there)
Looking back on the 1970s, Akerman recalled that Nixon also encountered people in the federal government who refused to cave into his demands. The attorney explained, “When Nixon tried to get the IRS to audit people on his enemies list, he got stymied because people in the civil service wouldn’t go along with the craziness and illegality.”
Akerman predicted that more Trump associates will be flipping on him in the future —and the former Watergate special prosecutor doesn’t believe that Trump inspires the degree of loyalty that Nixon did.
“If you compare it to Watergate, Nixon had real loyalists who’d lay and die in front of a steamroller for him,” Akerman told Feinberg. “Other than maybe his daughter and son-in-law, there aren’t a lot of people I’d put money on to take a bullet for (Trump).”
For his article, Feinberg also interviewed former Trump aide Sam Nunberg to discuss the series of testimonies. And Nunberg acknowledged, “People are showing up — and in a perfect world, it would be better for the president’s defense if they didn’t.”
https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/ex...-congress-these-people-arent-beholden-to-him/
Could you provide a legal expert who says that Trump can invoke executive privilege after publicly discussing the matter? Who is that?
(Jerry can't name one, but he's sure that they are out there)
Looking back on the 1970s, Akerman recalled that Nixon also encountered people in the federal government who refused to cave into his demands. The attorney explained, “When Nixon tried to get the IRS to audit people on his enemies list, he got stymied because people in the civil service wouldn’t go along with the craziness and illegality.”
Akerman predicted that more Trump associates will be flipping on him in the future —and the former Watergate special prosecutor doesn’t believe that Trump inspires the degree of loyalty that Nixon did.
“If you compare it to Watergate, Nixon had real loyalists who’d lay and die in front of a steamroller for him,” Akerman told Feinberg. “Other than maybe his daughter and son-in-law, there aren’t a lot of people I’d put money on to take a bullet for (Trump).”
For his article, Feinberg also interviewed former Trump aide Sam Nunberg to discuss the series of testimonies. And Nunberg acknowledged, “People are showing up — and in a perfect world, it would be better for the president’s defense if they didn’t.”
https://www.alternet.org/2019/10/ex...-congress-these-people-arent-beholden-to-him/
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Do you deny that those at the Justice Department are in the dark as to whether or not Trump can invoke executive privilege after publicly discussing the matter?
"The Justice Department asked a federal judge Tuesday to put a temporary pause on her ruling that orders former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in the House impeachment probe, saying it needs the delay to pursue an appeal. While expected, the move from DOJ means that the primary congressional panel responsible for drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump likely won’t hear anytime soon from McGahn, one of the star witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report...DOJ’s petition to pause the decision argued that it expects to succeed as it appeals up the legal chain. It maintains that a president’s advisers are, indeed, “absolute immune” from a congressional subpoena. No binding federal appeals court decision has yet touched that question, the department said."
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...testify-073923
You can't see the writing on the wall because you don't want to see that what you called a "victory" was anything but because there will be no testimony from McGahn unless the Democrats want to drag this thing out for months and months.
Why wouldn't Trump want McGhan to to testify? What corruption are they trying to hide?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Trump understands the importance of the separation of powers under the Constitution. He is defending the principle of executive privilege because without it the Presidency is weakened and the framers of the Constitution didn't want it to be weakened in that way.
In fact, Obama invoked executive privilege during his first scandal, "Fast and Furious":
Attorney General Eric Holder speaks in Boston on June 26 while a vote loomed to hold him in contempt of Congress for withholding records of Operation Fast and Furious.
President Barack Obama’s recent assertion of executive privilege in the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious highlights the difficulty journalists can face when invocation of the centuries-old doctrine prevents the disclosure of information necessary to effectively gather and report news about important government action.
https://www.rcfp.org/journals/fast-furious-and-executive-pr/
What's good for the gander is good for the goose!
It's either that, or it's that Trump knows he will get pwned by yet another witness in the impeachment testimony. I suspect the latter.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You can suspect what you like but merely suspecting that something is true is not "proof" that it is. And the whole Trump impeachment inquiry has not proven that Trump told anyone that the Ukraines woud not get the aid unless the Bidens were investigated.
Well we've already seen plenty of proof that Trump is a huge liar, so adding a few more lies to the already huge heap of Trump's lies is not much of a stretch at all.
How many times did Trump say, "There was no quid pro quo"? And how many of his own appointees have admitted that there was, in fact, a "quid pro quo"?
Remember Jer, these people who testify are under oath. If they lie under oath, they are subject to prosecution. So, rather than subject themselves to prosecution, Gordon Sondland et al have opted to tell the truth.
Last edited: