General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCBS obtained a copy of the letter sent to Yates attorney by the WH.
JUST IN: A 3/24 letter from DOJ to Sally Yates states she must get authorization from WH to testify about convos w/ WH, CBS News can confirm
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/846751317355872257
They seriously do not want her to speak to congress. The question now is will she be able to or not?
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)Note the words "likely" and "possibly" ---
global1
(25,241 posts)the best defense is a good offense. This might be the WH & Trump's attempt at an offense here.
What are the consequences to Yates - if she just goes public and tells all she knows. It would be the patriotic thing to do - in light of the damage Russian interference is doing to our democracy.
gratuitous
(82,849 posts)Even though Yates and another DOJ official met with someone from the Office of the Counsel to the President, DOJ is claiming that while it doesn't have any opinion on whether Yates can disclose what was discussed in the meeting, the Office of the Counsel might assert a privilege, and DOJ helpfully provided one or two grounds that the White House might assert (just in case nobody in the Office of the Counsel knew how to stop Yates' testimony to the House committee).
herding cats
(19,564 posts)They made sure the WH knows what to use to block her testimony.
mopinko
(70,086 posts)yodermon
(6,143 posts)If the information is not classified, how does "deliberative process privilege" conflict with Yates' First Amendment rights?
Sanity Claws
(21,846 posts)Also keep in mind that Yates was acting in her capacity as an attorney. Attorneys cannot divulge confidential communications. That trumps her First Amendment rights.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There are a variety of types of "privileges" that render conversations to be immune from discovery or testimony. The most well known one is the "attorney client privilege".
If you consult with me on a legal matter, then if I am asked to testify about our discussion, it is not up to me whether I can provide that testimony. It is up to you. My first amendment rights don't enter into it.
Botany
(70,496 posts)So a former U.S. Attorney General is not allowed to testify about a crime
unless the subject of the criminal complaint gives the OK to allow the
testimony?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm not sure I understand your question.
Whether Yates can testify on the subject matter of her consultation with the White House is up to the White House at this point. It really depends on the exact subject matter in question.
Botany
(70,496 posts)But does that letter have any weight? Can the Trump White House keep
Yates from giving testimony? And what about information she learned
when Obama was President?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)When a privilege is raised, the facts around the assertion merit scrutiny. I'm not familiar with the precise capacity in which she was acting in relation to what the committee wants to know.
As for the previous president, I do not know, but if I had to guess my inclination is to believe that the privilege belongs to the office, not the person.
Botany
(70,496 posts)# 21 in the thread ..... Yate's lawyer tells the W.H. to get bent.
elleng
(130,865 posts)that the internal processes of the executive branch of a government are immune from normal disclosure or discovery in civil litigations, Freedom of Information Act requests, etc.
Deliberative process privilege - Wikipedia
Akamai
(1,779 posts)principle that the internal processes of the executive branch of a government are immune from normal disclosure or discovery in civil litigations, Freedom of Information Act requests, etc."
I sure as hell hope this does not stop Ms. Yates from testifying. If it does, it clearly shows that Trump and his minions have something to hide.
FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)...why can't Obama testify as to what he was told by Yates?
Obama also has presidential communications privilege, am I right?
Just sayin'
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)But the rules are different for congressional hearings.
This isn't a trial - yet.
I think people can give opinions and impressions without actual proof.
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Gothmog
(145,130 posts)FakeNoose
(32,634 posts)Plus - Trump fired Yates so she has no fucks to give.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)ATL Ebony
(1,097 posts)It was after the chaos of the first travel ban
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They sure are acting strangely.
Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)but can Ms. Yates testify to things she learned or communicated about Trump's underlings when Trump was simply PEOTUS.
Can she testify as to her knowledge during the time BO was POTUS and HE owned the privilege?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)He informed WH Counsel that Yates intended to testify as scheduled today--And then Nunes abruptly canceled the hearing.
Now media reports indicate WH is claiming the WaPo report on this is false. I expect Shouty Spice will say at today's press conf. that the WH never blocked Yates from testifying...just invited her to consult with them so they could make a determination on privilege.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)CBS News? @CBSNews
NEW: WH "took no action that prevented [Sally] Yates from testifying" in Russia investigation, @PressSec says (link: http://cbsn.ws/1UJwwDb) cbsn.ws/1UJwwDb
https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/846772575283941377
Volaris
(10,270 posts)Somebody should ask that traitorous little obstructionist how the president's cock tasted.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)They're all in this together.
Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)
ymetca This message was self-deleted by its author.
ATL Ebony
(1,097 posts)Yates will testify for the Senate commission (eff the House and it's attempt to cover up)
Pantagruel
(2,580 posts)Assume no privilege but it's unclear, my guess is some Senator will try to assert it at specific times ?
Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel even if she doesnt appear before House committee
"Source: The Raw Story
Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel even if she doesnt appear before House committee
TRAVIS GETTYS
28 MAR 2017 AT 13:40 ET
Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general, will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the election.
The Obama appointee was blocked from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee after its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), canceled this weeks hearings, where Yates had been scheduled to appear.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committees vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)calimary
(81,220 posts)Good questions you bring up. One of the many problems we all face in this madness is - we've never been down this path before. We've never seen shit like this before. We've never seen machinations and sneaky-ass shit like this before. As bad as Watergate and Iran/Contra were, there was NOTHING like what we have now - with this Russian undercurrent running through everything involving OUR White House and this so-called White House occupant.
Unfortunately, we've also never had this kind of partisan divide, where the bad guys really ARE bad guys, putting party and power over country and bipartisan responsibility. We've never had adversaries THIS desperate to take OUR White House back so they can jam their agenda-from-Hell down America's throats. Back during Watergate, we had reasonable, honorable, patriotic, and willingly-accountable Republicans, with a capital "R", like Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker, who really did have the greater good as a priority. Those Republicans are LONG-GONE. Now all we have are mercenaries, apostates, idiots, and a raging cancer of adult-sized three-year-old "No-one-is-the-boss-of-me/I-hate-the-government" types who only want to tear down and destroy because they think that's how they'll get their way. And abysmal, willfully-ignorant collectives that call themselves the "Freedom Caucus" - when it would be more accurate to call them the ANARCHY Caucus.
Augiedog
(2,545 posts)Thekaspervote
(32,757 posts)She has her own legal team advising her. Likely and possibly don't sound like cease and desist. Someone posted earlier that Nixon tried the same thing
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)in general about Flynn??? Her testimony would still be useful, no?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Of course, they didn't have to go through with their threat because Nunes was canceling the hearing.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Shaking my head( which is allowed because Spiicer can't see me)
Paladin
(28,252 posts)And I hope she has more-than-adequate personal protection.
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,999 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)So the issue is Nunes canceling the hearing?
herding cats
(19,564 posts)On Friday, when Yatess lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.5a78ae35cd43
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Doesn't make much sense she would change her mind to testify, but anyway.
So Nunes canceled.
calimary
(81,220 posts)If they're so innocent, why are they twisting themselves into Cirque du Soleil contortions to blockade everything?
If everything's on the up-n-up, why are they trying so massively hard to hide it all?
Hey, if you're innocent, isn't your first instinct to want to shout it from the rooftops? And tell everyone who'll listen - and even those who won't - that you're innocent? Wouldn't you be rarin' to go with evidence and proof and exculpatory information - that you'd want EVERYONE to see, read, hear about, and receive - for closer examination? The behavior exhibited here loudly telegraphs something to hide. Ie: GUILT.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,406 posts)Here are More than 400 Officials Trump has Quietly Deployed Across the Government
By Al Shaw, Justin Elliott and Derek Kravitz, ProPublica, March 8, 2017
Scott Schools is not on the list.
It says here he left seven years ago. He must have come back:
Longtime DOJ Official Scott Schools Leaving Agency
He did, in October:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-schools-03090b8
kentuck
(111,079 posts)Don't you think?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)of her
Mahalo, herding!