HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Kellyanne Conway's husban...

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:15 AM

Kellyanne Conway's husband just explained on Twitter that Congress CAN subpoena the interpreter

George Conway's tweet, explaining why this couldn't be blocked by claiming executive privilege:








It's part of this thread started by Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor and CNN analyst:



12 replies, 1453 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 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply Kellyanne Conway's husband just explained on Twitter that Congress CAN subpoena the interpreter (Original post)
highplainsdem Jan 13 OP
dalton99a Jan 13 #1
Gothmog Jan 13 #2
dawg day Jan 13 #3
Marcuse Jan 13 #10
mucifer Jan 13 #4
Sneederbunk Jan 13 #5
Hoyt Jan 13 #6
Downtown Hound Jan 13 #11
dem4decades Jan 13 #7
TheBlackAdder Jan 13 #8
onenote Jan 13 #9
Gothmog Jan 13 #12

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:16 AM

1. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:17 AM

2. There is no privilege

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:19 AM

3. I wonder if Mr. Conway is warning Mrs. Conway --

on exactly the right moment to jump ship before she does something she can be indicted for.

I don't think it's going to be very long. Everyone in the White House should be checking the Wikipedia page of "Watergate Convictions"-- oh. Not ONE page. 23 PAGES!

B
Bernard Barker
C
Dwight Chapin
Charles Colson
D
John Dean
Harry S. Dent Sr.
E
John Ehrlichman
G
Virgilio Gonzalez
H
H. R. Haldeman
E. Howard Hunt
K
Herbert W. Kalmbach
Richard Kleindienst
Egil Krogh
L
Fred LaRue
G. Gordon Liddy
M
Jeb Stuart Magruder
Robert Mardian
Eugenio Martínez
James W. McCord Jr.
John N. Mitchell
P
Herbert Porter
S
Donald Segretti
Maurice Stans
Frank Sturgis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dawg day (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 01:05 AM

10. Would you warn her if you were in his place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:21 AM

4. Oy vey. I don't envy that poor interpreter.

I mean that is just not something he or she signed was considering when taking that craptastic job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:22 AM

5. Interpreter needs protection 24/7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:27 AM

6. I doubt trump talked about anything damning in front of an identifiable interpreter.

Too easy to do it over phone with a “criminal” interpreter so that very few people know discussion is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 01:19 AM

11. Whatever it was, it was enough that Trump tried to keep it hidden from his own staff

And bear in mind that this is a man who literally challenged the Russians in front of the whole world to hack Hillary Clinton. Never underestimate Trump's hubris and arrogance. He has gotten away with it all his life, and until recently, he has had no reason to believe he wouldn't get away with it no matter what.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:29 AM

7. I'm surprised Trump even had a US translator there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dem4decades (Reply #7)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:32 AM

8. That's a mistake I'm sure he won't make the next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 12:37 AM

9. Conway's legal analysis is overly simplistic

The fact that Putin was a party to the conversation does not mean that it isn’t privileged.

From the Supreme Court decision in the Nixon case: “The President's need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.”

Trump would claim and the courts might agree that the conversation between trump and Putin must remain confidential to protect military diplomatic or national security secrets. I don’t know how the courts would rule but it’s not the slam dunk Conway’s tweet suggests.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2019, 03:19 AM

12. No privilege

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread