HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can Trump block McGann fr...

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:27 PM

Can Trump block McGann from testifying by employing executive privilege

Or can McGann do whatever he wishes as a private citizen.

21 replies, 1777 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 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can Trump block McGann from testifying by employing executive privilege (Original post)
prodigitalson Apr 2019 OP
elleng Apr 2019 #1
sfwriter Apr 2019 #5
DeminPennswoods Apr 2019 #9
shanny Apr 2019 #2
Goodheart Apr 2019 #3
former9thward Apr 2019 #14
marylandblue Apr 2019 #4
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #6
DeminPennswoods Apr 2019 #10
watoos Apr 2019 #7
watoos Apr 2019 #8
2naSalit Apr 2019 #11
ProudMNDemocrat Apr 2019 #12
former9thward Apr 2019 #13
Fiendish Thingy Apr 2019 #15
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #16
former9thward Apr 2019 #17
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #18
former9thward Apr 2019 #19
Cadfael Apr 2019 #20
TeamPooka Apr 2019 #21

Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:29 PM

1. No, he's already testified on the matters at issue (I think,)

so 'executive privilege' not available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #1)


Response to elleng (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:40 PM

9. Yes, but

it's possible that questions outside the things McGahn testified to with the SCO could be subject to executive privilege claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:29 PM

2. pretty sure "private citizen" trumps (heh) executive privilege

 

no matter what the tangerine tantrum says

also too, rump already waived executive privilege by allowing him to testify in the first place. stupid is as stupid does.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:30 PM

3. trump loses on both counts

He already waived executive privilege by allowing him to testify to Mueller in the first place. And then trump can't keep a private citizen from testifying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goodheart (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 11:33 PM

14. Yes he can.

You don't know federal government rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:30 PM

4. Pretty sure he can do whatever he wants except reveal classified info.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:33 PM

6. All the legal talking heads seem to agree that Trump waived any claim of executive privilege

when he allowed McGahn to talk to Mueller. And McGahn is a private citizen who probably has no desire to ignore a Congressional subpoena just to protect Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:42 PM

10. Reportedly McGahn is agnostic about testifying

He has a legal supoena, wants to obey the law and doesn't want to be cited for contempt of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:34 PM

7. McGahn stated he would do whatever was legal.

 

He could decide to wait until Trump's appeal is decided in the courts, which could take years.

If he simply showed up for the hearing would Trump sue him and drag him through the courts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:38 PM

8. Everyone is missing the point what Trump wants to do.

 

Trump doesn't intend to win the case, he intends to draw it out in the courts. There is talk that the courts will expedite Trump's challenges because he is basically challenging our rule of law, but who can trust the courts now that they are being packed with Nazis?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to watoos (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 10:53 PM

11. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 11:08 PM

12. Executive Privilege was waived for McGahn to talk with Mueller......

So McGahn can and should testify before Congress about what he told Mueller, which is already a Public record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 11:30 PM

13. Yes.

When you work for the federal government you are subject to Executive Privilege your entire life. You sign paperwork stating that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 25, 2019, 11:34 PM

15. And what would be the charge for violating that?

What is the name of the crime for violating Executive Privilege?

I don't think you are right about this, but will happily read any link you care to post with evidence supporting your assertion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #13)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 12:04 AM

16. Not if the privilege has been waived, and the president holds the privilege, not the employee.

Since the president has waived the privilege by not asserting it when McGahn was called to talk to Mueller, McGahn can now testify to Congress about the same things he told Mueller. As to the question of whether Trump can prevent him from showing up at all now that he is no longer employed by the WH, no, he can't. McGahn has to comply with the subpoena like any other private citizen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #16)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 10:15 AM

17. Congress will not ask the "exact same things" as Mueller.

If they did then what would be the point of testimony? Mueller was part of the Executive branch. Congress is not. Executive privilege is used with other branches of government. I doubt a court would enforce a subpoena given to McGahn. Have you forgotten Eric Holder refused a Congressional subpoena and won his court case?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #17)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 11:14 AM

18. United States v. Nixon says otherwise.

The court held that "neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more," can sustain the privilege, and that "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..." Nixon challenged the subpoena "as a third party requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution; he does so on the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications. He does not place his claim of privilege on the ground they are military or diplomatic secrets." While a Congressional investigation is not identical to a criminal trial, it can have criminal as well as other ramifications. I don't see any way past US v. Nixon on the privilege issue.

The Holder matter was very different.

A federal judge has declined a House committee's bid to have Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of court and perhaps even jailed for failing to turn over documents related to the Justice Department' s response to Operation Fast and Furious.

However, in a ruling Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson also denied Holder's request for an indefinite stay of her prior order that the attorney general must turn over any "non-privileged" documents the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee subpoenaed as part of an investigation into the botched gunrunning investigation. The judge previously ruled that Holder must give the panel any documents that are not both predecisional and deliberative in nature.

Jackson called the House contempt motion "entirely unnecessary" and said it was evident that she was considering the government's motion to lift her prior order. "Under those circumstances, the Court finds no basis to hold defendant in contempt," she wrote.

But the judge also said she saw no reason to allow the Justice Department to withhold unprivileged documents until the case was complete. She ordered those records turned over to the committee by Nov. 3, along with a log of the records claimed to be privileged.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/10/judge-declines-to-hold-holder-in-contempt-196650

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #18)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 05:55 PM

19. The Holder case was not different.

Just different parties.

The White House and the Justice Department made clear Friday what had been expected all along: Attorney General Eric Holder will not face criminal prosecution under the contempt of Congress citation passed by the U.S. House.
Legal experts noted this week in the runup to Thursday's House vote that President Barack Obama's assertion of executive privilege in the case would prevent a criminal prosecution under a practice dating to the Reagan administration.


https://www.cnn.com/2012/06/29/politics/holder-contempt/index.html

In the end only a few of the requested documents were turned over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prodigitalson (Original post)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 06:10 PM

20. Renato Mariotti

has an interesting thread on this subject on Twitter:





Link to article: https://t.co/01vlvDzR0S

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cadfael (Reply #20)

Fri Apr 26, 2019, 06:14 PM

21. This is why Democrats need to start having House Committee Counsel's ask the questions, like

during Watergate.
It's not about your 5 minutes on CNN looking tough Reps!

It's about professionally grilling these people on their actions and knowledge.

Congressional Committee Counsels do that best.

Let them take lead on all "interrogations"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread