"immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist.”

[OKTexas]

The FACT is the ICIG had no jurisdiction to accept or act on the complaint. .

The fact is the IC IG changed the rules because of this bogus complaint by someone who does not meet the qualifications as a 'Whistle Blower', someone whose complaint is based completely on HEARSAY, allowing the complaint to be expedited - sent to the Dems / Schiff & his House Intel Committee
- The House Intel Committee is supposed to be a committee that deals with substantiated collected Intel - FACT - not political hearsay.

The fact was the non-qualifying 'whistle blower' went directly to Schiff and his staff BEFORE filing their complaint, making Schiff a contact witness that should not only disqualify him from leading this investigation but also from even being involved.

The fact is that the complaint was dismissed by the prosecutorial divisions of the DOJ because it was hearsay, un-verifiable, much like the Russian-authored Counter-Intelligence 'Trump Dossier' Propaganda.

The fact is that despite the prosecutorial divisions of the DOJ ruling there was NOTHING to this 'whistle blower complaint' BS, Lying / Leaking Schiff STILL leaked the complaint to the public to justify their opening an Impeachment Hearing based on HEARSAY and innuendo, much like Comey leaking info to the press through his friend so a pre-coordinated Special Counsel could be assigned and the 'Collusion Delusion 1.0' coup attempt could go forward.

The fact is the circus run by Schiff that followed exposed the fact that this was another failed coup attempt by the Democrats who once again attempted to remove a President from office based on no crime committed, no evidence of a crime, no whistle blower, and no witnesses, as no one witnessed anything....and it was televised for the entire world to see.

It was such a disaster that polls in Democratic-held parts of the country show Democrats don't even want the President Impeached based on the Democrats' BS self-destructing televised coup attempt, and more Democrats are jumping off of the 'Impeach Trump' train now.

All that has been covered, the commies just don't care.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony, judge says

The judge rules Trump's absurd assertion of blanket immunity, a claim never before made by any prez because...........ridiculous...........is total bullshyte.

Clearly, the ruling has implications for the impeachment inquiry.

The mind boggling aspect of the ruling is................Billy the Bagman is contesting it. The guy who is supposed to be the people's lawyer is working in Trump's interest, not the country's. Imagine my surprise.

Claims one judge, it could be reversed.

.

Nixon lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court and had to turn over the tapes.

The President is not a King with unlimited power over the government.

Subpoenas for materials(ie physical evidence) and in person witnesses are two different animals. You might want to learn the difference.

.

.

 

[BlindBoo]

orry, she and her lawyers were obviously too stupid to realize one can not 'give testimony', even if a prepared written statement, and then plead the 5th. By law, at that point, she could NOT plead the 5th.

" However, the team also concluded that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making an opening statement on May 22,2013, because she made only general claims of innocence. Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should she be prosecuted under Section 192 for her refusal to testify. Given this assessment, we have furlher concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attomey to present a matter to the grand jury for action where, as here. the Constitution prevents the witness tiom being prosecuted fbr contempt. We respectlirlly inforrn you that we will therefbre not bring the Congressional contempt citation befbre a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Ms. Lerner for her refusal to testity on March 5.2014.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/04/01/letter.to.honorable.john.boehner.pdf

 

[easyt65]

orry, she and her lawyers were obviously too stupid to realize one can not 'give testimony', even if a prepared written statement, and then plead the 5th. By law, at that point, she could NOT plead the 5th.

" However, the team also concluded that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making an opening statement on May 22,2013, because she made only general claims of innocence. Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should she be prosecuted under Section 192 for her refusal to testify. Given this assessment, we have furlher concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attomey to present a matter to the grand jury for action where, as here. the Constitution prevents the witness tiom being prosecuted fbr contempt. We respectlirlly inforrn you that we will therefbre not bring the Congressional contempt citation befbre a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Ms. Lerner for her refusal to testity on March 5.2014.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/04/01/letter.to.honorable.john.boehner.pdf

Of course Democrats and Obama's administration protected one of the key players in the IRS scandal that trampled the Constitutional Rights of citizens who opposed Obama's 2nd term. F* Conservatives' Constitutional Rights - co-conspiring Obama admin personnel had to be protected...and Obama protected his own.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony, judge says

The judge rules Trump's absurd assertion of blanket immunity, a claim never before made by any prez because...........ridiculous...........is total bullshyte.

Clearly, the ruling has implications for the impeachment inquiry.

The mind boggling aspect of the ruling is................Billy the Bagman is contesting it. The guy who is supposed to be the people's lawyer is working in Trump's interest, not the country's. Imagine my surprise.

Claims one judge, it could be reversed.

.

Nixon lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court and had to turn over the tapes.

The President is not a King with unlimited power over the government.

Subpoenas for materials(ie physical evidence) and in person witnesses are two different animals. You might want to learn the difference.

.

.

Trumpybear is trying to assert absolute power over both.

 

[ReinyDays]

You need to sic the hell out of that quote ... or quote somebody that can spelt gooder ...

 

[OKTexas]

You should have waited to respond to my second post in the tread.

Honestly, I could argue both sides, if McGahn is eventually forced to comply and show up, there's nothing that would prevent him from exerting executive privilege and not answering questions. Executive privilege is recognized by the courts.

Just didn't see it.

He could also plead the 5th. Executive privilege. Here's a long analysis of that very question.

What is “executive privilege”? In the specific context of information disputes between the executive branch and Congress, the Supreme Court has never addressed—let alone answered—that question. Nevertheless, as the Trump administration repeatedly relies on that constitutional doctrine to reject demands for information and testimony, the question has been at the forefront of a spate of journalism and legal commentary.

The Executive’s Privilege: Rethinking the President’s Power to Withhold Information

In sum, the question of “what is executive privilege?” is an enormously difficult one, particularly in the current partisan environment. But it is a vitally important question to try to answer as the conflicts escalate between the executive branch and Congress. I have proposed one definition, but I by no means think it is the only possible one.

Regardless of the answer, however, it should be clear that the privilege does not apply to impeachment. And what has gone unrecognized to date, I think, is that if executive privilege does not apply to impeachment, then these other related prophylactic doctrines disappear along with it, whatever one thinks of their applicability to oversight more generally. The executive’s privilege, in my view, is limited to oversight. An impeachment inquiry—soon to be affirmed by the full House—is now under way. As a result, executive privilege—and all its attendant prophylactic doctrines—should be set aside. The president and executive branch officials must, in Wilson’s words, “appear[] at the bar of the house, to give an account of their conduct.”

The blog didn't tell the whole story, the supremes have addressed it but not exhaustively.

Executive privilege - Wikipedia

.

 

[Rigby5]

Historically the separations of powers has ALWAYS ensured executive "immunity from compelled congressional process".
Nor is there any legal basis in the Constitution for any congressional process that would compel anyone at all.
Only the executive can enforce anything.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect when revealing information would impair governmental functions. Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]

In addition to which branch of government is requesting the information, another characteristic of executive privilege is whether it involves a "presidential communications privilege" or instead a "deliberative process privilege" or some other type of privilege.[4] The deliberative process privilege is often considered to be rooted in common law, whereas the presidential communications privilege is often considered to be rooted in separation of powers, thus making the deliberative process privilege less difficult to overcome.[4][6] Generally speaking, presidents, congresses and courts have historically tended to sidestep open confrontations through compromise and mutual deference in view of previous practice and precedents regarding the exercise of executive privilege.
...}

 

[BlindBoo]

orry, she and her lawyers were obviously too stupid to realize one can not 'give testimony', even if a prepared written statement, and then plead the 5th. By law, at that point, she could NOT plead the 5th.

" However, the team also concluded that Ms. Lerner did not waive her Fifth Amendment privilege by making an opening statement on May 22,2013, because she made only general claims of innocence. Thus, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution would provide Ms. Lerner with an absolute defense should she be prosecuted under Section 192 for her refusal to testify. Given this assessment, we have furlher concluded that it is not appropriate for a United States Attomey to present a matter to the grand jury for action where, as here. the Constitution prevents the witness tiom being prosecuted fbr contempt. We respectlirlly inforrn you that we will therefbre not bring the Congressional contempt citation befbre a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute Ms. Lerner for her refusal to testity on March 5.2014.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/04/01/letter.to.honorable.john.boehner.pdf

Of course Democrats and Obama's administration protected one of the key players in the IRS scandal that trampled the Constitutional Rights of citizens who opposed Obama's 2nd term. F* Conservatives' Constitutional Rights - co-conspiring Obama admin personnel had to be protected...and Obama protected his own.

Conclusion We wish to assure you that the Department of Justice does not question the authority of Congress "to summon witnesses before either House or before their committees," or "to pass laws 'necessary and proper' to carry into effect its power to get testimony." See Adams v. Maryland, 347 U.S. 179, 183 (1954) (citing U.S. Const. art. I, $ 8). Thus, in appropriate circumstances, a United States Attomey's Office will refbr to a grand jury r"rnder Section 192 witnesses who contumaciously withhold testimony or other information that Congress has legitimately sought to compel in the exercise of its legislative or oversight responsibilities. Because, however. the authority of any branch of the United States government to compel witness testimony is limited by the protections of the Constitution. and Ms. Lemer did not waive those protections in this matter, the United States Attorney's Office will not bring the instant contempt citation before a grand jury.

 

[OKTexas]

Ex-White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony, judge says

The judge rules Trump's absurd assertion of blanket immunity, a claim never before made by any prez because...........ridiculous...........is total bullshyte.

Clearly, the ruling has implications for the impeachment inquiry.

The mind boggling aspect of the ruling is................Billy the Bagman is contesting it. The guy who is supposed to be the people's lawyer is working in Trump's interest, not the country's. Imagine my surprise.

Claims one judge, it could be reversed.

.

Nixon lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court and had to turn over the tapes.

The President is not a King with unlimited power over the government.

Subpoenas for materials(ie physical evidence) and in person witnesses are two different animals. You might want to learn the difference.

.

.

Trumpybear is trying to assert absolute power over both.

That's what the courts are for.

.

 

[Rigby5]

Congress is not a judicial entity that can require truth due to the impact it has on the rights of others.
Congress is a political entity that has its own biased and political agenda, so the individual right of privacy has vastly superior jurisdiction.
If congress were to claim the authority of the judiciary in terms of compelling testimony, then it would have to also follow the rules of a court room, and ALL of its members would then be required to recuse themselves.