Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Former White House counsel Don McGahn will not appear Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, defying the committee's subpoena and setting the stage for another contempt vote to retaliate against the Trump administration for rejecting the demands of Congress.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"He's hiding something! This is it! This is the ONE!!"

- Every day since 2016

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-20 04:11 PM | Reply

The only question I have is whether or not congress can compel him to testify.

I don't know the answer and I don't just accept the WH explanation.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-20 04:12 PM | Reply

"The only question I have "

remember when this administration was "transparent like a Fishbowl"!

it was "Refreshing" some asshat said

HARHAR

#3 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-20 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#2

This will explain the procedural history of the Absolute Immunity of the President from Congressional Testimony and how it arguably extends to their aides...every President since Truman has faced this issue, only under Nixon (Haldemann) and W (Miers) have Presidential aides been forced to provide testimony:

Immunity of the Assistant to the President and
Director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach From Congressional Subpoena

#4 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-20 04:35 PM | Reply

#4. Thanks for that.

#5 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-20 04:55 PM | Reply

Finally, in Committee on Judiciary v. Miers, the District Court for the District
of Columbia considered a question very similar to the one raised here, and
concluded that a former Counsel to the President was not entitled to absolute
immunity from congressional compulsion to testify. 558 F. Supp. 2d at 99. The
court's analysis relied heavily on Harlow, Harlow's discussion of Gravel, and
Nixon. See 558 F. Supp. 2d at 99–105.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-20 06:14 PM | Reply

#6

But you left out the Obama Adminsitrations conclusion immediately after that sentence:

"For the reasons set forth above, we believe those cases do not undermine the Executive Branch's longstanding position that the President's immediate advisers are immune from congressional compulsion to testify. We therefore respectfully disagree with the Miers court's analysis and conclusion, and adhere to the Executive Branch's longstanding view that the President's immediate advisers have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify."

Nice try though.

#7 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-20 06:33 PM | Reply

#7

But you left out the part where you flapped you arms and blathered "lawless" when OBAMA used Dijon mustard

#8 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-05-20 07:54 PM | Reply

McGahn is a former counsel, he isn't an immediate advisor.

The law appears to be against Trampy.

Congress can also subpoena McGahn's notes as evidence of obstruction of justice.

#9 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-20 09:19 PM | Reply

"White House blocks Former Counsel McGahn's Testimony to Committee"

Innocent people do not act this way.

#10 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-21 07:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

#1 are these the actions of somebody who's hiding something?

Even that she devil Hillary appeared before Congress when she had to.

#11 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-21 08:49 AM | Reply

In 2014, the Obama administration's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo that a senior White House adviser subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee did not have to testify, arguing the President's immediate advisers had "absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify about matters that occur during the course of discharging their official duties."

#12 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-21 10:19 AM | Reply

Avigdore, That was a completely different set of circumstances. It was Obama.

Obama was loved. Trump is hated. hence, criminal obstruction and constitutional crisis.

#13 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-05-21 10:27 AM | Reply

The Obama memo admitted the courts found absolute immunity doesn't apply to former counsels to POTUS.

But trumpultists ignore facts and open wide for a ------- of lies.

#14 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-21 10:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"B-b-b-but Obama!!!!!!"

Sickening

#15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-21 10:52 AM | Reply

arguing the President's immediate advisers

So what position does McGhan hold in the administration now?

#16 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-05-21 11:01 AM | Reply

"He's hiding something! This is it! This is the ONE!!"
- Every day since 2016

#1 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM AT 2019-05-20 04:11 PM | REPLY

His actions are literally the definition of hiding something. I forgive you because your first language was Russian and your reading comprehension/writing skills are so poor.

#17 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-05-21 11:12 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He's a private citizen, so there's no legal precedent for "Executive Privilege" here. He was a no-show today. Send the US Marshalls over to pick him up.

#18 | Posted by chuffy at 2019-05-21 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Why even have defense lawyers? Innocent people don't need defense lawyers.

#19 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-05-21 11:26 AM | Reply

White House CONSTIPATION. Trump is full of it in so many ways.

#20 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2019-05-21 12:06 PM | Reply

The Obama memo admitted recognized that in Miers the courts found absolute immunity doesn't apply to former counsels to POTUS but "respectfully disagree[d] with the Miers court's analysis and conclusion, and adhere to the Executive Branch's longstanding view that the President's immediate advisers have absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify.".

#14 | POSTED BY BORED AT 2019-05-21 10:37 AM

Suggested edits for accuracy and to eviscerate your ------- of lies.

#21 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-05-21 12:31 PM | Reply

"B-b-b-but Obama!!!!!!"
Sickening

#15 | POSTED BY JOE

It's not about that. It's about precedent and statute. And it certainly predates Obama.

It's not, "Well, they did it first...."

It's, "How as this scenario been handled in the past and is this current situation consistent with similar situations in the past?"

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-21 01:01 PM | Reply

In 2014, the Obama administration's Office of Legal Counsel wrote a memo that a senior White House adviser subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee did not have to testify, arguing the President's immediate advisers had "absolute immunity from congressional compulsion to testify about matters that occur during the course of discharging their official duties."

#12 | Posted by Avigdore

Breaking the law for the DOTUS is part of discharging their normal duties?

#23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-21 01:16 PM | Reply

"B-b-b-but Obama!!!!!!"
Sickening - #15 | Posted by JOE at 2019-05-21 10:52 AM

Since when is quoting the article 'B-b-b-but' anything?

Breaking the law for the DOTUS is part of discharging their normal duties? - #23 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-21 01:16 PM
Your evidence that he broke the law being what, exactly?

#24 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-21 05:02 PM | Reply

What are Orange Adolf and the alt-right (R)tards so scared about if their Fuhrer is innocent?

#25 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-05-21 06:59 PM | Reply

Nothing says innocent like impending an investigation.

#26 | Posted by Tor at 2019-05-21 07:19 PM | Reply

Your evidence that he broke the law being what, exactly?

#24 | Posted by Avigdore

It's what he was asked to do, no?

#27 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-21 07:28 PM | Reply

#27 If I asked you to rob a store, and you didn't, what crime have you committed?

#28 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-21 11:22 PM | Reply

So you don't think it's Congres' job to look into it?

Because he didn't rob the bank at Trump's request it's nothing to be concerned about?

#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 09:18 AM | Reply

So you don't think it's Congres' job to look into it?

Congress is supposed to provide a check on the Executive.

Because he didn't rob the bank at Trump's request it's nothing to be concerned about?

#29 | POSTED BY JPW

I think you are framing this incorrectly. The issue isn't so much whether or not congress should be concerned about this - of course they should be concerned and it's reasonable to ask McGahn to testify.

The issue is whether or not they can compel him to testify and it appears based upon precedent and statute that they can't.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-05-22 09:50 AM | Reply

Under US law my wife may not be compelled to testify against me. However, if I tick her off sufficiently, she certainly may testify against me! If ANY of Trump's toadies are honorable people (Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! Ow, my side. I gotta catch my breath. Ha-ha-ha-ha!), they could testify against him. Obviously, if Trump goes down, so will they also go down!

#31 | Posted by john47 at 2019-05-22 10:06 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So you don't think it's Congres' job to look into it?
Because he didn't rob the bank at Trump's request it's nothing to be concerned about?
#29 | Posted by jpw at 2019-05-22 09:18 AM |

That's nothing that I've claimed.

President Obama's administration made a determination of what subpoenas the President's advisers are required to honor. You quesitoned if McGahn was discharging his official duties, because you believed that something McGahn had done was illegal. I asked you if you had any proof of McGahn having broken any laws, since you're slandering him...I suppose because of the letter after his name?
The adult thing to do when someone points out that you're not being honest about someone, as you were with McGahn, is to acknowledge it and move along. There's no need for you to double down on it because your ego can't handle being shown that you're wrong on the internet.

#32 | Posted by Avigdore at 2019-05-22 10:44 AM | Reply

#21 My comment isn't a lie, it is a quote from the article you posted. Miers found absolute immunity doesn't apply to former counsels to POTUS.
Obama staff disagreed. So now wingdingalings take Obama's word (the destroyer of the constitution) over the courts. Odd.

Wait until Trump finds out he has to agree with Obama on something.

#33 | Posted by bored at 2019-05-22 11:26 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort