Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[Sam]

Which begs the question why the House committees involved quickly dropped the requests once the courts were invoked. As we now see, it's not as if there's any huge rush to get this over with.

The premise is incorrect. Numerous subpoenas (McGahn, Mulvaney, Duffey, etc.) remain. Kupperman sued and House counsel dropped its subpoena in order for the McGahn ruling (which was then impending) to be the definitive ruling as it moved to appellate court.

The judge overseeing Kupperman's suit dismissed it a few days ago so whether one agrees with the legal strategy or not, that was the stated reason by House counsel at the time and it proved sound.

But the House has not dropped subpoenas for other witnesses.

Regardless, the question requires an answer: how does executive privilege cover these career public servants who did not speak to Trump? How does is cover inter-agency documents that don't involve Trump?

--Sam

[rogue06]

The premise is incorrect. Numerous subpoenas (McGahn, Mulvaney, Duffey, etc.) remain. Kupperman sued and House counsel dropped its subpoena in order for the McGahn ruling (which was then impending) to be the definitive ruling as it moved to appellate court.

Odd considering how the others who were subpoenaed stated that they were specifically watching how the Kupperman case resolved and a few even talked about joining it.

The judge overseeing Kupperman's suit dismissed it a few days ago so whether one agrees with the legal strategy or not, that was the stated reason by House counsel at the time and it proved sound.

Of course he dropped it. When they abandoned the subpoena that means that Kupperman has nothing to resolve any longer. How that proved that "the stated reason by House counsel at the time ... proved sound" is anyone's guess.

But the House has not dropped subpoenas for other witnesses.

IIRC, Nadler subpoenaed McGahn whereas Schiff subpoenaed Kupperman, Bolton etc. It is the legality of Schiff's subpoenas that has been called into question.

[Sam]

Odd considering how the others who were subpoenaed stated that they were specifically watching how the Kupperman case resolved and a few even talked about joining it.

Of course he dropped it. When they abandoned the subpoena that means that Kupperman has nothing to resolve any longer. How that proved that "the stated reason by House counsel at the time ... proved sound" is anyone's guess.

IIRC, Nadler subpoenaed McGahn whereas Schiff subpoenaed Kupperman, Bolton etc. It is the legality of Schiff's subpoenas that has been called into question.

Had to laugh just now at how you ignored my question regarding executive privilege, even going to the point of cutting it out of my post the second time I brought it to attention.

--Sam

[One Bad Pig]

The premise is incorrect. Numerous subpoenas (McGahn, Mulvaney, Duffey, etc.) remain. Kupperman sued and House counsel dropped its subpoena in order for the McGahn ruling (which was then impending) to be the definitive ruling as it moved to appellate court.

The judge overseeing Kupperman's suit dismissed it a few days ago so whether one agrees with the legal strategy or not, that was the stated reason by House counsel at the time and it proved sound.

But the House has not dropped subpoenas for other witnesses.

Regardless, the question requires an answer: how does executive privilege cover these career public servants who did not speak to Trump? How does is cover inter-agency documents that don't involve Trump?

--Sam

Did the House wait for resolution of any of those to act? No. Must not've been too important, then, and my premise remains. If the House were at all looking for an actual impeachment, it would have done better than firing off specious (obstruction of congress) and vague (abuse of power) charges before even taking the time to build its best possible case. This is all just political theater - and bad political theater at that. It's possible that Trump's team may have made a better case by invoking something other than Executive Privilege - but that would be the simplest to invoke, and in any case was sufficient to show the Democrats' hand.

[Cow Poke]

Did the House wait for resolution of any of those to act? No. Must not've been too important, then, and my premise remains. If the House were at all looking for an actual impeachment, it would have done better than firing off specious (obstruction of congress) and vague (abuse of power) charges before even taking the time to build its best possible case. This is all just political theater - and bad political theater at that. It's possible that Trump's team may have made a better case by invoking something other than Executive Privilege - but that would be the simplest to invoke, and in any case was sufficient to show the Democrats' hand.

I think this is yet another case of Occam's Razor -- "the Simplest Explanation Is Usually the Right One".... they honestly believed they would dramatically shift public perception, and the Senate would have no choice but to take this seriously, and "throw the bum out".

[rogue06]

Had to laugh just now at how you ignored my question regarding executive privilege, even going to the point of cutting it out of my post the second time I brought it to attention.

--Sam

Actually I didn't answer because I don't know and likely won't since they dropped Kupperman's subpoena like a hot potato soon after he appealed to the courts for direction even though Schiff had just been saying how crucial his testimony was and after issuing various threats if he ignored the subpoena. Now that the case has been dismissed we'll likely never hear the arguments or get a verdict.

[rogue06]

I think this is yet another case of Occam's Razor -- "the Simplest Explanation Is Usually the Right One".... they honestly believed they would dramatically shift public perception, and the Senate would have no choice but to take this seriously, and "throw the bum out".

That in essence was the stated plan. They planned on shaming Republicans in the House and Senate to support impeachment as public pressure increased for it. But that never happened. And the only bipartisan support for anything was to not impeach.

I think Trump really threw a monkey wrench into things when he released the transcript of his call with Zelensky. It was something that Schiff and his gang never expected.

[Cow Poke]

That in essence was the stated plan. They planned on putting pressure on Republicans in the House and Senate as public pressure increased for impeachment. But that never happened. And the only bipartisan support for anything was to not impeach.

I think Trump really threw a monkey wrench into things when he released the transcript of his call with Zelensky. It was something that Schiff and his gang never expected.

I think that's one of Trump's strongest assets -- It's like when a Republican (in the past) would be interviewed by MSM, and the 'reporter' would pose some goofy premise, and rather than call them out on the goofy premise, the Republican would try to respond, and always look week.

Trump just kicks them aside and asserts his own case, rather than responding to the MSM's narrative.

Yeah, they never expect that --- they always thought they were in control. (I know you were talking about the Democrats, and I'm referring to the MSM, but.... )

[Sam]

Actually I didn't answer because I don't know and likely won't since they dropped Kupperman's subpoena like a hot potato soon after he appealed to the courts for direction even though Schiff had just been saying how crucial his testimony was and after issuing various threats if he ignored the subpoena. Now that the case has been dismissed we'll likely never hear the arguments or get a verdict.

That wasn't the question asked. You said that you want to hear from Bolton et al. but understand there's executive privilege. My question was how executive privilege is invoked for career civil servants and documents that do not include communication with the President.

In other words, if executive privilege is what's at stake here:

1) Why were documents withheld from Congress, even when some of those documents have been released through FOIA?

2) Why did the administration move to block officials who were not part of presidential communications or deliberations?

3) Why hasn't the President exerted executive privilege? Refusing to answer a subpoena is not exerting executive privilege, as Judge Jackson noted in the McGahn ruling. All of these officials can make an executive privilege claim before Congress for relevant questions that touch on areas where the President has exerted privilege. But the President hasn't claimed that privilege and doing so does not allow an official to ignore a subpoena.

--Sam

[rogue06]

I think that's one of Trump's strongest assets -- It's like when a Republican (in the past) would be interviewed by MSM, and the 'reporter' would pose some goofy premise, and rather than call them out on the goofy premise, the Republican would try to respond, and always look week.

Trump just kicks them aside and asserts his own case, rather than responding to the MSM's narrative.

Yeah, they never expect that --- they always thought they were in control. (I know you were talking about the Democrats, and I'm referring to the MSM, but.... )

With each passing day this, as an example of the concept of a distinction without a difference, becomes truer and truer.

[Sam]

Did the House wait for resolution of any of those to act? No. Must not've been too important, then, and my premise remains. If the House were at all looking for an actual impeachment, it would have done better than firing off specious (obstruction of congress) and vague (abuse of power) charges before even taking the time to build its best possible case. This is all just political theater - and bad political theater at that. It's possible that Trump's team may have made a better case by invoking something other than Executive Privilege - but that would be the simplest to invoke, and in any case was sufficient to show the Democrats' hand.

A resolution to the various lawsuits would take over a year, at least -- the McGahn ruling is just now going to appellate court. It's disingenuous to the extreme to demand that Congress, when pursuing an impeachment over national security matters, must slow-walk through the court system to get documents and testimony that -- once again -- do not qualify as privileged.

You don't get out of that problem by saying "Well, maybe executive privilege isn't the best legal defense but it fulfilled its political end." It's either a valid exercise or it's obstructive.

The question remains, therefore: how is this a valid exercise of executive privilege when the administration tried to block and continues to block witnesses who were not involved in presidential deliberations? How is this a valid exercise RE: document production when the administration is producing those documents to non-congressional third parties?

That has to be answered on the merits -- not just a shrug and "well, it worked".

--Sam

[Mountain Man]

I think Trump really threw a monkey wrench into things when he released the transcript of his call with Zelensky. It was something that Schiff and his gang never expected.

And the reason they thought Trump would never release it on his own is because they thought Eric Ciaramella was telling the truth. I really think they had visions of forcing the White House to grudgingly release the damaging evidence and never thought in a million years that Trump would willingly do it before even being asked.

[One Bad Pig]

A resolution to the various lawsuits would take over a year, at least -- the McGahn ruling is just now going to appellate court. It's disingenuous to the extreme to demand that Congress, when pursuing an impeachment over national security matters, must slow-walk through the court system to get documents and testimony that -- once again -- do not qualify as privileged.

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. The House is showing no inclination to speed things up at this point - and proceedings CAN be expedited, you know.

You don't get out of that problem by saying "Well, maybe executive privilege isn't the best legal defense but it fulfilled its political end." It's either a valid exercise or it's obstructive.

The question remains, therefore: how is this a valid exercise of executive privilege when the administration tried to block and continues to block witnesses who were not involved in presidential deliberations? How is this a valid exercise RE: document production when the administration is producing those documents to non-congressional third parties?

That has to be answered on the merits -- not just a shrug and "well, it worked".

--Sam

We're talking about law, here. If an argument can be made - even if it's not the best argument - there's nothing wrong with doing so. Is it valid? I don't know, and odds are you don't either; unless you are a lawyer, best leave interpretation of the law to one. This is one area where I know enough to know what I don't know; I see rulings all the time in my job that appear to go against what I think would be the proper verdict.

[Sam]

Thou dost protest too much, methinks. The House is showing no inclination to speed things up at this point - and proceedings CAN be expedited, you know.

We're talking about law, here. If an argument can be made - even if it's not the best argument - there's nothing wrong with doing so. Is it valid? I don't know, and odds are you don't either; unless you are a lawyer, best leave interpretation of the law to one. This is one area where I know enough to know what I don't know; I see rulings all the time in my job that appear to go against what I think would be the proper verdict.

House counsel has requested the proceedings be expedited; regarding McGahn, the House asked in August and again in November and will undoubtedly renew its request tomorrow at oral argument before the appellate court. But it's still taken the better part of a year and will drag on well into 2020.

So, again, the premise is wrong.

And yes, we're talking about law here. If the administration makes an argument that is baldly false -- like invoking "executive privilege" for officials who had no contact with the President at all or withholding documents from Congress under "executive privilege" that it was releasing through FOIA

[Cow Poke]

Well, there ya have it! Obama set the precedent!