General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKellyanne 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:
Link to tweet
It's part of this thread started by Renato Mariotti, former federal prosecutor and CNN analyst:
Link to tweet
dalton99a
(81,552 posts)Gothmog
(145,433 posts)dawg day
(7,947 posts)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
Marcuse
(7,496 posts)mucifer
(23,558 posts)Sneederbunk
(14,297 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Too easy to do it over phone with a criminal interpreter so that very few people know discussion is going on.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)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.
dem4decades
(11,300 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,210 posts)onenote
(42,724 posts)The fact that Putin was a party to the conversation does not mean that it isnt 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 dont know how the courts would rule but its not the slam dunk Conways tweet suggests.
Gothmog
(145,433 posts)Link to tweet
?s=20