General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCan Trump block McGann from testifying by employing executive privilege
Or can McGann do whatever he wishes as a private citizen.
elleng
(130,908 posts)so 'executive privilege' not available.
Response to elleng (Reply #1)
sfwriter This message was self-deleted by its author.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)it's possible that questions outside the things McGahn testified to with the SCO could be subject to executive privilege claims.
shanny
(6,709 posts)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.
Goodheart
(5,324 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)You don't know federal government rules.
marylandblue
(12,344 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)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.
DeminPennswoods
(15,286 posts)He has a legal supoena, wants to obey the law and doesn't want to be cited for contempt of Congress.
watoos
(7,142 posts)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?
watoos
(7,142 posts)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?
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,785 posts)So McGahn can and should testify before Congress about what he told Mueller, which is already a Public record.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)When you work for the federal government you are subject to Executive Privilege your entire life. You sign paperwork stating that.
Fiendish Thingy
(15,611 posts)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.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)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.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)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?
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,693 posts)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.
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.
former9thward
(32,006 posts)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.
Cadfael
(1,297 posts)has an interesting thread on this subject on Twitter:
Link to tweet
Link to article: https://t.co/01vlvDzR0S
TeamPooka
(24,226 posts)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"