Concerning Sally Yates testimony, this may apply and allow her to testify

[shraby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

Less than three weeks after oral arguments, the Court issued its decision. The justices struggled to write an opinion that all eight could agree to. The stakes were so high, in that the tapes most likely contained evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President and his men, that they wanted no dissent. All contributed to the opinion and Chief Justice Burger delivered the unanimous decision. After ruling that the Court could indeed resolve the matter and that Jaworski had proven a "sufficient likelihood that each of the tapes contains conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the indictment," the Court went to the main issue of executive privilege. The Court rejected Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances." It held that a claim of Presidential privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a criminal trial cannot override the needs of the judicial process, if that claim is based, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated, but merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality. Nixon was ordered to deliver the subpoenaed materials to the District Court.

[unblock]

1. i guess nixon's big mistake was using domestic plumbers...

donnie will have an easier time claiming diplomatic secrets as it all goes through russia.

[jmg257]

2. There is nothing keeping her from testifying. No one in the WH offered any objection

To her request to do so.

Yates' request to the WH:

...
The Department of Justice indicated in the attached response that any
confidentiality equity in this information belongs to the President and that Ms. Yates
does not need separate consent from the Department.

It is unclear whether the presidential communications or deliberative process
privileges could apply to the referenced information. In any event, any claim of
privilege has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current
senior White House officials describing the January 2017 communications.
Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates' intention to provide
information in the manner described above.

If I do not receive a response by Monday, March 27, at 10 am EDT, I will
conclude that the White House does not assert executive privilege over these matters
with respect to the hearing or other settings.

There is/was no White House response to this request.