President tells Democrats he will not cooperate with inquiry absent due process

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/impeachment-inquiry-white-house-not-comply-pelosi

Partly in response to the handling of Rep Schiff’s abuse of process in the interview of envoy Kurt Volker, the White House council sent a letter to Congressional Democrats informing them there will be no further cooperation with their inquires absent a vote by the House on a formal impeachment inquiry under House  rules providing due process. Volker was interviewed in a closed session, and the partial transcript released by Schiff was characterized by GOP members of the committee as misleading and out of context to the point of misrepresenting Volker’s testimony.

Among the due process rights demanded are the right of the minority to call its own witnesses, to cross exam and challenge the credibility of witnesses, and for administration attorney’s to be present when executive branch witnesses are questioned to assert executive privilege when appropriate. Full, minimally redacted transcripts are to be made available for any closed sessions.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/read-it-white-house-letter-announcing-noncompliance-with-impeachment-inquiry

These are all basic due process, it will be interesting to see how this gets reported.

 

 

34 thoughts on “President tells Democrats he will not cooperate with inquiry absent due process

  1. @Tabor
    Once subpoenas are issued this will be just one more impeachable offense if they are ignored. In Watergate the tactic was called “stonewalling” and it became one of the articles of impeachment that came out of committee.

    ANY statements made by a GOP group lead by Devin Nunes are not worth the paper they are printed on. But, go ahead, knock yourself out – pretend that these are serious people.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Once subpoenas are issued, they can be challenged in court, and issues of representation, executive privilege and due process can then be raised before the courts.

      Witnesses can be called in the process of quashing a subpoena. It would be really interesting to have Schiff answering questions under oath.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The level of weak-mindedness you display when it comes to palpable right wing lies is kind of amazing. Not only did you buy into the supposed laziness, arrogance and incompetence of Obama, the supposed corruption of Hillary Clinton and the supposed corruption of the Biden family, now you are fully subscribed to the Adam Schiff is evil slander. I guess you find it really persuasive when your Dear Leader calls him “Adam Schitt” or “Liddle Adam” and accuses him of treason?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Adam Schiff lied about previous contact with the alleged whistleblower and he gave a false account of the transcript of the phone call for the sound bites before calling his false account for the news cycle ‘parody.’

          He is everything that is wrong with our political process. He actually makes Donald Trump look like George Washington by comparison.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Well Dr. Tabor, over the last several weeks you have certainly hit nerves on this forum. You’ve succeeded in getting both Murphy and Green to drop curse words in responses Heck, I think Murphy actually dropped the “f” bomb not too long ago. Congratulations sir. When, in debate, you force the opposition to drop reasoned response and resort to attacking the opposing speaker, well sir, that sounds like a win. I can’t buy you a beer but would like to send one to you.

            Like

          2. @nivlac531

            “Reasoned debate?”
            You people flatter yourselves almost as much as he of “great and unmatched wisdom” does.

            Simply denying facts, constantly repeating thoroughly debunked lies and absurd conspiracy theories to try to justify or explain the daily outrages of the demented TV clown in the Oval Office is not “reasoned debate.” The opposite in fact.

            As for the “f” bomb, your memory is a little off. I did link to an article where the author used it but my version – in the headline I wrote – was cleaned up in the same way that you just did.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. @nivlac

            Actually the responses to Tabor stems from a waning glimmer of hope that some have, that he still posses the reasoning ability to open his mind enough to see the corruption that this Administration is perpetrating on our nation.

            It also explains why no one is particularly interested in interacting with you…

            Liked by 2 people

  2. FYI

    “The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides “an absolute bar to judicial interference” once it is determined that Members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere” with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are “political questions” unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.”

    Wikipedia.

    Congressional inquiries are not necessarily constrained by due process.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “once it is determined that Members are acting within the “legitimate legislative sphere””

      Which, absent a vote to open an inquiry, they are not. What is happening now is just fishing by multiple partisan committees.

      But I am really surprised to see you endorse a lack of due process.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Endorse lack of due process?

        I just passed on some info that sheds some light on the fact that Congressional subpoenas are different from subpoenas in the justice system.

        House rules may not need a full vote. The Constitution is not very specific.

        Just guessing. Not endorsing. No “surprises”.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. “ He actually makes Donald Trump look like George Washington by comparison.”

      Given that THIS is where his head is at: NOTHING you or anyone else can offer up will make a shit’s worth of difference…

      Liked by 1 person

  3. RE: “These are all basic due process…”

    Exactly.

    I came across an interesting Qanon theory the other day. For what its worth, the theory holds that Trump wants the impeachment to go to the Senate. In that venue the administration will have full due-process rights, with the opportunity to litigate the entire 2016 election and related counterintelligence operations, on camera.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I guess it depends on who is believed by whom.

      It won’t get to the Senate unless the case is supported by at least 20 Republicans. House and Senate leaders are expert vote counters.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Correct. Which is why it won’t get out of the House until the Senate votes are secured. The hard line left are not enough to carry a majority by themselves.

          Pelosi did not want impeachment, but Trump forced her hand. So the inquiries will continue, as will Trump’s behavior, until enough Republicans decide he has to go. If not, no impeachment.

          I think Pelosi is smart enough to “keep her eyes on the prize”. That means both the Senate and the White House.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. How on Earth did Trump force Pelosi’s hand? Did he somehow hypnotize her to rush to a microphone to announce an inquiry based on a hearsay whistleblower before she had time to read the actual transcript? Maybe AOC forced her hand, or Schiff or Nambler, but not Trump.

            But if what you say is correct, then this whole thing is a sham to use the subpoena powers of Congress for opposition research. That might well be prosecutable as abuse of civil rights under the color of authority, a felony.

            That would make a beautiful ‘perp walk’ with Pelosi, Nambler, Schiff and Cummings’ all being marched off in handcuffs.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. @Tabor.
            The hearsay argument is out the window with the 2nd whistle blower coming forward who has FIRST HAND knowledge of some of the issues in question. The egregiousness of the actions of this president from day one, which you have almost always defended, is reason enough to continue with the inquiry. If the WH continues its stonewalling tactics, it is, to quote Pink Floyd, “just another brick in the wall”.

            …”this whole thing is a sham to use the subpoena powers of Congress for opposition research”… Seriously? The idea of Congressional oversight is in the Constitution. Once again, you only use it when it feeds your argument, but ignore it when it goes against what you believe. SAD!

            Like

          3. “The hearsay argument is out the window”

            How is that?

            When Pelosi rushed to declare an impeachment inquiry had begun, the transcript had not been released and no one had heard of a 2nd “Whistleblower” She acted entirely on hearsay from the 1st “whistleblower.”

            Further, she exceeded her authority in doing so. The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach, not the Speaker of the House. She can no more declare an inquiry by fiat, than she can pass an act and send it to the Senate without a vote. She does not speak FOR the House.

            Opening an inquiry empowers the issuing of subpoenas outside the scope of normal oversight, and that is a power of the House of Representatives, not Emperor Pelosi.

            Like

          4. I love how you have ignored the second whistle blower. But you are good at ignoring that which is factual.

            As far as the inquiry itself goes, the Constitution is so vague as to render either your argument or mine inconsequential. There is no true direction about how this can go forward. The GOP is claiming precedent, but this ain’t SCOTUS where precedent can mean something.

            And their is no due process until the case goes to court (The Senate.) Sorry, but that IS the truth.

            Like

    1. Considering the source, I was not offended by the ad hominem insult.

      And since I have no clue who or what the source is my basis is just my opinion.

      Apology accepted…I guess.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I’ve noticed that the more level-headed and persuasive your comments are the more the push back increases.

        When people are wrong about and issue and cannot accept that fact, as has been demonstrated in the treads on this post, they becoming increasingly shrill and non-sensical.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Len is quite sane, but in these times of extreme partisanship, people have episodes of cognitive dissonance. .
      I do see his point, but I think sometimes people put the outcome they desire ahead of the process.

      If the Democrats truly have a valid case against Trump, they should be confident it will stand up to due process and transparency.

      In a cooler moment, I am confident Len would agree with that.

      Like

  4. I don’t have a law degree like everyone else on this forum, but it seems to me it behooves the Democrats to keep the process in the House for as long as possible. Of course Trump is going to do everything in his power (legal or otherwise) to obstruct an investigation. The Dems are betting this makes him look bad, Reps are betting this makes him look good. Trying to get as much as possible out in the open before making it official is really the Dems’ only move. Once it goes to the Senate, it gets squashed immediately and Trump will be able to campaign on being found not guilty.

    As always, 2020 will come down to how well the Republicans are able to disenfranchise people of color and suppress overall voter turnout.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. That’s my point. Democrats won’t let this impeachment process, however it is handled, result in a trial until enough Republican Senators say they’ve had enough.

    Meanwhile I believe the Democrats should keep their legislative efforts on page one, above the fold.

    Tell Americans that they are trying to get things done.

    Clinton was investigated from day one for old land deals, his wife’s law practice, sex charges, and even the shape of his penis.

    Yet he got things done, including a tax hike and a budget surplus.

    The Republicans were determined to destroy Obama from day one. Keep him a one, then a two, term President.

    Yet he was able to govern.

    Trump just whines about being picked on. Our roads are still crappy. Record numbers of people are crossing the border. Our debt is through the roof. Manufacturing is down. Farmers are going under. Health insurance under Trumpcare topped $20K/year for a family of 4, a third of median family income. Growth is worse than Obama era. Trade war is a flop. He has packed his cabinet with cronies and lobbyists despite his “drain the swamp” promises.

    In other words, the crybaby in the Oval Office can’t walk and chew gum.

    IMHO.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. “Trump just whines about being picked on.” The letter even makes a few references to how he’s being treated unfairly. Poor baby.

      The modern conservative movement is wanton cruelty to those you perceive as beneath you, while simultaneously insisting you’re being victimized by anything that doesn’t neatly adhere to your cultural preferences.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s