May 8, 2019

"This is to advise you that the president has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials."

Said a Justice Department official, referring to the Mueller report and the underlying evidence, the NYT reports just now.
Mr. Barr released a redacted version of the special counsel’s 448-page report voluntarily last month. But Democrats say that is not good enough, and they have accused the attorney general of stonewalling a legitimate request for material they need to carry out an investigation into possible obstruction of justice and abuse of power by Mr. Trump....

The White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, released a blistering statement: "The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands... Faced with Chairman Nadler’s blatant abuse of power, and at the Attorney General’s request, the President has no other option than to make a protective assertion of executive privilege.”

89 comments:

Seeing Red said...

Good.

Nobody said...

Queen, Kings Rook 5.

AustinRoth said...

The House has decided to go all-in in getting a Trump re-elected.

rehajm said...

An historic move. We haven't seen such a radical and egregious use of executive power since...the last President.

Nonapod said...

But Democrats say that is not good enough

Off with his head!

Bay Area Guy said...

We gotta get a name for these people, who are still bummed that prosecutor Mueller decided to not prosecute President Trump

Russian Truthers
Russian Hoaxers
Russian Hoax Truthers
Delusional Leftwing Fuckheads

Something like that. Alll suggestions are hereby welcome.



Kevin said...

OBSTRUCTION!

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.

Kevin said...

Nadler's schedule just freed itself up for the next two years.

There will be plenty of time to hold hearings on what Bill Barr is finding.

Kevin said...

Once again the ACME Impeachment Kit blew up in the Dem's faces.

I'm sure they'd like to have the courts weigh in on this.

Unfortunately, they've clogged the courts with a bunch of frivolous rulings on Trump's executive orders that have to get off the docket first.

They can hardly rule on any of this until they decide whether Trump can deport the Dreamers.

Fernandistein said...

Do They subpoena spectral evidence by dreaming about it?

Bay Area Guy said...

The Dem Congressman from Tennessee who was eating a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken last week at the hearing is now lecturing folks on the solemn duty of House Oversight.

These people are a joke.

narayanan said...

I had read - non- redacted (except grand jury material) copy was given to Congress but Democrats are refusing to view?

not correct?

tcrosse said...

Nadler's schedule just freed itself up for the next two years.

The fat's in the fire.

Quaestor said...

Queen, Kings Rook 5.

In case you didn't know, that's fool's mate.

Quaestor said...

Do They subpoena spectral evidence by dreaming about it?

The next step is a Congressional séance.

Heartless Aztec said...

Mega cojones.

Hey Skipper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

The Dems are still mad at Trump for obstructing injustice.

Jersey Fled said...

I vote for Delusional Leftwing Fuckheads.

narciso said...

It's more like the thrashing worms in dune.

Jersey Fled said...

We have to impeach the President so we can investigate why we did it.

Owen said...

Is that the long form of “Pound Sand”?

Martin said...

As I understand it, Trump did not assert executive privilege AT ALL during the Mueller work, which gave us such gems as Trump talking to McGann about firing Mueller--which conversation is now being used to claim obstruction, and could have been withheld. I am certain there were many intense discussion about executive privilege back in 2017, and Trump decided to let it all out.

Now we see why good lawyers always tell their clients not to say anything they don't have to say, don't volunteer anything, provide the least amount of information you can while responding to the (legitimate) question.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Famous youtube video on why you shouldn't talk to the police--same principles apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

MBunge said...

At every step along the way, Trump-haters have had moments where they could have pulled back and re-evaluated. After he got the GOP nomination; after he won the White House; after the inauguration; after the midterms; after the Mueller Report; now this. And instead of choosing to move toward normalcy, they have every time doubled down on their efforts to deny legitimacy to Trump and his supporters. And every single time it failed to work out how they thought.

Even winning the midterms brought them a radicalized fringe louder and more assertive than ever. Can we haz learning now?

Mike

TreeJoe said...

I don't think the house understands - the President has the ability to fight back.

You think among the 535 members of congress there aren't a sizable number who are corrupt? And who the Executive does not pursue rigorously out of tradition?

I truly believe the Democrats think that their own answer is escalation and "punching back harder" in every instance and are not weighing the unintended consequences.

readering said...

Since he was totally vindicated I guess it's sport.

CWJ said...

"At every step along the way, Trump-haters have had moments where they could have pulled back and re-evaluated. After he got the GOP nomination; after he won the White House; after the inauguration; after the midterms; after the Mueller Report; now this."

It's official then. Trump-haters hate him.

Robert Cook said...

"Good."

Yes, it's "good" that "our" President, who should be answerable to us, can declare "Executive Privilege" over information that may bear on his behavior in office and fitness to serve, thereby keeping us from seeing the information and appraising what to do about it, (or if any action is warranted).

You like your masters fat, sleazy, and repulsive, don't you?

Henry said...

Nadler didn't get what he wanted, but Pelosi did.

Leland said...

Keep eating the fried chicken, big boy Nadler. The rest of us will enjoy the good economic news, no thanks to you. We will see which is a more effective message in 2020.

narciso said...

None of that happened when he was in office, unlike say bill Clinton cook.

narciso said...

More like khaan?
https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/07/the-sinking-of-muellers-prosecutorial-pequod/

roesch/voltaire said...

Why does Trump try to hide so much from his taxes to McGann testifying and now this. Something is rotten in the Trump tower.

narciso said...

Good question:

https://audioboom.com/posts/7254543-the-russians-and-the-chinese-are-looking-at-this-russiagate-and-trying-to-figure-out-what-the

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Part of what was redacted was information regarding peripheral individuals who were not charged. I suspect there is some embarrassing info about Don Jr. in there, that the Dems want for no legitimate legislative purpose.

SeanF said...

Robert Cook: Yes, it's "good" that "our" President, who should be answerable to us, can declare "Executive Privilege" over information that may bear on his behavior in office and fitness to serve, thereby keeping us from seeing the information and appraising what to do about it, (or if any action is warranted).

He is answerable to us, but he is not answerable to Congress.

And even we don't have the right to all his personal information just because it "may" bear on his fitness to serve.

Michael K said...

You like your masters fat, sleazy, and repulsive, don't you?

I don't think Obama is fat.

"I intend to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Robert Cook said...

You like your masters fat, sleazy, and repulsive, don't you?

Actually, I voted against Hillary.

Robert Cook said...

"He is answerable to us, but he is not answerable to Congress."

If the president is not answerable to Congress, how can we make him answerable to us?

Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.

Robert Cook said...

"Actually, I voted against Hillary."

You think there was only one?

gerry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gerry said...

Micheal K, God bless him, beat me to it.

Yes indeed, Obama was not fat.

pacwest said...

r/v, Try broadening your perspective by digging into some facts instead of accepting the opinions you are being spoonfed by the leftist media. Until you check some of your assumptions (which, if you you are honest with yourself, are unsupported by evidence), you will be unable to move on. Or not. Just trying to help.

As it is all you are doing is showing your gullibility.

Lucien said...

Wow, they wrote “blistering”! I thought thought the style guide required that whenever Trump or his administration criticized his opposition it had to be described as “lashing out”. This could be a bombshell marking the beginning of the end for the MSM as the walls close in.

bagoh20 said...

It was amazing and unprecedented how cooperative Trump was with this whole investigation, I assume becuase he knew he was innocent, and that's how innocent people get screwed by the justice system. Being innocent is no protection from prosecutors or deranged partisans. The Dems don't want him to be innocent. They are actually fantasizing that the POTUS is a corrupt king. That's what they want, but they know it's not true. They would be willing to have this country suffer almost any damage if they could just have their wish come true or get everyone to believe it. Just think about how corrupt that is, and ask yourself what the Dems would be willing to do to this country to get that wish.

When you realize that the law requires the Mueller report only go to the Justice department and nobody else, and that the President could have done this from the start and fought the investigation all the way, you understand that Trump got nothing from the Dems for all that transparency, a transparency that was dangerous to himself and unnecessary, a transparency that no other President would have given, especially the likes of a Clinton, an Obama, or Biden. I hope the voters see that and remember it.

narciso said...

It's like they are on the other side:

https://babalublog.com/2019/05/07/coverage-of-venezuelan-crisis-the-media-is-either-lazy-or-complicit-with-the-murderous-socialist-dictatorship/

SeanF said...

Robert Cook: "He is answerable to us, but he is not answerable to Congress."

If the president is not answerable to Congress, how can we make him answerable to us?


By not voting for him?

Robert Cook: Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.

Legislative and Executive (and Judicial, of course) are co-equal branches - they are checks on each other, not just one-way.

That's different than "answerable to," isn't it?

(And in my opinion, while "we" have certainly surrendered power to the Federal Government that is not rightfully theirs, Congress surrendered their rightful powers to the President all by themselves)

bagoh20 said...

"Congress is supposed to be a check on the President."

Checks and balances. Where is the balance? And "checks" does not mean control. It limits power. It doesn't give Congress extra powers. The President isn't trying to do anything outside his power. The Congress is trying that all over this. Executive privilege is a check on Congressional power. They are the ones overstepping the law in multiple ways. They have no right to the report at all, especially not the legally protected stuff, and they have no right to his taxes which is also legally protected. Open your eyes and you easily see, the Congress is the one trying to break the law and overreach. The President is checking that, finally. Checks and Balances.

Achilles said...

Trump has been the most cooperative and transparent President we have had in at least decades, if not ever.

His transparency during the Mueller "investigation" was unprecedented. No president has ever allowed an investigator so much access.

Obama supporters like R/V and readering are here to show us how they all completely ignore that 2009-2016 never happened.

You people are so transparent and terrible.

Unknown said...

Excellent, screw these anti-american coup criminals. Nadler, Pelosis' and all of the propaganda outlets goal is obvious to all, to gin up anything possible to overthrow an election.

I just await when they finally get a democrat in office, let the CONSTANT investigations of EVERYTHING begin.

The democrat party is doing tremendous damage to this country, at this moment they are more dangerous to the country than any of our adversaries. And I am NOT exaggerating.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...
"He is answerable to us, but he is not answerable to Congress."

If the president is not answerable to Congress, how can we make him answerable to us?

Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.


You aren't this stupid.

I know you hate our constitution. But you know the "check" congress has on the President are listed in the constitution.

Forcing the executive to break the law is not one of those checks.

narciso said...

Much like segrettis team:


https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/05/07/papadopoulos-2016-gop-campaigns-spied/

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Cook: Yes, it's "good" that "our" President, who should be answerable to us...

You left the quote marks off "us". (Your avenging Congressional heroes don't hold with government officials being answerable to any non-quote-unquote us.)

...can declare "Executive Privilege" over information that may bear on his behavior in office and fitness to serve, thereby keeping us from seeing the information and appraising what to do about it, (or if any action is warranted).

Unlike others here I don't think you're dishonest, Cook. I think you really are this dumb and blisteringly naïve regarding the thuggish banana republic machinations you're lauding here. Retreating into your "I'm just concerned about the growing executive overreach that long precedes Trump" pose doesn't obscure that.

You like your masters fat, sleazy, and repulsive, don't you?

..though most of the time you manage to not sink to this level of inane snot-nosed rancor. Most of the time.

stevew said...

"Why does Trump try to hide so much from his taxes to McGann testifying and now this. Something is rotten in the Trump tower."

Political nonsense. Nothing is known about Trump's taxes other than that he filed them. In your scenario the Democrats demand the release of his taxes which causes Trump to refuse (the reason doesn't matter) and then you show up to accuse him of hiding something. Where have we seen that before...? Oh yeah, when Harry Reid said publicly that Mitt Romney never paid any taxes.

Sleezy political BS. Just like the Nadler demand that Barr break the law and turn over the complete, unredacted report. Can you subpoena someone to force them to break the law?

Michael K said...

If the president is not answerable to Congress, how can we make him answerable to us?

Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.


Cookie, the power of impeachment is the only power that Congress has over the president. Obama was not impeached because he is black and there would have been huge race riots if the Congress had done its duty. He knew that and defied them. That might be part of the reason that there will not be another black president for a long time.

The Constitution is pretty clear about that.

Yancey Ward said...

He has to assert privilege over the materials turned over to Mueller. The only reason he didn't do this during the investigation is that Mueller was still part of the DoJ per the regulations regarding the special counsel. Had Mueller been appointed under the defunct Independent Counsel law, I strongly suspect privilege would have been asserted on all the materials voluntarily handed over, whether Trump knew he was guilty or not. With the interrogator being Nadler and Schiff, they can go and pound sand up their assholes.

Look, it is really simple- Mueller didn't indict him and there are no more indictments coming from the investigation. And Mueller's team was largely made up of Clinton supporters. Do you really believe that there is something being hidden about Trump's criminal behavior that isn't in the unredacted sections of the report itself and/or hasn't been leaked to the press already? If Mueller really is brave enough to appear on the 15th, the Democrats can ask him about this directly- is there something hidden there? I already know the answer because I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I believe the Mueller report in this regard. Time for the Democrats to actually read the damned thing.

Ken B said...

Cookie, you clearly demonstrate either your lack of understanding or lack of concern for the constitution. The president does not report to Congress. Congress does not report to the president. Neither reports to or supervises the courts. This is pretty basic stuff. I learned it in public school, *in Canada*.

rcocean said...

This has nothing to do with Congress trying to oversee the Executive Branch. Its just Democrats in the House trying to harass Trump and cause trouble. The Mueller investigation is done. It over and we don't need to see ALL the documents that back up the 900 pages that Mueller wrote. Nor do we need to have McGahn just repeat what he said to Mueller.

500 ex-Federal prosecutors said Trump was guilty without seeing the evidence. Its all politics.

Yancey Ward said...

The Democrats can impeach him if they want to. Go right ahead, we can have the trial in the Senate this Summer. I don't think the exercise is good for the country, but it is time for the Democrats to put up or shut up. Let's hold the vote in the House today.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

Unrepentant Stalinist Cooktard said: "You like your masters fat, sleazy, and repulsive, don't you?"

You like yours sending political opponenets to Gulags after show trials. Go fuck yourself, you dirty communist piece of shit. The gloves are off now with Trump. I hope that in the end you get the Pinochet treatment.

Free state subsidized helicopter ride's for the Robert Cook's of the world!

Skeptical Voter said...

Okay, let's cut to the chase. Have the House vote impeachment. Time for The Schiffster to produce all that clear and convincing evidence of Trump's collusion with Russia that he's been claiming to have for two years now. Let's lay all that "clear and convincing evidence" out on the table for the world to see. After all Adam was once a federal prosecutor. Let's see if he can make the case---but he's going to need more than bull dust and braggadocio to convince the jury (in this case the Senate). In fact unless he does produce something, I'm not certain that the House would vote to impeach. But what the heck--let Nadler, Cummings, Crazy Maxine and Adam give it their best shot.

As Shakespeare once opined, some things are tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, and meaning nothing.

walter said...

Pelosi was on Rahm Emmanuel's podcast..both agreeing on not giving in to the impeachment "goading".
They'll just make endless noise from here till election.

Bruce Hayden said...

The other thing about privilege is that the Mueller prosecutors were desperately trying to find a way of indicting Trump for Obstruction of Justice (using that very aggressive/expansive Obstruction statute I have labored over here before). They apparently shifted into high gear with that about a year ago. Trump’s attorneys realized that when the prosecutors quit talking to them. In any case, the problem that the Mueller team faced (beyond their greatly expanded Obstruction interpretation- which they likely figured they would lose in court, but they would have done their political duty by indicting him) was that they could argue Actus Rea with their interpretation, but not Mens Rea. And they could never prove intent w/o interviewing Trump. So, one of the ways that Trump’s attorneys got around this was by shoveling mass quantities of evidence at the Mueller team. Then, if the Mueller people went into court demanding a personal interview, his attorneys could show that they were being more than cooperative, and he didn’t have time, given his job. The failure to assert Executive Privilege was key to preventing Weissman and his buddies from getting a personal interview with Trump, where everyone, from past experience, expected him to screw up. Now, of course, with the Mueller investigation legally over, and Trump no longer vulnerable to BS Obstruction charges, there is no real reason not invoke Executive Privilege.

This is a classic example of Wadler and the Dems getting greedy, and ending up with nothing. They very likely expected almost a seamless transition between the Mueller investigation and their House investigations. We predicted last fall after the election, after the realization of how much money they spent, and how many norms they violated to get their House majorities in order to control House investigations. All that legally is required to happen is that the special counsel gives his report, in secret, to the AG, and he then tells the public what he, in his sole discretion, decides to tell us. There was no legal obligation to release the Mueller report. None. AG Barr decided to, for transparency. But Wadler is demanding all the underlying evidence, including hundreds of witness interviews and over a million pages of documents. Nope. He wants to see huge amounts of evidence that didn’t lead to criminal charges being filed. That massively violates DoJ policy for protecting the innocent. Dems don’t care, if they can get Trump. So, in the end, the House is going to lose access to the redacted non grand jury information from the Report, that is available in Congressional SCIFFs (which only a couple Republicans bothered to look at). And made building an impeachment case almost impossible to build from the Mueller investigation.

Too bad. So sorry.

Michael The Magnificent said...

The problem with selling the Russian Collusion hoax for 2.5 years, and collecting lots of fundraising dollars in the process, is that the fools you fooled for 2.5 years expect you to produce results, namely an impeachment. They paid Democrats to get someone's head on a pike, and now they have to deliver.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Barr offered the whole report on a platter to selected Democrats and they all DECLINED. Why? Theater and lies work better to keep the crazy Maddow base in a perpetual state of craze.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

We went from "he's a Russian agent" to - "He's fat and unfit to serve."

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Bagoh @ 10:49.
Badda-boom.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add to my previous tirade that some of the information and evidence that Wadler and the Dems so desperately want legal access to came out of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation by the FBI, and probably a bunch of NSA raw data that came out of illegal FISA 702 searches up through March 2016. Sure, much of this information has very likely leaked out of the DoJ and FBI, Into Dem hands. But it is unusable to the House committees trying to build an impeachment case, because it lacks legal provenance, because it was not transmitted or sometimes even obtained legally.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

"check and balances" in democratic vernacular = "We are the democratics and we CONTROL everything. even you."

bagoh20 said...

Does anyone really believe the IRS would protect Trump on his taxes, and would give him a pass on anything - the same people who illegally influenced an election by stifling conservative groups? The Dems don't even believe that crap. They just want info they can twist and spin negative, which would be possible with nearly anybody's taxes.

Sam L. said...

Heh, heh, heh...

Yancey Ward said...

Even worse is that Trump doesn't file his own taxes- these are done by teams of lawyers and accountants who are the ones legally liable for the fraud, and would be financially liable for mistakes. This is why it is very, very improbable that the taxes were filed improperly in any way.

narciso said...

But that's different:

https://mobile.twitter.com/TheLastRefuge2/status/1125877019651260416

narciso said...

How about this:

http://dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/3874/Do-These-Items-Connect.aspx#.XNMjrzGagD4.twitter

Bruce Hayden said...

Adding a bit more to my thoughts (as I drove into Sandpoint today - for Dr K, whose daughter owns land here).

We had a discussion a day or two ago about Speaker Palsi complaining that Trump was trying to get the Dems to start impeachment proceedings before they were ready. Impeachment Constitutionally requires High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Of course, in reality, impeachment is a political and not a legal remedy. Which means that the Dems don’t Actually need to show that crimes had been committed, BUT starting impeachment before they have evidence of crimes is a big problem politically. Crimes had been credibly alleged for both Nixon and Clinton. All they have right now on Trump is OrangeManBad. They were wishing and hoping, desperately, that Mueller’s team of rabidly partisan prosecutors could find the requisite crimes. They failed, and all that they might have had were the extraordinarily strained theories of Obstruction found in the Mueller Report. Except that they don’t have the underlying evidence to support even that, esp with the invocation of Executive Privilege. And without proof of underlying crimes, they are not that likely to win in court against Trump’s attorneys asserting Executive Privilege. Their response to Wadler and the Dems citing Ken Starr’s overcoming Executive Privilege is that that instance already had proof of an underlying crime. In this case the Executive would merely be protecting itself against a fishing expedition. While that wouldnt have been sufficient to overcome the highly aggressive Obstruction theory that Weissman, etc were trying to use, it is decently likely to work in court, where wishful thinking interpretations of criminal statues is much more problematic.

And then there is the political side. Starting impeachment without a real crime other than OrangeManBad is not going to play very well in districts where Trump won in 2016. And most of the seats that the Dems flipped in 2018 had districts that Trump won two years earlier. They ran as moderates in 2018. That would be negated by condoning starting impeachment for nothing more than OrangeManBad. And losing both the House and the Presidency next year is a serious risk for the Dems to take by starting impeachment without a crime, and they are unlikely to find a real crime before starting impeachment, absent the underlying Mueller investigation evidence that is now off limits to them.

Couldn’t happen to a more worthy bunch of criminals and degenerates.

I Callahan said...

If the president is not answerable to Congress, how can we make him answerable to us?Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.

Come on, RC. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just ignorant about the constitution. That said, Michael K is right - the only power Congress has over the office of the President is impeachment power. As for all of this other BS (congressional hearings over his taxes, demanding unredacted copies of the Mueller report), Congress has asserted rights IT doesn't have.

The president IS answerable to us through our representatives, should they decide to impeach, or every four years during an election. This isn't England, and we don't just call an election because we don't like what's currently going on.

stevew said...

Bruce Hayden said...
"Starting impeachment without a real crime other than OrangeManBad is not going to play very well in districts where Trump won in 2016. And most of the seats that the Dems flipped in 2018 had districts that Trump won two years earlier. They ran as moderates in 2018. That would be negated by condoning starting impeachment for nothing more than OrangeManBad."

Agree. This is why Pelosi, correctly, believes moving forward with impeachment is contrary to the Democrats political position and future. I don't like her and her positions on matters of government and policy, but she is an astute political operator. Plus, as soon as they move to impeach and it fails (in 3-4 months) then they will have given away one of their base motivating cudgels. They're better off making all this noise and these malfeasance accusations.

Seeing Red said...

Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.

And the Oresident s a check on Congress.

There are 535 tax returns waiting to be combed thru for impeachment potential.

Michael K said...

for Dr K, whose daughter owns land here).

She has a baby due in July so I don't think Sandpoint will see her this year.

Bruce Hayden said...

“She has a baby due in July so I don't think Sandpoint will see her this year.”

You have mentioned it before, but you were in the vicinity last year, so felt that a callout was in order.

If she asks, it is still there. Stopped at Home Depot today, which I suspect she visited on occasion last year, building her house. Looking for a bear proof screen door, and the two people I talked to there both had black bear stories.

whitney said...

She's right. The American people can see through it. More of this

walter said...

I thought Mueller participated in the redactions. Not true?

Nobody said...

Redactions are evil if it about a Republican, deletion of emails, destruction of hard drives, destroying executive schedules in burn bags, etc, etc, etc. That’s all signed off by Susan Lynch!

Michael K said...

I thought Mueller participated in the redactions. Not true


They want all the background stuff, 302s and Grand jury stuff that needs a court order. This is not serious.

It is theater. Nadler is being a real dick. not to mention Colonel Sanders' boy.

Bob Loblaw said...

Even worse is that Trump doesn't file his own taxes- these are done by teams of lawyers and accountants who are the ones legally liable for the fraud, and would be financially liable for mistakes. This is why it is very, very improbable that the taxes were filed improperly in any way.

The Democrats wanted his taxes so they could say "In x year and y year this billionaire paid no income taxes," trusting the rank and file would be too ignorant to wonder why a guy who lost billions should be paying income taxes.

Who knows? Maybe it's a good bet.

Robert Cook said...

"Robert Cook: Congress is supposed to be a check on the President. We have allowed recent presidents to claim more and more power for themselves, essentially surrendering power to the president not rightfully his.

"Legislative and Executive (and Judicial, of course) are co-equal branches - they are checks on each other, not just one-way.

"That's different than 'answerable to,' isn't it?"


No, it's not.

Robert Cook said...

"Come on, RC. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are just ignorant about the constitution. That said, Michael K is right - the only power Congress has over the office of the President is impeachment power. As for all of this other BS (congressional hearings over his taxes, demanding unredacted copies of the Mueller report), Congress has asserted rights IT doesn't have.

"The president IS answerable to us through our representatives, should they decide to impeach, or every four years during an election. This isn't England, and we don't just call an election because we don't like what's currently going on."


Congress has veto power, as the president is not a king, and the power of the purse. As for impeachment, this requires the ability of Congress to investigate the president for evidence of wrongdoing. If the president can simply claim "executive privilege" over any information he or she doesn't want Congress to see, Congress' power to investigate and impeach is undermined. To assert the president has such unlimited power is to assert the executive branch is above the two other branches of government.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Cook - keep in mind though that while there is no law preventing the House from instituting an impeachment investigation without proof of underlying crimes, it would not be a good idea. First, it would be political suicide for at least all of the new Trump state Dem Representatives elected last year, likely giving the House back to the Republicans next year. Secondly, absent underlying crimes, Trump will be able to credibly claim to the court, when resisting House subpoenas, that the subpoenas are not truly investigatory, but rather are part of a vindictive fishing expedition. That might be enough justification for the court not to enforce them.

Bruce Hayden said...

The Dems are in a pickle now. The Mueller investigation had two jobs, and only two jobs. Everything else was peripheral. The first was to stall the investigation into Spygate, hopefully beyond the 2020 election. Only worked long enough to get through the 2018 election and elect a Dem House. The other was to indict Trump for something criminal. Anything would have worked. They got out lawyered, and completely lost on that one. Which puts them in a position of having to open their much anticipated impeachment investigation without a visible high crime or misdemeanor (excluding OrangeManBad) to justify the opening of the impeachment investigation. Impeachment has always been at least partially political, but without an underlying high crime or misdemeanor, it is obviously 100% political. And that makes it obvious that if the Dems actually proceed here towards impeachment, that they will, rightfully, look like sore losers, and are trying to override or invalidate the 2016 election. Meaning that they are essentially unAmerican cheaters.