"Rule of law" does not apply to Donald Trump

[transporter]

Trump tells ex-White House counsel McGahn not to appear before Congress

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday told former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a subpoena to testify before a congressional committee about the Russia investigation, deepening a fight between the administration and Democratic lawmakers.

In a letter to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee’s Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said that McGahn should not appear due to both “constitutional immunity” and “in order to protect the prerogatives of the Office of the Presidency.”

Anybody...anywhere...have any idea wtf "constitutional immunity" is???

Is anybody...anywhere...able to point to the wording in the Constitution or any subsequent law enacted in the US that places the "prerogatives of the Presidency" above and beyond all the other laws that apply to all the other citizens of this country??

In it, Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote that, “Congress may not constitutionally compel the President’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

But it was ok for McGahn to testify voluntarily????

Trump...damn he is the perfect President for the ignorati types...stupid is as stupid does.

 

[BOP]

What the actual phuck are you blathering about?

 

[Yooper]

--- End of line (MCP)

 

[Cowdog]

There are 2 completely different cases. One is executive within executive and then there is the separation of powers. Also, there is the argument that Congress does not have the authority to compel testimony that is illegal to be exposed (Grand Jury Testimony is sacrosanct as secret and backed up by precedent.)
Executive privilege is supposed to be an area that cannot be crossed. Can the Justice Dept ask Pelosi's chief of staff to an interview? NOOOOO. So what makes the committee privy to advice and counsel of advisors?

Also what in the Constitution stated this kind of oversight? None.

 

[TCROW]

Executive privilege is supposed to be an area that cannot be crossed.

The limits of executive privilege haven’t been litigated, so we have no idea from a legal perspective of where the line is that can never be crossed.

 

[Midnightrider]

There are 2 completely different cases. One is executive within executive and then there is the separation of powers. Also, there is the argument that Congress does not have the authority to compel testimony that is illegal to be exposed (Grand Jury Testimony is sacrosanct as secret and backed up by precedent.)
Executive privilege is supposed to be an area that cannot be crossed. Can the Justice Dept ask Pelosi's chief of staff to an interview? NOOOOO. So what makes the committee privy to advice and counsel of advisors?

Also what in the Constitution stated this kind of oversight? None.

oversight is whatever the congress thinks it should be. Thats the way the constitution and precedent read

 

[This_person]

oversight is whatever the congress thinks it should be. Thats the way the constitution and precedent read

Can you show me where this "oversight" definition (or ANY oversight definition) is in the Constitution?

Here's the Constitution to help you find it, because no one else can:

https://usconstitution.net/const.txt

 

[This_person]

The limits of executive privilege haven’t been litigated, so we have no idea from a legal perspective of where the line is that can never be crossed.

So, you're saying Trump could very well be right - and has at least as much likelihood as anyone else's interpretation. Moreso, actually, since he's actually the executive?

 

[TCROW]

So, you're saying Trump could very well be right - and has at least as much likelihood as anyone else's interpretation. Moreso, actually, since he's actually the executive?

If that makes you feel good for me agreeing with you, then yes, that is what I’m saying. The law favors him in this particular situation since there’s not much extant case law on the matter to guide us.

I mean the man is still a terrible President but as far as this is concerned, the facts are the facts.

Feel like you got a win? Good.

 

[This_person]

If that makes you feel good for me agreeing with you, then yes, that is what I’m saying. The law favors him in this particular situation since there’s not much extant case law on the matter to guide us.

I mean the man is still a terrible President but as far as this is concerned, the facts are the facts.

Feel like you got a win? Good.

To me, it is not about "win" or "lose" with an internet stranger. It's about truth and factual vs. inaccuracies and spin.

 

[TCROW]

To me, it is not about "win" or "lose" with an internet stranger. It's about truth and factual vs. inaccuracies and spin.

Fair enough. We have that in common.