Trump prevents McGahn from testifying.

[deckeda]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost...2afcc0043c

[deckeda]

It’s weirdly ironic that after “some” obstruction, it requires more of the same until convicted of it. There’s probably no meaningful collusion at all with Russia, but Trump seems willing to go down in a fight to not let anyone know it for sure.

That’s pure dumbshit.

OR

he’s as guilty for everything as a $3 bill is fake.

[samintx]

He can't keep McGan from testifying from all the legal heads. He has no control over that. McGan may be using Cheeto as an excuse.

[deckeda]

A Trump lawyer wrote to Congress and said it won't happen. McGahn's lawyers said they'll defer to the White House (aka status quo) and not provide docs or testimony while it gets sorted out.

[Ted King]

deckeda wrote:
A Trump lawyer wrote to Congress and said it won't happen. McGahn's lawyers said they'll defer to the White House (aka status quo) and not provide docs or testimony while it gets sorted out.

If that's correct then we probably wait many (maybe many, many) months till the Supreme Court makes the final ruling on who should prevail. We're likely to hear the same story on a broad range of Trump's stonewalling of House subpoenas - it goes to the courts and takes a long time to get decided by the SC. Anybody know how long it will likely take for these disputes to wind their through the courts till the SC actually decides these kinds of cases of Congressional prerogatives vs. Executive prerogatives?

[NewtonMP2100]

.....lock him up for contempt......

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
A Trump lawyer wrote to Congress and said it won't happen. McGahn's lawyers said they'll defer to the White House (aka status quo) and not provide docs or testimony while it gets sorted out.

If that's correct then we probably wait many (maybe many, many) months till the Supreme Court makes the final ruling on who should prevail. We're likely to hear the same story on a broad range of Trump's stonewalling of House subpoenas - it goes to the courts and takes a long time to get decided by the SC. Anybody know how long it will likely take for these disputes to wind their through the courts till the SC actually decides these kinds of cases of Congressional prerogatives vs. Executive prerogatives?
This is all a delay tactic; it will die in the courts.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=deckeda]
A Trump lawyer wrote to Congress and said it won't happen. McGahn's lawyers said they'll defer to the White House (aka status quo) and not provide docs or testimony while it gets sorted out.

If that's correct then we probably wait many (maybe many, many) months till the Supreme Court makes the final ruling on who should prevail. We're likely to hear the same story on a broad range of Trump's stonewalling of House subpoenas - it goes to the courts and takes a long time to get decided by the SC. Anybody know how long it will likely take for these disputes to wind their through the courts till the SC actually decides these kinds of cases of Congressional prerogatives vs. Executive prerogatives?
This is all a delay tactic; it will die in the courts.
I'm not sure by what you mean when you say "die in the courts". Do you mean that it will be heard by some lower level federals courts and the House will be ruled against and it is never appealed? Or do you mean that it essentially it will take so long for it to be appealed up through the courts that it will not be decided by the courts before the election? Or do you mean that the Supreme Court will put the kabosh on the House's subpoenas? Or do you mean something else?

I think it's important for the Supreme Court to rule on these subpoenas from the House even if it is after the election because it's important to know what the limits will be on the Executive's ability to resist Congressional subpoenas. Actually, the cynical side of me thinks that if these are only heard by the SC after the election and a Democrat wins the presidency, the Republicans on the Court will be more inclined to reign in Executive power - which will be good for the country in the long run.

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=deckeda]
A Trump lawyer wrote to Congress and said it won't happen. McGahn's lawyers said they'll defer to the White House (aka status quo) and not provide docs or testimony while it gets sorted out.

If that's correct then we probably wait many (maybe many, many) months till the Supreme Court makes the final ruling on who should prevail. We're likely to hear the same story on a broad range of Trump's stonewalling of House subpoenas - it goes to the courts and takes a long time to get decided by the SC. Anybody know how long it will likely take for these disputes to wind their through the courts till the SC actually decides these kinds of cases of Congressional prerogatives vs. Executive prerogatives?
This is all a delay tactic; it will die in the courts.
I'm not sure by what you mean when you say "die in the courts". Do you mean that it will be heard by some lower level federals courts and the House will be ruled against and it is never appealed? Or do you mean that it essentially it will take so long for it to be appealed up through the courts that it will not be decided by the courts before the election? Or do you mean that the Supreme Court will put the kabosh on the House's subpoenas? Or do you mean something else?

I think it's important for the Supreme Court to rule on these subpoenas from the House even if it is after the election because it's important to know what the limits will be on the Executive's ability to resist Congressional subpoenas. Actually, the cynical side of me thinks that if these are only heard by the SC after the election and a Democrat wins the presidency, the Republicans on the Court will be more inclined to reign rein in Executive power - which will be good for the country in the long run.
It will take so long to move through the federal court system that it won't be heard and decided by the SCotUS before his term is over. If he is reelected, the case may remain actionable if Congress (at least one chamber) remains in Democratic control.

No court will rule (especially not the Supreme Court, for legal as well as political reasons) on a case that is no longer actionable. Once the administration is out of office, there's no legal matter to resolve, no matter how many legal questions remain.

[rjmacs]

Remember - the SCotUS would really prefer not to decide these cases. Every time it has to make a close call on an issue that divides Americans, it spends a lot of its political capital, which is hard to earn. The Court is the one branch of government whose power rests solely in its reputation for legitimacy. Its only true enforcement power is that people respect its decisions.

With the Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade (and possible other popular civil rights protections), some justices (and certainly Chief Justice Roberts) will be carefully weighing what cases it cannot avoid taking, and deciding many of them as closely as possible so as to avoid the wrath of the public.