Judge rules Don McGahn must comply with House impeachment subpoena

So what's the reasoning on not being transparent and letting everyone testify, whistle blower included?

 

Still having trouble?

No problem.

For the reasons set forth below, we believe that Mr. Simas is immune from compulsion to testify before the Committee on these matters, and therefore is not required to appear to testify in response to this subpoena.[/]i]

https://www.justice.gov/file/30896/download

Now what.

 

I understand that. Im asking ANYONE why NOT BE TRANSPARENT? What's not to gain if this is all BS?

 

I don't think so but it will be appealed to SCOTUS. It is highly likely SCOTUS would take it up but that is also not assured.

 

You don't seem to be paying attention. Trump actually gave them what Obama withheld.

 

I'm waiting for a response

 

They have no right to infringe on the rights of the executive branch. That's the reason devoid of emotion. The Constitution has made it clear and the federal court backs it up.

Clear enough for you?

 

There is and always has been a battle of power between Congress and the Executive. This is nothing new and since there are legal avenues, no reason for an obstruction case. The problem for democrats is that they are in a hurry to nullify the vote of the American people and are trying to take shortcuts.

Some do not think they can get much done in December like they claim they will since the budget still needs to be hashed out and there are only 8 legislative days.

 

Absolutely not. Why isnt everyone transparent? Both sides? I'm not asking what the law states. Why not just put all cards on the table?

 

You want an emotional answer to override federal law and its not going to happen. Just because you claim its about transparency doesn't make it a legal argument.

 

True, even George Washington ignored a House subpoena. It didn't occur to anyone that he should be impeached for obstruction, and that was when most of the Founders were still living.

 

Oh yea shaking in my boots, nobody is afraid good grief. I know liberal logic is f***** up sometimes but let see if I can help you. You will eventually have a dem President and can you imagine if every time the republicans want to know a conversation they subpoena the white house counsel or top assistances. Our system is not nor should be that politics are used constantly to pervert the constitution. The SC has already ruled the President has a right to have private conversations, sorry that's the facts jack.

 

LOL! Is it now okay for anyone to ignore the law because of "Obama judge" or "Trump judge"?

This is getting ridiculous.

 

What law is this judge ignoring, in your opinion? Why are former executives granted an absolute immunity from testifying before congress?

 

...how is a validly issued subpoena an abuse of the office of the presidency?

 

Who is he in the "he did not fight it?"

And yes, trump can claim executive privilege...but why do you think he should be able to claim absolute immunity?

 

Let's hope Trump gets a chance to replace her.

 

And on and on and on and on

Because its conspiracy theories all the way down

 

Absolutely zero people are claiming that the administration has zero rights.

 

No?

 

You really should drop "Legal" from your username and just go with "Mr". This is an abuse by the Legislature to go beyond their powers and thereby attacking the power of the Executive Branch. You're welcome.

 

...I dont get this argument. Are you trying to imply that Don McGahn is irrelevant?

 

Because Trump wants to argue that all current and former employees are absolutely immune from Congressional subpoenas.

That's not a good thing.

 

...that's not an argument.

 

Yes. Good.