Stonewall.

Prove to me that the Constitution prevents Congress from conducting an investigation in to the prez.

 

Your post is naive on two levels. If you're going to play in politics I suggest you learn to read between the lines or take your dolly and go home. If you think this is over because a corrupt bunch of old white men (Republicans) say it is is beyond naive -- they know better.

 

The constitution gives legislative authority and power to congress.... period. Their oversight authority is only that directly connected to legislation. The framers had no need to spell out the concept of separation of the three independent powers because, at the time, it was well understood by most 5th graders.

 

Obviously you think the report was a lie. No surprise there. Government does lie a lot.

 

It is without merit. It's like the great snipe hunt where the only thing any one ever catches is poison ivy from running around the woods in the dark.

 

Wrong again.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/273/135.html

 

Congress has the right and obligation to investigate corrupt acts and abuses of power by the executive branch. It is doing so. Deal with it.

 

There aren't any that haven;t already been investigated and found to be without substance.

 

You read into things whatever strikes your fancy. You reference was about a subpoena and testimony related to a proper legislative oversight of an agency (DOJ) and involved the well known malfeasance of the attorney general. You are lamely trying to compare that to a blanket subpoena for numerous things and people for the sole purpose to see if they can find anything against one individual.

 

Misreading and parry number 72. Congress is trying to investigate one individual, Donald Trump. They are not investigating the "executive branch." Plus they are not investigating one individual for any specific action -- which they can't do either -- but simply to see if they can find something. Quintessentially a witch hunt.

 

The core issue in the case, whether Congress has the authority to investigate and compel testimony and other evidence, was addressed by the court by citing previous investigations authorized by the House and Senate. "This power was both asserted and exerted by the House of Representatives in 1792, when it appointed a select committee to inquire into the St. Clair expedition and authorized the committee to send for necessary persons, papers and records. Mr. Madison, who had taken an important part in framing the Constitution only five years before, and four of his associates in that work, were members of the House of Representatives at the time, and all voted for the inquiry." Another later investigation by the Senate and other various cases were also discussed in the opinion.

 

Sorry, dude.

The House committee quietly racking up oversight wins against Trump
The House Foreign Affairs Committee's bipartisan, low-profile oversight of the Trump administration has secured a handful of victories.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840

 

The supreme court has ruled that congress cannot subpoena testimony or documents if the purpose is simply public exposure, or if the purpose is not a legitimate legislative function. Congress' current show-off efforts violate both of those rulings.

 

You mean he is refusing to cooperate in the democratic congress's investigation in search of a crime.

 

The law and the constitution does not prohibit entities or persons (Sandy does not think persons are entities) from responding to requests or subpoenas if they choose to, even if the requests or subpoenas are not legitimate. For instance Wells Fargo responding to the subpoena for Trump's financial records. You example doesn't sound legitimate but it is less clear: to see if Trump violated the emoluments clause does not seem like a legislative function. In any case their "victories" are all voluntary, legitimate or not.

Also the constitution and the law can be ignored by district judges, but that does not change the constitution or the law.

 

That case literally states the Senate had legislative intent in conducting their investigation. Just like the poster you replied to said was proper

 

Frustrated Democrats Stonewalled During Hicks Testimony By DOJ Lawyer
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/democrats-hope-hicks-house-judiciary-committee

Democrats exited the hearing room frustrated on Wednesday after a Department of Justice lawyer shut down every question for former communications director Hope Hicks pertaining to her tenure at the White House.

 

Like the kids whose Mom wouldn't give them lollipops.

 

Whether you think the congressional investigations are warranted or not, there is no such thing as the "absolute immunity" claim the WH is using to keep stonewalling Congress.

“Absolute immunity would be a claim by the White House that none of the staff or the president need to answer any questions in a congressional proceeding or a legal proceeding,” Epstein explained to CNN, quickly adding that when President Richard Nixon tried to claim absolute immunity during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing."

https://www.alternet.org/2019/06/sh...e-hicks-may-want-to-invoke-the-5th-amendment/

 

Epstein went on to say, “What there is there is executive privilege, but executive privilege is very, very narrow.” And Hopes, Epstein added, likely waived executive privilege when she spoke to Mueller’s office during the Russia investigation.

“Even if there was a legitimate legal claim on executive privilege,” Epstein asserted, “it does not extend to obstruction of justice or her role in potential illegal behavior.”

 

This all might be a lot more convincing, if Epstein was an impartial commentator rather than a legal council to the democrats. There are so many weasel words in the article that it borders on useless.

 

First, let me congratulate you for actually responding to the substance of the post.

Unfortunately, like Trump, your post doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

https://www.justsecurity.org/64221/...hite-house-effort-to-block-mcgahns-testimony/

"George W. Bush sought to prevent testimony from a White House Counsel and another senior adviser about controversial firings of U.S. attorneys, but in a lengthy and carefully reasoned opinion, the court found that any such immunity was qualified only and had to yield to demonstrated congressional need for the information. It did not find that it was a close call: “The Executive’s current claim of absolute immunity from compelled congressional process for senior presidential aides is without any support in the case law.”

 

And then you go out and pick an article by an attorney who worked for Obama to further back up your position.

 

There is no such thing as absolute immunity as you say, or likely absolute anything. But there is executive privilege and Epstein is wrong when he says it is very very narrow Executive privilege can be extended to any communication of any type between the president and staffers and among staffers, just as long as such communications are connected to official government and presidential business. It would easily cover any communication regarding charges of obstruction. It can cover any communication that is private and/or confidential. Finally, I don;t know if she did or did not but Hopes, or anyone. can waive executive privilege in one instance and claim it in another instance. IIRC Trump waived executive privilege for anyone from the white house who testified to Mueller.

 

Kilimnik that the Mueller report did not convey working with American intelligence?