Skip to comments.Trump impeachment: White House aides can be made to testify
Posted on 11/25/2019 10:46:25 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
click here to read article
sounds as if ANOTHER Federal judge wants to violate the Cpmstitution regarding executive privilege. He must have been in one of Obama’s classes.
Nope. One of our biggest problems as a country is that the globalist left controls our government while decent people take productive jobs. We need conservatives in government and in our schools at all levels to keep the thugs under control. We need to infiltrate our own government to keep it from attacking normal Americans while importing and supporting criminals.
This is what you said last week about Sondland’s testimony:
“Are you listening to this testimony.!!!?? ? It is absolutely devastating. Hes fingered POTUS, Giuliani, SOS Pompeo all . What planet are you on? Crap its over for crying out loud its gonna get worse with Q/A now. Cant spin it otherwise”
LOL, how did that work out for you and your Nevertrump crew? Another Wile E Coyote Acme scheme falls flat. You like punishment.
Obama Judge who will be overturned on appeal. Absolutely no legal justification for this ruling. It a political judgement made by a partisan judge.
Well, the Beeb can hope, eh?
Then it's back to court to see if executive privilege applies.
File the appeal.
Take to SCOTUS if necessary.
Executive privilege derives from nothing but the implied power of a president to keep some matter confidential if the public interest requires it. That goes all the way back to George Washington. It was never really questioned until Nixon tried to use it to cover up Watergate-related crimes, at which time the courts ruled that executive privilege was not absolute. Then Clinton and Obama and the two Bush's tried to expand it and now nobody really knows where the power ends. Looks like we're about to find out.
A person who pleads the Fifth Amendment in a matter related to their employment is effectively stating that he cannot do his job anymore. This is particularly true when it comes to a public employee, but my statement holds true in a private context as well.
A perfect example would be an employee who is questioned about an incident in the workplace as part of an HR investigation or something related to financial irregularities. The employee is well within his rights to refuse to cooperate -- basically "pleading the Fifth" even if he has committed no crime. But that employee can -- and will -- be summarily fired because his first obligation is to his EMPLOYER, not to himself. This is a clear case of an employee facing a conflict of interest that effectively violates his employer's trust.
This is even more critical in the case of a public employee, because that employee's first obligation should be to the PUBLIC, not a co-worker or a superior in a government bureaucracy.
Let's go back to the Flynn case. The guy was the National Security Advisor. If the FBI called him up and said they wanted to meet with him to discuss some matter or another, he had every right to refuse his cooperation. But he couldn't possibly keep his job. There's an EXPECTATION that people in public service will cooperate with law enforcement.
For one thing, much of the information that could be covered under executive privilege involves interactions between the President and senior administration officials in roles that were created by Congress (cabinet members, for example) and/or subject to Senate confirmation. And Congress is responsible for funding every penny of the salaries of these people working in the executive branch anyway. In that sense the line between the executive and legislative branches is already somewhat blurred in terms of autonomy and oversight.
This needs to go to the Supreme Court.
This amounts to the legislative and judicial branches of government ganging up on the executive branch, and very seriously jeopardizing the Constitutional separation of powers.
The President, any President, should have a reasonable expectation that what he/she and their staff speak about will remain confidential. For Congress to be able to compel staffers to testify about what happens in the Executive branch is really not much different than requiring the President to wear a public microphone all day.
There's an EXPECTATION that people in public service will cooperate with law enforcement.
Until "law enforcement" can prove to We the People that it is not itself corrupt, and that it is not interested in producing process crimes for political purposes, that expectation must be rejected.
That impeachment is nothing but a circus and dont give it any credibility by attending or testifying. no judge can treat it as being normal..no resemblance.of anything ever before
Exactly...they can be forced to hit the chair and listen to the questions but they cannot be forced to speak...
1. Get the hell out of government if you're an honest person.
2. Shrink government to the point that it is almost non-existent, so the dishonest folks who stay in government have very little authority anyway.
I disagree with (1) as a matter of public policy. We need honest people in government.
(2) is spot on ... most of government is unconstitutional.
My point is that even for honest people, cooperating with a dishonest investigation is dangerous. Once targeted by a dishonest investigator, one is doomed. Almost nobody can be certain of avoiding the dishonest investigator's "process crime" traps. Nobody should be expected to cooperate with witch-hunts and fishing expeditions. Yes, Mr. Mueller, I'm talking about YOU.
Quis custodiet ipso custodes?
can one gather from the ruling that congress critters and whistle blowers also must testify?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.