Posted on 07/15/2014 7:07:44 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
White House political director David Simas will not appear before the House Oversight Committee to testify Wednesday, despite a subpoena from Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the White House said Tuesday.
In a letter to Issa on Tuesday, White House counsel Neil Eggleston said the California congressman had "made no effort to justify your extraordinary demand that one of the president's immediate advisers testify at a committee hearing."
In the letter, the White House argues Simas is "immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties" because doing so would threaten "longstanding interests of the Executive Branch in preserving the president's independence and autonomy." Issa is investigating the relaunch of the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach earlier this year. The Republican lawmaker says he's concerned the White House has used staffers for partisan campaign activities, which are prohibited under the Hatch Act.
But Issa has not produced evidence of a specific instance of the White House violating the law, something Eggleston repeatedly emphasized in his letter.
"Your hasty decision to subpoena Mr. Simas is all the more unfounded because the Committee has been unable to point to any indication" the White House broke the law, Eggleston wrote.
Earlier this week, the White House had asked Issa to remove the subpoena, and offered a staff-level briefing on the political office for Issa's investigators.
But Issa said he would not withdraw the subpoena on Tuesday, following a 75-minute gathering between administration officials and committee staff.
“The committee has outstanding questions for Mr. Simas, who did not take part in the briefing, and it is necessary for him to appear at tomorrow’s hearing,” Issa said in a letter to the White House.
“I believe his on-the-record testimony will provide valuable insight into White House efforts to ensure appropriate use of taxpayer funds,” Issa continued.
In his letter, Eggleston said his staff briefed Issa's for 75 minutes and "stayed until the Committee staff determined they had completed their questioning — responding to over forty questions in total."
He also dismissed specific concerns raised by Issa in his letter — including whether the White House press shop pursued corrections to news articles and what officials were involved in the decision to reopen the office — as irrelevant to the question of Hatch Act compliance.
It's not clear what Issa's reaction to the rebuke will be.
In 2012, the House voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt over his refusal to turn over documents tied to the Fast and Furious gun running program.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed Issa’s probe last Friday, stating that the political office “operates in full compliance with the Hatch Act, and to date there is not even any suggestion or let alone evidence that we've deviated from the requirements of the Hatch Act.”
Earlier Tuesday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest dismissed Issa’s probe last Friday, stating that the political office “operates in full compliance with the Hatch Act, and to date there is not even any suggestion or let alone evidence that we've deviated from the requirements of the Hatch Act."
If you’re not a troll, and really a conservative, then your fellow freepers will surely step up to defend you right?
No, they won’t.
Because you don’t belong here.
You’re not one of us and you never were.
You sound like one of those little dogs who yap a lot ... :-) ...
You sound like a liberal Obama-loving turd.
Because you are.
Are you practicing the ole maxim of Hitler’s propagandist, Joseph Goebbels? ... repeat a lie enough times and people will start to believe you ... :-) ...
‘The basic question involved with this is whether this is a correct action for the Office of the President of the United States of America to take, in order to preserve the separation of powers ... or not.’
As I understand it this guy was subpoenaed to appear and is now refusing. It has nothing to do with separation of powers and everything to do with contempt of Congress. He has to appear if only to take the Fifth, as I understand it.
This an investigative committee and if it holds him in contempt his butt can be hauled to jail. If he was not subpoenaed then I guess he could refuse.
I posted this earlier for the information contained, which summarizes this in a small amount of space and gives some history for other Presidents ...
Executive Privilege
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_privilege
In the United States government, executive privilege is the power claimed by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist certain subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information and personnel relating to the executive branch. The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon, but only to the extent of confirming that there is a qualified privilege. Once invoked, a presumption of privilege is established, requiring the Prosecutor to make a “sufficient showing” that the “Presidential material” is “essential to the justice of the case” (418 U.S. at 713-14). Chief Justice Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch’s national security concerns.
[ ... see the rest of the article at link ... ]
Look at the “process” that one has to go through to get an idea of what has to happen ...
‘The basic question involved with this is whether this is a correct action for the Office of the President of the United States of America to take, in order to preserve the separation of powers ... or not.’
As I understand it this guy was subpoenaed to appear and is now refusing. It has nothing to do with separation of powers and everything to do with contempt of Congress. The White House says, he is “immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties”, they are not investigating his official duties, but his illegal ones. He has to appear if only to take the Fifth, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer, raised better than that, but I do know manure when I smell it.
This an investigative committee and if it holds him in contempt his butt can be hauled to jail. By the time the Supreme Court hears it if they deem to, the clock would have run out. I just hope the committee grows a spine and has his sorry butt tossed in the dungeon.
The way I read it is that once Executive Privilege is claimed, then the courts will have to sort it out (from my earlier post ... ).
You were caught as a troll and now you are changing your argument.
You argued earlier that other Presidents have acted illegally. When I called you ln your dissembling and pointed out that Obama is different from any other President we have had, you have changed your story and now claim to have argued only that the congress is unable to impeach him as a practical matter.
Liberals lie. Conservatives argue principal. You are a troll.
It sounds like your delusions have overtaken the reality around you ... :-)
LOL’s Nd smiley faces don’t disguise your trolling. You are trying to sibvert Free Republic with Progressive talking points.
Actually it was often done in the past that the Congress would override a ruling of the Supreme Court and don’t know but it would probably have to pass the House and Senate.
Course this was in the days when men were men, women were women, and Sears and Roebuck was the preferred bathroom reading material. If we go with your idea to seek a Supreme Court decision the House and Congress as a whole would be neutered. That would leave only the Executive Branch with any power. I think they call that a dictatorship.
I already read that article. Every time a member of the administration waffled about submitting to a subpoena, that member wound up providing the information Congress wanted. Except for this imperial president. Eric Holder, and now this.
Don’t repeat the bullshit line that this is the same as before. It isn’t.
Certainly Congress can override the US Supreme Court, as has been done in the past. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment, which is also to be approved by the States, and is a valid and Constitutional way to do it. I’ve mentioned that several times in the past.
But, when you refer to my way of seeking a US Supreme Court decision as if it’s very very problematic - you’re missing the fact that it’s ALREADY BEEN DONE against Obama - OVER TWELVE TIMES thus far and Obama is getting slapped down big-time! Thank goodness those others did not back out of their US Supreme Court cases against Obama!
Bookmark
No you do not understand. The Congress has the power to write laws to negate any ruling by the Supreme Court, it has done so in the past and has nothing to do with a Constitutional Amendment.
He has been mildly slapped down but how many years were those cases in the works? Few were allowed to bypass the lower courts and took years to get to the S.C.. I think if you will check the Congress does have the power to restrict the rulings of the S.C. and has done so in the not to distant past. A Constitutional Convention or Amendment opens a can of worms that could be used to restrict our liberties even farther. I no longer trust the voters with anything that requires thought, they are not capable of looking ahead and see what the consequences of their votes might be. Obama is a great example. He told in his own words only slightly veiled what he was and what he would do and the people knew so little of history and responded in such an emotional way that we ended up with a monster.
If history tells us anything when someone like this comes to power it does not end well for millions of people. Mass graves and gas chambers come to mind. I don’t mind your taking his side as long as you don’t mind my shooting down your efforts. I often say things just to stir the pot and see who is who myself.
01/24/14
The White House on Friday announced David Simas, a senior adviser to President Obama who managed the healthcare rollout, will head up a new post at the White House: Office of Political Strategy and Outreach.
The White House created the role on the heels of an outcry from Democrats in recent months that there was no political point of contact at the White House, especially as midterm elections draw nearer.
It also comes amid restructuring in the West Wing after a lackluster year for Obama with very few legislative wins, a disastrous healthcare rollout and controversy with the National Security Agency’s surveillance program.
Recently, the White House brought in John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to former President Clinton, along with Phil Schiliro, a trusted hand who ran the White House office of legislative affairs at the start of Obama’s presidency.
The new office, headed up by Simas, will coordinate the White House political strategy and outreach activities. It will also serve as the main point of contact for national, state and local political groups, according to a senior administration official. The office will also work with constituent and political groups as well as plan and craft big-picture strategies to achieve White House goals, the senior official added.
Simas will also be the voice of reason on what administration officials are allowed to do on the campaign trail.
Additionally, the office will “advise and assist” Obama and keep him informed about “the current political environment,” the official said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/196380-simas-heads-up-new-office-at-wh#ixzz37cJomceE
A law can certainly be written by Congress, but that law can still be declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. If that happens, then the only recourse after that is a Constitutional Amendment.
I’m supportive of Constitutional Amendments, as a viable process, because there are adequate protections. But I’m not supportive of a Constitutional Convention, because I don’t see that process as clear cut, and thus it can “go bad” in some terrible ways.
And then finally, it should be noted carefully that when I talk about Executive Privilege and the Separation of Powers, that this should not be construed as taking “Obama’s side”. It’s a commentary on the powers of the “Office of the President of the United a State of America” ... which is an “institution” and one of the three branches of government. In other words, I would be saying the same thing no matter who happened to be in office.
01/25/2013
The Obama administration is bringing campaign polling coordinator David Simas into the White House, part of a wave of staffing decisions announced Friday.
The pollster, David Simas, served as Director of Opinion Research for Obama’s re-election, running the campaign’s extensive focus group and polling operation, which aides later revealed was generations ahead of what Mitt Romney’s campaign was capable of. According to a White House official, his new title will be Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Advisor for Communications and Strategy.
White Houses have traditionally worked closely with pollsters, but typically pay for polling through party committees.
Earlier this month, Simas ruled out speculation that he might run for office in his native Massachusetts, where he was active in city politics, worked for Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and apparently kept a working phone bank in his basement, according to The Boston Globe.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Simas44/tweets
David Simas retweeted
The White House (@WhiteHouse) tweeted at 2:26pm - 10 Jul 14:
“I’m the guy doing his job. You must be the other guy.” — President Obama channels The Departed. RT @MattOrtega
pic.twitter.com/2KVeDcdgaH (https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/487324913578291200)
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.