Come on NYT: You've gone from Quid Pro Quo-ing to "Pressure Campaign" in defining extortion and bribery?
Others are reporting the actual dirty deeds of Mulvaney. According to "Bloomberg" (yesterday):
"The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made [earlier in the year], and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid."
Mick Mulvany runs the OMB. Mr. Mulvaney certainly doesn't want to testify why Trump lied about when the money was actually released.
Mulvaney should have filed his own separate lawsuit as the House has withdrawn the subpoena against Kupperman making the issue moot for the court as there is nothing to decide when the House is not trying to compel Kupperman.
Asking the court to decide is sensible, but just a stalling tactic given the time constraints. Mulvaney should resign and testify or refuse to testify and risk contempt.
3
Isn't the Kuppeman case moot? The subpoena was withdrawn, Also, Bolton was never subpoenaed.
So why wouldn't the courts just throw these cases out? It would seem that only Mulvaney has standing to bring this before the court at this time.
2
If 45* asked his loyal servant, or lawyer, to commit a crime, who is the one to be held into account?
2
They all know that legally they have to testify, and if they wanted to do the right thing, they would. Let them stall and grandstand. Go on with the inquiry and they can either put up or shut up and be found guilty of contempt. Whether or not DOJ does anything is another matter, but the stain on their reputations will remain far longer than this administration.
2
This is not surprising given that Mulvaney, like all of Trump's circle and appointees, lacks a moral and ethical center to guide him. They are all immoral, not amoral, so only a court can tell them what to do. Jails scares them. Committing crimes does not.
5
I would guess that Mulvaney has been hearing, like the rest of us, that Trump will throw him and/or Giuliani under the bus. It's also possible that Mulvaney did this with Trump's blessing as a weak attempt to stall the impeachment proceedings by waiting for the courts to decide. Either way, I hope the whole lot of them end up in jail -- the administration is rotten to a man and woman.
4
Cowardice. Plain, simple cowardice. Pompeo and Mulvaney, trumpeted as intelligent evangelistic men of moral clarity, with bombastic fury partisan fury in their past GOP rep days, now silent in the face of betrayal to our nation. I'm tired of pundits telling us how smart these men are; what is intelligence without moral clarity? It is fascism, allowing power to go unchecked, ceding your ethical core to primal motives. These deeply religious men, or so we are told, are either spiritually bereft, or are sophomorically convinced of their role in some greater purpose, that they continue to propagate the machinations of POTUS.
9
If any of us defied a subpoena to appear in court, the bench would issue a warrant and arrest us. This is exactly what should be done with every single one of Trump's cronies who defies their subpoenas. No one is above the law.
Lastly, by ordering his people to defy the subpoena, Trump is blatantly obstructing justice. Another piece of evidence for his impeachment
73
@Ben M
Absolutely.
If America dies it will be because the rule of law died first.
12
Working for this president is a risky career choice. The list is long of those being thrown under the bus, yet there still seem to be those who continue to fall prey to the consequences of putting their faith in a conman.
3
The solution seems simple, so if anyone knows what I'm missing after reading this, please educate us all:
You get a subpoena.
You negotiate when to comply, to consult with legal help (and mind you, the average Joe has to show up when directed, period).
You show up and answer questions, under oath. Bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a"global" executive privilege, because it is impossible that EVERYTHING you spoke to the President about could be legitimately covered, the general categories of possible answers are:
1. Answered to the best of one's ability and knowledge.
2. I don't remember.
3. That particular thing is covered by executive privilege
(which could be challenged, for that particular thing).
4. I plead the Fifth, because the answer to that particular
question would tend to incriminate me.
There is absolutely no valid justification for blowing off a lawful subpoena. The law does not recognize an "I don't respect the validity of the investigation" exception. Seems to me "competing" branches of government is an invalid argument; answer what you can, don't answer if you can't.
Except, I'm not in the Trump administration, or a Congressional Republican, so I guess I don't have the awesome privilege of being able to pick and choose which laws and authorities I have to comply with because I, personally, don't think I have to.
I smell anarchy in the wind. Ironically, promoted by the so-called "law and order" party.
8
All of this game playing is threatening Nancy Pelosi’s plan to impeach Trump on the single, treasonous extortion of the leader of Ukraine.
Nancy, it was good to wait until you had a hot smoking gun in hand - but the impeachment inquiry must be extended to include the Mueller Team report - which says Trump ran an ongoing criminal enterprise to obstruct justice - successfully thwarting attempts to investigate the Putin-US collaboration.
And, by expansion - the financial connections between the Trump Organization and the House of Saud, which apparently took precedence over the murder of a US resident/Washington Post columnist - while Russian and Saudi bankers and oligarchs became the Trump Organization’s major source of income, when US and most other major banks, Deutsche Bank the one curious exception.
The obstruction is the key - follow who and what was locked down to find the money, then follow.
In addition to investigating whether Trump consistently violated the Emoluments Restriction in the Constitution, for his family and personal benefit, the plea ending the NYS suit against the Trump Foundation shows Donald, the only member of the Foundation board with any power, operated a money laundering operation to violate Campaign Finance and Internal Revenue law.
Yes, based on quotes from the settlement, Trump admitted federal felonies in the course of running this “piggy bank”, itself sufficient cause to remove him.
Time to break out the scattergun, and charge every crime.
5
If/when this cabal are told they must testify will they answer or will they plead the fifth amendment?
5
Seems like we’re learning what a democracy really looks like. Money and lawyers. But we kind of knew that anyway. Our president, if nothing else, and believe me there is nothing else, knows how to work the system. I wonder how he pays for it all? Our tax dough?
7
C’mon, the NYT can’t really see what Mulvaney’s goal has been since his. “We do this all the time...Get over it” press conference?
Mulvaney is engineering the legal process to reach the Supreme Court. He just needs a quick test case to be picked up by the SCOTUS. Once there the toady Republican majority will find some convoluted “originalist” rationale based on Article Two of the Constitution. That decision will define the scope of the powers of the “unitary executive” as virtually unfettered in pursuit of foreign policy objectives.
The clear outcome of this decision will be to eviscerate the entire impeachment process. Trump will have been found to be acting within his purview as the executive in seeking a ‘favor’ for the release of military foreign aid. In essence Trump was only seeking to make a deal. His choice of words will be defined as normal business vernacular.
With the decision the ”Witch Hunt” will be over, Democrats will be caste as coup plotting idiots and Trump wins another electoral college victory in 2020. Then Trump, and his Torquemada 2.0, Barr will launch a full blown Inquisition to root out and jail “Democrat Traitors.”
I take little delight in forecasting this scenario, but it is really all out there before us. Trump and his acolytes always tell you what they will do well before they do it.
Trump essentially a divine right king defining “Get over it” as
4
This is a compelling, terrifying and seemingly plaisible nightmare scenario...what credentiaks or indights donyou have that bring you down such a path?
Mind you, I am not challenging you. I am instead curious and compelled by your theory.
The lawsuit is frivolous. It is solely designed to run out the clock in legitimate investigations. Responding to a subpoena is not optional. Trump is a dictator wannabe. Every request for documents and witnesses in several criminal, administrative and legislative investigations have been stonewalled. This constitutes obstruction of justice.
15
Are they all gambling that the court will rule in their favor and not be ordered to comply with the subpoena's? Mulvaney reminds me of the son from the Godfather movie.
4
" 'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English)."
4
Mulvaney knows that one of the few things that Trump is really great at is throwing people under the bus and he also knows the bus is on its way.
11
Mr Mulvaney is not opposing the President.
By becoming a party to the Court proceedings he is saying that he agrees to being bound by the decision of the Court regarding the subpoena to him. Called "submitting to jurisdiction". He need not take any part in the proceedings.
So if the Court decides he must comply with the subpoena he will do so. Else not.
4
Are they all aware that the fix is in and this will just give them the cover to not testify? Or, remember those NDA's that trump has had everyone sign? trump just love to sue people.
4
Maggie Haberman might wish to investigate the following possibility: that Mulvaney is joining the suit to give the strongest possible argument that the President has the authority to tell him (and perhaps by implication the others) that he should not testify. It would be a risky gamble, because if he loses he would effectively have a court order to testify issued against him.
I do not have any specific evidence that my hypothesis is true, but it seems reasonable enough that it should be investigated. It would make Mulvaney's actions much less peculiar seeming.
7
Catch-22.
“the Honorable Donald J. Trump”
There is nothing honorable about him, so this is a prima facie libel.
White House Chief of Staff is not a “cabinet-level position” despite its enhanced access to lI Duce. It does not require Senate confirmation. Moreover, Mulvaney is not even the permanent chief, but still “acting” after almost a year. So far his acting performance isn’t winning any awards.
14
I seriously doubt that Mr. Mulvaney "hopes the court will tell him whether to listen to his own boss, who wants him to remain silent, or to comply with a subpoena from the House, which wants his testimony." I suspect something more cynical, and far more in keeping with the Trump Administrations attitude toward government, is playing out. If the judge in the pending district court action rules against Mr. Kupperman, he is unlikely to appeal, and he and Mr. Bolton will both have the cover they need to testify before Congress. But if the district court grants Mr. Mulvaney's motion to intervene, he will become a party and have the right to appeal an adverse ruling, thereby depriving Messers. Kupperman and Bolton of that cover until the court of appeal rules - which is likely to be after the impeachment trial has concluded.
10
How timely:
"This reality show presidency has low ratings, and it is high time for it to be cancelled."
Turns out there's an election next year, so we can do just that! That's how we pick our leaders in this country, by the way -- elections. It's called many things, but we like to call it "democracy." Even deplorable people get to participate.
8
Why doesn't Congress just pass a federal law that expedites this question reaching the US Supreme Court -- even skip the intermediate appellate courts (as already happens in certain federal claims)?
That could and should be done, rather than allowing the current impasse to continue indefinitely. If the US Supreme Court rules against Trump, he'd be violating an order issued by the top US court, rather than a subpoena issued by a House committee -- and an independent decision-maker would have declared that the House committee is correct. Why would the House NOT want to put Trump in that unenviable position?
Congress and its supporters are kidding themselves here. Trump will continue to insist that he's correct and that his opponents are incorrect -- unless and until the US Supreme Court tells him he's wrong. Frankly, I don't mind Trump disagreeing with the House on this, but I would mind greatly if he also disagreed -- or ignored -- an order issued by the US Supreme Court. Though the opposite is often claimed, Trump has never disobeyed a court order.
4
Because a Republican-controlled Senate is not going to expedite any process that MAY expedite public truth-telling. Delay, distract...
1
Well, if you say so ...
"A subpoena from Congress is the highest level of subpoena in the US."
Well, that's the question, isn't it? The House says yes; Trump says no. Should one of them decide who's correct?
A great deal of journalistic ink has been devoted to the choice between the phrases "undocumented migrants" and "illegal aliens." But there are other examples of choices that reveal the chooser's predisposition, such as Commenter JKBerg's use of "Mayor O'Dwyer's reign." Maybe O'Dwyer shouldn't have been elected, but he was -- "reign" suggests he wasn't.
Sounds like this is shaping up to being the battle of the buffoons.
8
Here's a good example: Just say (or write) something over and over and over, and voila! What was once "untrue" becomes true:
"Manafort [is] now serving time in federal prison as [a] convicted felon ..."
Those who followed Manafort's case know, of course, that his conviction has utterly nothing to do with his time spent on Trump's campaign. But those who didn't follow Manafort's case may not know this -- that's the hope, of course, when such statements are made.
2
Commenter Mark Young "predicts" something which, of course, he has no way of knowing:
"This is just a delaying tactic. Mulvaney does not plan to testify under any circumstances."
I have almost no doubt that the loser will appeal whatever a district court and the mid-level appellate court rules, but I predict -- flatly contrary to Mark Young -- that the loser will honor a final judgment by the US Supreme Court. To my knowledge, and though the contrary has often been claimed, Trump has never failed to honor a court order.
A Democratic congressman has argued, correctly, that Congress could pass a law that expedites federal courts' processing of the claims involve here: i.e., the conflict between Congress' right to demand testimony and/or documents in furtherance of its unquestionable authority to impeach the President versus the President's claim of "executive privilege." I think Trump goes too far here, arguing that Mulvaney (for example) need not even show up in response to a subpoena. But the House also goes too far here, utterly poo-poohing Trump's claim of "executive privilege."
My very strong hunch is that the courts will rule that a called witness must show up, but can decline to answer certain questions, and/or to provide certain documents, based on an "executive privilege" claim made by the President. That is essentially what a federal district court ruled when Harriet Miers was called to testify and bring documents in a Congressional inquiry aimed at Bush the Younger. Though that ruling wasn't appealed and has no precedential value, it strikes me as correct and probably will be repeated here.
4
Emily Bazelon's piece in today's New York Times Magazine reports that the US Supreme Court has never before been squarely presented the present issue: the conflict between Congress' power to demand testimony and/or documents versus the President's claim of "executive privilege." It appears that that issue will be squarely presented very soon -- assuming this stark dispute doesn't get resolved as earlier disputes always have: by compromise.
Previously, when this issue was "shaping up" for presentation to the courts, the source of Congress' power has been its right to consider and pass legislation. That argument proves too much, though, and too little. I'd argue that the House ALSO is empowered under the Constitution to impeach the President, and that it needs the requested testimony and documents to consider properly whether it ought to do that. Why argue that getting the requested testimony and documents would enhance Congress' authority to pass laws when Congress can strongly argue, instead, that the requested testimony and documents would enhance Congress' authority to impeach the President?
The recent story in the Smithsonian Magazine about political corruption in New York City during Mayor O'Dwyer's reign reminds us that the worse consequence of such corruption is not the public officials robbing the public coffers to enrich themselves, families, friends and co-conspirators, but the "essence of the offense [corruption] . . . is to destroy public trust in the institutions that are supposed to keep people safe."
This is indeed the essence of the impact the entire Trump Administration and its Republican congressional enablers have had on our nation. The corruption is wide-ranging from environmental protection to intelligence gathering to foreign policy. Trump's attempt to force Ukraine to investigate the Biden's for Trump's personal and political benefit is just the most recent, if not most nefarious, instance of his narcissistic attack on our governmental institutions -- in this case the State Department.
Impeachment is just the bare beginning of restoring faith in our government -- at least for our allies and those of us citizens who don't think Trump is above the law.
4
For Mulvaney: Donald Trump or Country? Pretty simple, isn’t it?
PS: remember, Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Trump doesn’t like you.
18
It's a sacrilege to see these two vile men descending from AF1.
But again, both are underlings to an equally vile man from Queens who now live in WH.
9
This is just a delaying tactic. Mulvaney does not plan to testify under any circumstances.
First, the judge in this case has already indicated a go slow approach with a December 11th hearing date. Months could go by before this guy rules.
Second, Mulvaney has effective legal cover for who knows how long. Years?
Third, even if he is required to testify, he shows up and claims executive privilege. Tack on several more years to the process.
Mulvaney is too much of a toadie to go against Trump. And if it gets too bad, Trump will just pardon him.
8
red herring: just delays the impeachment proceedings and could reveal absolutely nothing. He could and would lie, let's remember what the administration he is a part of has done the last 3 years. If he wants to do the right thing, he doesn't need a court order
5
A true hero and patriot would stand up and tell the truth and defend the United States of America, like so many have already bravely done (Taylor, Yovanovich, Kent, Vindman, Hill, and more). Instead this bunch (Bolton, Mulvaney, Kupperman) along with Republican representatives and senators who continue to defend Trump show what it truly means to be a coward. Sen. Graham and McConnell and friends, you can’t hide behind your American flag lapel pins anymore. We know who you are and who you’ve pledged your allegiance to, and it’s not the United States or the American people.
16
Mulvaney is probably hoping for a discount rate as an add-on.
Meanwhile, the important point is that there is a growing list of people who should be testifying but don't have the guts to offend trump. They need a bit of electro-shock therapy to jump start their patriotism, it seems.
6
If Mr. Mulvaney is part of the lawsuit, then his lawyers may get an early & inside look at the strategies being contemplated by the other plaintiffs, and be better able both to have input into those strategies and their implementation and to advise the President.
2
But what IS the "right thing?" Should Mulvaney decide that, or should he drop back 15 yards and punt?
"You have one chance to do the right thing."
The House has demanded that Mulvaney testify and produce documents. Trump has told him not to testify or produce documents. They both can't be right. Which one is, and who should decide that? Should the House decide the scope of its own authority? Should Trump? Or should some third party -- the courts, for example?
Mulvaney (like Kupperman and Bolton before him) is simply saying: "Tell me which side to obey, Judge, and that's what I'll do." Seems pretty uncontroversial to me.
2
@Commenter
Uncontroversial?!? Wow!
Mulvaney would then be chosing to follow the orders of a judge over the orders of the president.
Assuming their instructions to Mulvaney are different, who, in truth, would be making the decision???
MULVANEY would.
These idiots trying to hide THEIR decisions behind those of a judge is pathetic.
Commenter, the problem of the three weasels, the president and judge is an appropriate logic problem for a junior high school social studies class. Educated grownups should immediately see that the weasels are attemping to deny responsibility and avoid punishment.
3
See what happens when a Constitution is dismissed, laws are disregarded, and government is run into the ground by a bunch of scurrilous, transactional, opportunists--in the case of Trump's administration, mostly "acting" opportunists.
I feel like I am watching a really appalling mini-series--far more corrupt than "House of Cards," which reminds me of a Tom Clancy remark:
"The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
5
“There’s never been a president who’s been so transparent,” Mr. Trump said. “This is a witch hunt at the highest level, and it’s so bad for our country.”
Why continue to quote his lying nonsense? Which, granted, is everything that comes out of his gaping cakehole.
11
Well, he is transparently and flagrantly committing crimes right out in the open!
10
Sometimes there aren’t complicated explanations, even when there is high risk legal wrangling going on. It’s possible Mulvaney, who’s feeling maybe for the first time what it feels to be one of a Trump’s scapegoats, is simply hedging his bets.
He also might just be envious of the grown-up legal strategy being pursued by Cooper, Bolton and Kupperman’s attorney, one which will still allow him to argue to his boss down the hall that it’s all part of a rope-a-dope strategy to delay impeachment. Maybe his own lawyer is unimaginative and wants to piggyback argumentation another legal team.
I’m just glad all these miscreants are having to fork out lots of money from their own pockets to pay attorneys to defend themselves working for such a corrupt Administration. It should increase the District’s GDP for the next couple of years too.
3
The saddest part of all of this is we know Trump did it but many Americans don’t understand why it was wrong. The democrats job at this point is to educate the public as to why the president can’t ask a foreign government to create dirt on his political rival. And how dare the Republicans try to distract us by calling in Hunter Biden. How have they become so completely disloyal to America, democracy and our constitution?
14
@Sean Casey junior
Yes!
1
Huh?
"... conveniently invented 'presidential privilege.'"
Previous Presidents have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, citing "executive privilege." I don't know whether Trump will win this battle, but it's certainly not new. Frankly, I think the courts will side mostly with the House, but will acknowledge the partial validity of Trump's "executive privilege" argument.
The key "takeaway" is that neither party -- the House OR Trump -- should get to decide. A neutral third party should -- the courts. Congress tends to say the courts shouldn't be involved because that would take too long, but doesn't that argument lead to the conclusion that Congress gets to decide on the scope of its own authority? What if we decide instead that Trump gets to make the call? Either outcome is, obviously, absurd; you can't let an interested party make the call.
1
Shouldn’t be a problem if everyone really just wants to get to the truth.
Federal courts have jurisdiction over "cases or controversies." Where is the controversy here? Neither Bolton nor Mulvaney have standing to challenge a lawful congressional subpoena. Nor can they or Trump use the courts to avoid complying with the law, unless the courts choose to participate in a circus.
3
"Neither Bolton nor Mulvaney have standing to challenge a lawful congressional subpoena"
That's complete nonsense. Every recipient of a subpoena has the right to challenge it in court. You say that they have no right to challenge a lawful subpoena, but a subpoena's legality is only determined by a court.
3
@GMooG : I appreciate your comment., but the challenge to the subpoena must have a legal basis. "I 've been instructed by my boss not to comply is not a legal basis. Therefore, no standing.
1
@Blessinggirl
No, you have it all wrong.
First, you are confusing standing with an argument on the merits; they are two separate things. Every subpoena recipient has standing to object, regardless of whether their objections have merits. When you say that he has no standing because he his objection, in your opinion, lacks merit, is a circular argument: how would you ever get to a determination on merits without having standing to raise the objection?
Second, the basis for Trump's instruction not to appear is not just that he "feels like it." The basis is an assertion of executive privilege. Mulvaney is perfectly within his rights to refuse to appear until a court resolves the privilege issue. Privilege disputes like this over subpoenas are dealt with 1000 x/day by federal judges and magistrates.
1
Commenter chambolle is exactly right:
"There’s nothing at all unusual about responding to a subpoena to testify or to produce documents by saying 'I’ll do what a court tells me I should do.'"
That's all Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney are saying: "Congress is telling me to show up and bring documents. Trump is telling me just the opposite. Obviously I can't do both. So tell me, Judge, what should I do?"
3
I hope that the House leadership don't whimp out on this investigation. Relevant committees need to flex their muscles and make resisting a suppeona a dangerous thing to do.
Warrants would be a fine next step. Force the issue. Everyone loves a perp walk.
3
Seriously?
"This is a cop out on Mulvaney's part. He is perfectly capable of making this decision himself and should do so without further delay!"
What if a court rules on Kupperman's request, for Trump, and Mulvaney has by then decided to testify? Would Mulvaney be warranted in testifying?
Shouldn't Mulvaney do exactly what he is doing -- ask a court to make the decision?
Regarding unified defense of the President, there seems to be some not uncommon GOP circular reasoning. It seems that Mick Mulvaney is one of a small band who GOP congressmen seek to implicate rather than the President in the Ukraine inquiry. However, it also seems that if the wrongdoing is Mulvaney's, Presidential executive privilege is inapplicable, which makes joining the suit to seek protection from congressional subpoenas based on Presidential executive privilege irrelevant, unless of course the President is the focus of the inquiry, which is not what some GOP congressmen want you to think.
2
Come on, guys, was this a slow news day, or did you just need something inflammatory to stick in a headline?
There’s nothing at all unusual about responding to a subpoena to testify or to produce documents by saying “I’ll do what a court tells me I should do.” This is particularly true where, as here, there is an interested party known to oppose production of the witness, documents or other evidence, and who threatens adverse consequences for doing so.
Mulvaney is seeking declaratory relief; he’s covering his bottom before Trump and the RNC smack it; and that’s not big news. It’s how the process quite often plays out in the real world in lawsuits large and not so large.
There’s more than enough that is worthy of outrage — try the ongoing effort to bar refugees from the country, the fires raging in California while the Trump White House says ‘drop dead,’ Trump’s vulgar, virulent attack on anyone who dares to testify to Trumpian misconduct and the entourage of ‘conservatives’ who back him up, the soaring deficit, the abandonment of the Kurds while exhorting troops to ‘take the oil fields’... by all means, all of that is outrageous.
Seeking a judicial ruling before responding to a subpoena? No, it’s probably the prudent thing for Mulvaney and others to do, particularly given Fearless Leader’s penchant for throwing anyone and everyone who dares to tell the truth under a moving bus. Report it that way, without the spin, will you please?
2
I doubt this commenter is correct:
"The House wants to impeach by the end of the year."
If Trump is removed (which doesn't look likely), the Democratic Party will be wisest to delay that as long as possible, lest Pence be given enough time to "look Presidential" and get re-elected.
That argues for NOT impeaching Trump by the end of the year.
If end of the year is nonetheless the time target, Trump's "reconstructed" transcript of his telephone call with Zelensky is sufficient. No need for testimony from Kupperman, Bolton or Mulvaney. Trump's opponents already have what they need.
Frankly, I doubt this will go anywhere near actual removal. It's long been clear that the House will impeach Trump, but I see no reason to anticipate that the Senate will even come close to the 2/3 vote needed to remove him. The only real question is whether this will end with a whimper (which I expect) or a bang.
The Democratic Party could also try (as it undoubtedly will) to win the 2020 election. Right now, that prospect looks pretty grim. Maybe that will change, but I seriously doubt the pending impeachment inquiry will affect that prospect very much. Voters will be more impressed by actual plans.
Ever look at the polls?
1
@Caroline Sunshine: I suppose the polls argue for the Democratic Party to do nothing -- just coast. Somehow, though ...
Putin, Kim, Erdogan, Giuliani, Mulvaney....When Trump gets behind the wheel you never can tell who's going to take who for a ride.
1
". . . a lawsuit that names “the Honorable Donald J. Trump” as a defendant along with congressional leaders"
I guess one of the perks of being elected president is that the word "Honorable" and the president's full name are written in the same sentence, as if that's really any indication of the man truly being "honorable" or not.
4
We have admission of the conspiracy, arms for dirt, from three most important sources: Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Trump himself. What else is needed?
3
Don't mean to nit pick here, but is Mick Mulvaney Trump's chief of staff or "acting" chief of staff? Both variations are seen throughout various stories.
To say it's confusing is putting it mildly. But then Trump's entire administration including himself have been confusing.
2
This is a cop out on Mulvaney's part. He is perfectly capable of making this decision himself and should do so without further delay!
3
Why is this 'puzzling'? It represents a blatant attempt to trick the House to drop the Mulvaney subpoena in like fashion to Kupperman and Bolton.
Democratically elected representatives lose, executive appointed judges win.
3
Mulvaney is an apparatchik. He knows what really happened but won't say - even with a court order. He'll answer softball questions from Republicans but will defer any hard questions - claiming "executive privilege". At best this is a stalling tactic.
6
Will Mulvaney get information that he couldn't otherwise get about the case against the president by joining the lawsuit? Could this information then help the president?
5
Mulvaney has already blurted out that he and the President were trying to bribe the Ukrainian President. What more do we need from Mulvaney? Many much more credible witnesses have already corroborated the obvious criminal and impeachable actions of this President. Does Mulvaney think his faux concern over avoiding a House subpoena rehabilitates him politically or otherwise? Having his testimony whether it would be truthful or not is not important to the impeachment of Donald R. Trump.
3
@Mike
I respectfully disagree.
It is absolutely essential that the case, the Articles of Impeachment presented by members of the house to the senate, constitute an absolutely airtight presentation.
If this is accomplished, at least 2/3 of the senators, of the 100 acting as the jury, will have no choice. The entire nation will be watching the trial. Crystal clear proof of the president’s guilt WILL result in either conviction or in the political suicide of many Republican senators.
I’m guessing that, in the situation described above,
Trump will be convicted and removed from office.
We will take a MAJOR step in ending our national nightmare.
3
There are a lot of acting government employees "following orders" not to testify to avoid being open and transparent as trump claims. Why their heads aren't exploding like the martians in Mars Attacks will be the subject of numerous studies if we survive this attempt to distort reality.
Any one of these people could step up and prove trump right when he says it was a perfect phone call and the impachment inquiry is a hoax.
Anyone?
4
Kushner getting off Air Force One? So the family travels at government expense?
6
You only just noticed this after 3 years? They go everywhere with him.
1
Dear Trump supporters,
You have succumbed to the most talented cult leader in the history of the world. Mr. Trump's mastery puts Jim Jones and David Koresh to shame.
But it is time for you to return to reality. Mr. Trump is finished. Put a fork in him. He's done.
He is nothing but a reality TV star, and a con man.
As Mick Mulvaney said, "Get over it."
Save yourselves from the sinking ship, while you still have a chance. You still have an opportunity for redemption.
8
Dear Mr. Mulvaney,
As a result of Watergate, the White House Chief of Staff and the U.S. Attorney General spent time in federal prison, along with many others.
Mr. Trump's former associates, including his 2016 campaign chair Paul Manafort and personal attorney Michael Cohen, are now serving time in federal prison as convicted felons. Roger Stone may soon join them.
The writing is on the wall. Do you want to join these convicted federal prisoners? How do you want to be remembered when the history books are written? What is your legacy? How will your children and grandchildren remember you?
You have one chance to do the right thing.
270
@MidtownATL Really. This guy will be remembered? I'd rather remember Mickey Mouse. He'll be passed off like a bad dream. A nonplus.
10
If Trump is still in office after the 2020 election, there will be no history books written to judge Mulvaney or any of them.
Have you not noticed that King Donald has already banned subscriptions to the Times and Washington Post by all federal agencies?
10
@Vincent
..and a hearty Amen to that!
This is as good a place as any for me to say this:
I have to keep reminding myself constantly about the utterly bottom of Trump’s swamp he keeps finding his ‘acting this or that department head with no congressional approvals’ , that these rats are all cut from the same cloth. But I cannot help being astonished by just how really vile they all are.
And no, Mr. Mulvaney I’M NOT ABOUT TO ‘GET OVER ‘THAT’!
6
There's nothing remarkable about naming friendly parties in a suit for declaratory relief. Generally speaking, the object is to join everyone who may be bound by the judgment. Since Trump could be adversely affected by a ruling in favor of Congress, he is rightly joined. In fact, failure to join Trump would furnish a potent ground for getting the suit dismissed on the purely procedural ground of failure to join an indispensable party.
1
Or he could pull a Lewandowski, and refuse to answer any relevant questions claiming executive privilege. Every time an action in court takes place, even adding a name to an existing lawsuit, it delays a ruling. Schiff wants to move quickly. It wouldn’t surprise me, if after the hearing, the house refuses to vote for impeachment. The spectacle of Schiff, the whistleblower, Biden, his son, and even the lawyers who wrote up the complaint are forced to testify before the Senate, Trump could appear to be a victim. A one sided presentation of third hand opinions and hearsay evidence might be the Democrats best possible option. The Senate has no intention of limiting Trump’s defense, and can drastically limit the evidence it will allow to be presented in a trial. By simply passing a rule limiting evidence to the norms used in federal court procedures, there might not be much to present at all. I think this hearing is intended to blunt the coming IG’s report on FISA abuses. Durham’s report with likely criminal referrals will follow. Imagine those trials taking place, or pleas being made, before the election?
1
May I ask all the constitutional lawyers out there two questions:
1. Is a lawyer not bound to obey the law, as an officer of the court, and if he/she does not, would the bar association themselves not be legally bound to take action?
2. With all these public officers ignoring sub peonas and refusing document requests from the highest body in the land, does that not set a very strong precedent for any citizen to do the same, and point to the executive?
Confused north of the Border ...
3
there's a faulty premise embedded in your question. You appear to be assuming that "comply with the law,"means "comply with the subpoena." Those two aren't necessarily the same thing.
This dispute will ultimately go to a federal court, which will determine whether the subpoenas are legally enforceable. At that point, the recipients of the subpoenas will have to comply to the extent that the court determines they are enforceable.
2
@GMooG Thanks for the clarification.
Dear Peter Baker, I respect you, but you should have researched more closely. The judge on this case is Justice Richard J. Leon, a conservative judge, deemed one of the worst judges, who has consistently (except in one case) decided on the side of Trump. I suspect that it was when they found that he was to be the judge, that Mulvaney tried to attach himself to the request. He's not going against Trump at all!
2
@fritz mueller
This is a hypothesis much more consistent with the judge's apparent intention to decide a case already mooted by withdrawal of the subpoena.
1
Mick Mulvaney? I barely knew the guy. There may be some pictures of us together, but I’m in pictures with everyone.
3
I think saying Mulvaney vs. Trump because of a legal filing is superficial and misleading. The only Mulvaney vs. Trump that would be real is if Mulvaney actually testifies (that does not mean "I don't remember" or evasions or denials).
1
In terms of who in the White House is “Anonymous” or who will ultimately take “trump” out, it’s entirely easy to think it’s any one of them. When “trump” looks around the White House it would be impossible for him NOT to see all of them as potential enemies.
3
@Matthew
"When trump looks around the White House it would be impossible for him NOT to see all of them as potential enemies."
Mr. Trump demands personal loyalty from everyone who works for him, but does not reciprocate.
This is what happens when you throw everyone around you under the bus. What comes around, goes around.
Mr. Trump is going down. Put a fork in him. He's done.
1
Mulvaney told the nation in a press conference that Trump bribed the president of the Ukraine. He softened that admission by alleging we do it all the time and later walking back the bluntness of his statement.
Mulvaney spends a lot of time around Trump, observing him up close and in very private quarters.
Is he Anonymous, the author of "A Warning?" Wouldn't Anonymous need deep, deep cover to avoid any suspicion of Trump?
Sure Mulvaney is implicated by others in Trump's effort to bribe Zelensky, but isn't it convenient that he represents the direct connection between Trump and the bribe and further that he made it clear to the diplomats who will testify that Trump was definitely bribing Zelensky? Is joining a lawsuit against Trump his way of playing his game from both sides to keep his cover?
2
So let's assume for a moment Messrs Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Mnuchin, Barr, et al are persons of reasonable intelligence, have kept up with current events and possess some self awareness and self preservation.
Why on earth are they still supporting the president?
At what point do they realise that the end of this sorry saga is rushing headlong towards them like a dozen proverbial buses ready for them to be thrown under?
Perhaps Mr Mulvaney has a Greyhound timetable.
3
The best minds in our government, which were not that impressive to begin with, are now all occupied with protecting themselves from their potential legal problems resulting from associating with Mr. Trump. This administration is frozen, and needs to gracefully leave town. Speaker Pelosi, deserves great credit for walking and chewing gum at the same time, without drooling all over herself as the Republicans are doing. This is embarrassing for the country when the Senate Majority no longer believes in the Constitution as being important, as evidenced by their excuses and obfuscation.
3
Eventually the corrupt Trump administration will crumble. My guess is that Republicans made a deal with the president to end, or at least scale back, his business ventures that profit from the presidency in exchange for their impeachment defense. Congressional Republicans, no matter how vocal their support of the president, are less vulnerable to scrutiny in a separate branch. I'd like to see Jim Jordan as Chief of Staff and see how he fares. Or any of these high profile Trump defenders.
Mr. Mulvany and Mr. Bolton are in the impossible position between engaging in and defending the president's corrupt antics. Those are the only choices. There is no team support in the executive branch. Just Donald Trump's ego. He has never worked for anyone in his entire life except his father and himself. "Public servant" is not in his vocabulary and the Trump presidency will go down in history as a low point for American character.
2
So Trump's acting chief of staff wants the court to tell him it is OK to defy Trump and tell the truth. As unusual as this may be, this sets a precedent that perhaps Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham could follow. Maybe they could also get a court to tell them it is OK to defy Trump supporters and do the right thing, which is to impeach Trump?
115
American legal principles and political traditions demand that whatever defense the Trump administration offers in response to the congessional impeahment investigations be seriously and respectfully considered. The fact that the administration’s maneuvers will likely be based on the delusions and ignorance of a president who has come detached from reality tempers this responsibility, but does not relieve it.
It is likely that Republican defenders of Trump’s corruption, incompetence and criminality will desperately throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at well-established evidence of obviously impeachable actions taken or directed by the president.
As a senior citizen, long interested in American history and politics, I look for Mr. Trump, surely the most unpesidential of all American presidents, to reach new heights of embarrassingly undignified, erratic behavior in the coming months. Hopefully, the citizenry will find the strength and patience to bear this spectacle, and the loyal heroes working for the State Department will find ways to assure other governments, around the world, that we are now decisively taking the necessary steps to bring an end to the tragedy that is the Trump presidency.
147
"American legal principles and political traditions demand that whatever defense the Trump administration offers in response to the ... investigations be seriously and respectfully considered."
Tom W, I don't know about that. Why should Trump's efforts to delay, obfuscate and obstruct be "seriously and respectfully considered"? The Constitution gives the impeachment power solely to Congress - not to the judiciary. And Congress is not required to let Trump play rope-a-dope with Congress to buy himself more time.
If Trump wants his defense to be seriously and respectfully considered, he is free to present a defense and let his administration testify and let the truth come out.
17
@The Real Mr. Magoo
Excellent points, Magoo!
I have noticed, throughout the four decades of the Reagan Era, a marked Republican tendency to disregard the law or political traditions when doing so is to their advantage. However, whenever the the Democrats are winning, the same Republican pols point fingers, scream and whine. If they can conjure an excuse to do so, the Republicans don’t hesitate or display any shame as they loudly accusevthe “lawless” Democrats of “destroying democracy.”
Their obvious inconsistency is maddening. How do we deal with an opposing team who refuse to play by the rules?
When I wrote my original comment, I was focused on the thought of denying Trump’s supporters ANY substantive opportunity to claim the president is being “railroaded.”
If you give Trumpists an inch, they can turn it into a “liberal attempt at a coup,” or “a hideous left-wing conspiracy.”
Reunifying the electorate is even more important than removing Trump from office. Not “giving the Trumpists an inch” may well be essential in order to finally end the partisan insanity of our times.
18
@Tom W you have eloquently and literally summed up my entire thoughts. thank you for expressing your opinions. we are staring into an abyss of madness. I ask myself often tho how we got here in the first place and at what cost to right the nation ship.will lessons be learned? will our core democratic values be saved and can the nation unify again?
4
"The president’s chief of staff is trying to join a lawsuit against the president"?
This is just a Trump ploy to slow down the impeachment proceedings.
No one believes for one second that Mulvaney or Bolton will ever say one thing that might jeopardize their careers in the Republican Party. Their intentions are only to delay testimony and add chaos .
73
@JM What makes you think their participation in this legal process will jeopardize their reputations? With all of the lies and corruption members of this administration have indefensively committed - both actively and passively - helping to impeach Trump BY DOING THEIR DUTY can only improve the harm they have already done to their reputations. The only way they can do worse is to continue to stand behind Trump. And for the record, the source of the chaos is Trump himself.
9
@JM
As others (e.g., Lawrence O’Donnell) have observed (and is mentioned in this piece), Bolton has a lucrative book deal. He doesn’t want to give away his testimony for free when he can be handsomely paid for it.
8
Because Mulvaney, Barr Pompeo, and Pence are highly likely to be co-conspirators in a bribery/extortion/campaign finance felony somewhere down the line, all are looking for defense strategies. Here Mulvaney is trying to run out the clock. Barr has another strategy. Keeping distance while gaming up a phony attack on the investigation requires him "to appear" as not a "sycophant". Pompeo will say the State Department was acting independent of Trump because the $141 million of defense goods was sent 3 days before Trump caved because he knew he was caught and tried to frame the "phone conversation" with Zelensky. Pompeo was on the call however.
Pence is still playing "I Know Nothing".
82
@Newman1979 Trump and the Reps are looking for fall guys to insulate Trump from blame. Giuliani pretty much nominated himself, and also probably Mulvaney. Maybe the "Three Amigos" too.
Hey, the "rogue actors" thing worked for MBS in Saudi Arabia - why not here, too?
1
The entire Trump administration is like a bad Hollywood production. Most of the players are merely "acting", like Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House Chief of Staff. Mr. Trump himself is a reality TV star.
The Trump Republican Party has jumped the shark.
That is a reference to the end of the "Happy Days" TV show, in late seasons with declining ratings, where they pulled a stunt with Fonzi surfing and literally jumping over a shark, to try to keep the show on the air for one more season.
This reality show presidency has low ratings, and it is high time for it to be cancelled.
Congressional Republicans, are you listening? Or will you be cancelled by the voters as well (as the executive producers)?
Quit acting, and get down to the business of the American people, including your oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
83
@MidtownATL It's too late, the current republicans won't go back because they have no idea of how to govern. Their only interests are controlling the federal government for their benefit through "conservative judges"and so far it's working. You can also bet that the "electoral college" will put Trump back in the White House. After all he did'nt win the popular vote int the last election.
7
@MidtownATL fonzi jumped the shark on water skis, not a surfboard. not critical to the accuracy of the metaphor, but as a old happy days viewer, i have to set the record strait.
6
@MidtownATL
They can't stop acting because it will become clear to their voters, that they are no knowing do nothing politicians who spend there days walking around pretending to be important.
The draft dodger who watches TV all day, plays golf, who insult people who served this country and cant put a sentence together, these are the people who think they deserve respect from the population.
This cant be over soon enough
12
They all should go to jail or be impeached or both.
5
Mulvaney and Trumps are frauds and crooks that need each other.
Trump needs all the crooks and liars and con-men that are willig too be at his service and all those crooks and con-men need the presidential pardon.
The corruption we see in Trump administration is enabled by he US constitution itself through a travesty called pardon.
4
My only comment is this: Testify. If it requires you to resign, then resign. trumpty will abandon you like everyone else aside from Ivanka and Putin. He is loyal to no one aside from those 2 and his supposed riches.
5
this is strictly a legal issue I.e the real news today is Schiff not allowing the so called whistle-blower who most likely is a partisan plant to be questioned
Exposing the whistleblower would be breaking the law and would discourage those observing wrongdoing in the future from reporting it. What happened to the so called GOP law and order platform?
3
@james alan
The whistle blower is guaranteed anonymity by federal law.
Furthermore, the direct sources that the whistle blower cited have now been called as witnesses under oath.
There is zero reason to question the person who pulled the fire alarm.
4
A ship of fools. Extremely dangerous fools.
6
It is absolutely delightful that there are now hints from some Trumpist senators and representatives of throwing Mulvaney, Giuliani, and other trump opportunists/hypocrites under the bus in order to deflect blame from the obvious suspect. Of course they would do that, but wow it is truly a sight to see. And I can't wait to see where The World's Most Pathetic Senator, Lindsey Graham, ends up in all of this. Will he turn on Mulvaney to protect his latest Daddy?
7
@Cameron
The sad fact is that Mr. Trump will throw Don Jr. and Eric under the bus before he tells the truth, accepts responsibility or admits he is/was wrong about ANYTHING.
Even before the 2016 election learned mental health professionals were warning congress and the general public about Trump’s personality disorders. Now, he’s descibed as being afflicted with an extensive array of “severe personality disorders.”
I strongly suspect that, before he is removed from office, Mr. Trump will clearly display to all of us the fact that he is, in truth, psychotic.
Hang onto your hats!
2
It's often said that Trump considers himself to be above the law, but I'm not aware that he's ever violated a court order. Can anyone cite one?
All that Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney are saying is that they are being caught in the middle between conflicting demands from the House and Trump, and that they'll do whatever a court orders. If a court does order and one or more of them fails to comply with a court order, that will be quite another matter, but that hasn't happened. Is there anything wrong with asking a third party (i.e., the judicial branch) to resolve this clear conflict between the other two branches? Should the House get to decide the outer reaches of its own authority? Should Trump? Or should the judicial branch decide?
The answer seems obvious. Am I missing something?
2
@Commenter
"I'm not aware that [Mr. Trump has] ever violated a court order. "
You may well be correct.
But I would ask the American voters in advance of 2020:
Do we really want a president who sues everyone he disagrees with him in court, and pushes the limits of technicalities of the law for his own personal benefit?
And unlike his litigious behavior as a so-called businessman prior to 2016, Mr. Trump now appoints the very judges who will rule on his lawsuits.
===
A great president would not need to resort to lawsuits against his perceived enemies. Rather, he would bring his opponents over to his side, through the force of persuasion and public opinion. He would be a great negotiator, the "Art of the Deal." But Mr. Trump is apparently incapable of doing this, or of governing at all. He just wants to perpetually campaign with his MAGA rallies, and sue everyone who disagrees with his rule by fiat.
Chew on that.
5
The legislative branch supeonas a member of the executive branch to testify as part of an investigation. Pretty clear that the subpoena must be obeyed, ar least it has been clear the last 200 years until Trump came along. To answer your question, the subpoena should be obeyed and should not require the judicial branch to weigh in unless the subpoena is violated.
3
@Commentor
“...I’m not aware that he’s ever violated a court order.”
With all due respect, Commenter, I believe you’re splitting hairs. Whether Trump himself has violated a court order or not, there is ample evidence that he has, as the POTUS, ordered other governmental officials to defy congessional sobpoenas.
To repeatedly commit this act, in and of itself, is clearly indicative of Donald Trump placing himself above the law.
4
It's often said that Trump considers himself to be above the law, but I'm not aware that he's ever violated a court order. Can anyone cite one?
All that Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney are saying is that they are being caught in the middle between conflicting demands from the House and Trump, and that they'll do whatever a court orders. If a court does order and one or more of them fails to comply with a court order, that will be quite another matter, but that hasn't happened. Is there anything wrong with asking a third party (i.e., the judicial branch) to resolve this clear conflict between the other two branches? Should the House get to decide the outer reaches of its own authority? Should Trump? Or should the judicial branch decide?
The answer seems obvious. Am I missing something here?
1
@Commenter
Trump is not going to obey any court order. Marbury v. Madison will die.
1
@Vasu Srinivasan You're simply predicting that Trump will -- for the very first time -- disobey a court order. Maybe he will; maybe he won't. Yours is just a prediction.
This is a delaying tactic. Mulvaney will never testify. It will take the courts months, if not years, to resolve this issue. The House wants to impeach by the end of the year. Perhaps the issue will be resolved and he can testify in an impeachment trial in the Senate, but it is unlikely.
5
Let's keep our eyes on the ball, please. Donald Trump has been stonewalling and dodging questions about his efforts to recruit Russian help during the 2016 campaign, and now his blackmailing of Ukraine to get political dirt for the 2020 campaign. Donald Trump won't release any documents to the House committees, nor will any of his "advisers" agree to testify in open or closed hearings. Donald Trump is hiding his tax records. Donald Trump is using his government connections to make money for his personal gain. Donald Trump is a crook. He maybe your crook, but he is a crook.
29
@Patrick Stevens And then there was Tchump jr. on 'the View' whining about how his dad 'Shin splints' sr. is suffering like disabled real veterans? Disgusting family! PERIOD!
7
Oh, how sweet those Trumpian words with respect to Mulvaney, "Oh, who? Oh, him. Yeah, I hardly knew him."
14
There is no honor among thieves.
Looking forward to Donnie vs Rudy — the philanderers and liars showdown.
18
Let me guess .. Trump doesn't know him either..
18
Just think a few years ago we had a President that you could leave alone with your daughter or the Constitution.
34
@Robert
Hear, hear, Robert! Absolutely tragic for the United States of America.
2
Mick Mulvaney has a law degree. So does Rudy Giuliani.
MAGA = make attorneys get attorneys.
13
No, Mr. Mulvaney wants to buy himself more time to stall and hopes that this judge will rule after he is gone from his White House job. He know he's next in the Trump barrel.
6
He's not "going up against Trump" -- he's covering his own keester. I'm sure the 'party line' to Trump is -- "No worries. The court will rule in our favor" while he plays the patriot card and 'defends' (HA!!) the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches. If the court does not quash the subpoenas, then he will spill his guts and blame the designated WH scapegoat (Giuliani -- here's looking at you). The slime levels oozing out of the WH should disgust any decent American.
12
@Annie
It's fine more than disgust decent Americans, Annie. My sister has been in the ER twice with heart palpitations, a friend had to avoid all news due to depression, and I have had to remove myself from any casual discussions with neighbors. Bottom line, if you're a trumpist, you're a greedy ELITIST or an uninformed voter lacking critical thinking skills. Both of these populations have demonstrated a complete lack of conscience.
4
Should the House get to decide there are no limits on its subpoena authority? Should Trump get to decide that his "executive privilege" claims "trump" the House's demands? Or should neither party get to decide -- should the judicial branch get involved, as it has been in earlier impeachment proceedings?
It appears that Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney are simply saying, correctly, that they're facing inconsistent demands from the House and the Executive Branch, and so a neutral third party should decide who's right. If a court decides the question, and THEN Kupperman, Bolton or Mulvaney disobeys the court, that will be quite a different matter, but I see no good reason not to let the courts decide.
2
@Commenter: The courts do not want to decide whether the Congress is their ultimate boss, or the Executive is. The courts are junior to both, and subject to the same impeachment power of Congress as the president. A subpoena from Congress is the highest level of subpoena in the US.
2
@Steve Bolger
The Courts are "junior to both" the Executive Branch and Congress? That will come as news to everyone who understands how our government and Constitution work! If Congressional subpoenas were not subject to judicial review, there would be no checks & balances on Congress.
So, who should we believe? Steve Bolger, or the Supreme Court, in Marbury v Madison from 1803?
It's smart of Mulvaney to seek the advice of the courts, as he knows refusing to comply with a subpoena is a crime. I hope every person that defies a subpoena is charged and prosecuted to the fullest. Trump's shakedown and bribery of the Ukranian president is well documented and the definition of an impeachable offence.
We are living in an age when the President of the United States has been fined $2 million dollars for using a charity for his own self-interest and ripping off American veterans in the process. What is worse is that it's barely a blurb in the news. The man is so wretched that people expect nothing other than reprehensible behaviour from him. That is pathetic and sadly a great barometer of how far we have fallen.
37
@Stephen
EXACTLY. Let's keep shouting this from the rooftops of America. That $wamp individual one was carping on about has risen to the rooftop of the White House.
4
How do you crack a cult? Trump supporters are a cult. In this impeachment trial, the cult has selected the jury, (GOP Senate) that will find Trump "not guilty". Social and main stream media and the public generally must have much more focus on strategies to crack the cult. We all know cult members. We need to granular in the approach. Each cult member has a social network and part of that social network or individuals we have in common with the cultist, may have standing with the cultist. This standing may be the conduit to get cultists to look at the facts and consider their responsibility to stop Trump from his exposing the world to ruination.
6
Ah, the rats aren’t jumping off the ship just yet - but they’re looking for the exits...
11
None of these phonies need the judge to testify.
What are their real motives?
2
No immunity or privilege for abject corruption, conspiracy, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
6
I’m reminded of The Well Of Souls in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark” (the underground chamber filled with snakes). This situation begs for a hero with a flamethrower to come in and clear out the area.
7
The insanity in the Trump administration continues as the clowns tumble out of their clown-car, fall all over each other, and then fall on the swords Trump has conveniently provided. We have never seen such dysfunction in the Executive branch in our entire history as a nation.
8
Motor Mouth Mulvaney has sealed his own political future from here on in. He would be smart to rat out Trump and maybe salvage some part of his reputation.
10
No one in their right mind would trust Donald Trump farther than they can throw him. Trump expects selfless loyalty from others, but would happily throw anyone under the bus.
9
Be carefull. Trump is an expert when it comes to misleading everyone and coming out on top. His choice of Barr is a good example.
5
To lie, or not to lie. What was the question again?
7
All distraction and stalling tactic. Barr is about to drop a bomb on the investigation and impeachment. Anything on THAT?
3
My prediction
It's scripted
Mulvaney will "fold" and Mags & Co. will write more ( also scripted ) articles about how the White House rode their impenetrable base and sheer force of will to "win" again
1
@Marion Grace Merriweather
No one is so blind as those who refuse to see.
4
Bolton and now Mulvaney want to spill the beans or they are the tempting low fruit. They are possibly trying to portray themselves as the good guys. But why are they lawyering up?
The answer is simple. They are just posturing and therefore cannot be trusted. But the House is not subject to a judicial ruling to get their testimony. Lawyers or not they have to testify and if they do not it is obstruction. If not, they are to be handcuffed and taken to the nearest precinct. Because according to the Constitution the House has the power of being the judge and jury. The Executive branch does not.
6
They simply need to ask themselves if they would rather be witnesses or defendants. Even if they may need to invoke executive privilege, it should be in response to a specific question. The same with invoking the 5th amendment. It cannot be a blanket refusal to answer any and all inquiries but must to applied directly to specific questions. Otherwise they are in contempt and should be thus charged, jailed and fined.
3
Is there no way to fast-track this suit through the courts for a ruling?
4
>>Mulvaney goes up against the President
Don't believe it. Mulvaney is just trying to play both sides.
He is trying to avoid legal troubles that could come from ignoring the subpoena, but also engaging in a strategy of delay such that (he hopes) the trial will be over before the Judiciary forces him to disobey the President.
2
Let's face it, this is a stalling action. Does anyone serious believe these current and former staffers are actually afraid of violating Trump's employment nondisclosure agreements (NDAs)? The trial judge will rule one way or the other, then someone will appeal, and then another appeal to US Supreme Court. Run out the clock - that's Trump's main impeachment strategy.
Remember, the NDAs White House counsel is seeking to enforce are not standard White House employment documents. They're exclusively Trump-centered documents designed to keep Trump's White House operations locked away and out of public sight.
Last, these delays afford the (guilty and enabling) parties time to delete e-mails, destroy documents, collude on their stories, etc.
3
This admin has been playing fast and loose with the country, citizens and Constitution since the beginning, showing a complete lack of respect or seriousness towards good governance.
Give them their own TV reality show, it's a far more fitting venue for their behavior. btw: I highly recommend reading the full both Fiona Hill's and Alex Vindman's testimony. The transcripts put 'House of Cards' lack of imagination to shame: conspiracies to undermine diplomats, death threats, strange characters appearing via tweet and alt-right media trying to take over the plot, treacherous tricks and slimy set-ups in an attempt to out the whistle blower, and more. Fascinating and disturbing.
2
Meanwhile, aren't back channels for diplomacy illegal and unconstitutional?
What legitimate role did Mr. Giuliani, a private citizen, play in foreign affairs? Why is this not unconstitutional and a violation of the Logan Act?
What does Mike Pompeo, as Secretary of State, have to say about this?
And what about Jared Kushner, with his role in negotiating Middle East Piece [sic]?
The Constitution explicitly names the State Department as part of the Executive Branch, with a Secretary of State confirmed by the Senate. You can't make an end-run around this position with back channels.
The mere existence of these foreign policy back channels are the basis for an additional Article of Impeachment.
5
Civil (or inherent) contempt of Congress is the answer to the [unasked] question.
A co-equal Branch of our government, like Congress (and each chamber of it), has inherent authority to control its procedures
and proceedings authorized to it by OUR Constitution.
Over-reliance on federal statutes implementing criminal sanctions for contempt of Congress have made Congress weak-muscled, flabby and lazy.
Perform public service in our offices of public trust. Authority to serve the public is not an excuse for corruption, personal profit or self-aggrandizement in the guise of public service.
Mr. Trump has already admitted to the impeachable offense. And Mr. Mulvaney confirmed the offense on live television.
It is illegal to solicit aid for a U.S. election from a foreign government. Period. Case closed.
For those who argue that Ukraine manufacturing dirt on Mr. Trump's political opponents has no monetary value (per the federal elections statute), I would say that the value is approximately $390,000,000 -- the amount of the U.S. aid to Ukraine.
7
In Trump’s mind, it’s been Mulvaney v. Trump ever since Mulvaney truthfully stated at the press conference last month that there was a quid pro quo for Trump’s permitting delivery of the military aid to Ukraine authorized by Congress.
4
I think Mulvaney and the other people in the White House need to take the long view and realize what life will be like for them once the Don is no longer President, whether that is in six months, six years or sixty years. While a relatively small number of people value loyalty linked with lying for your boss, I think that most Americans have a growing appreciation for the Truth. I would rather hire someone who told the truth than hire someone who covered up criminal behavior for his or her boss, or agreed to throw themselves on the grenade for him. But then again, I would not be a boss who was also a criminal.
2
Bolton and Mulvaney can testify without a judge's "permission". If they were real patriots that is what they would do.
4
Mike Mulvaney and the others are not looking for guidance. They're looking for the Trump-loaded U.S. Supreme Court to provide cover for Trump and everyone he wants shielded by an 'imperial executive privilege.'
14
Mr. Mulvaney doesn't want to go to jail, it is that simple.
Mr. Manafort and Mr. Cohen are in jail as a result of their loyalty to the fake Boss Trump. And we have a handful of patriots who have decided that they are disgusted enough with the "drug deal" [quote from Mr. Bolton] being cooked up by Trump's senior staff.
The logic is transparent. This is not merely a witch hunt. The evidence is clear to anyone who would take the time to read about it. Moreover, we can be absolutely sure that Mr. Mulvaney knows far more about Trump's conspiracy than we'll ever know.
If he is testifies to Congress, he faces the choice of lying, and jail, or the truth. Lies won't hold up with so many other officials telling the truth. (They tell the same consistent story in secret hearings. It is very, very unlikely that it is all lies; because, a conspiracy to lie about the President could easily crumble with so many people testifying.)
If Mulvaney refuses to testify without the support of a Court decision he not only faces Contempt of Congress, but possibly Obstruction of Justice and jail time.
It sounds like Mulvaney's lawyers are smarter than those of many Trump supporters. Trump-supporting defiance could put them in jail, unless a Court supports that choice.
10
It is nothing short of astounding that this matter must be resolved in the courts. It should have been specifically included in the Constitution or at least in an amendment. It is horribly short-sighted that this and other matters re the executive branch, such as whether a sitting president can be indicted, are not specifically addressed.
"“There’s never been a president who’s been so transparent,” Mr. Trump said." I am so tired of the ignoramus making statements such as this. Why doesn't someone just ask him, "but Mr. President, what about [insert president of your choice, but not Nixon]? Don't you think he was transparent?"
5
More apt: Surely the most transparent President would release their tax returns and divest themselves of all conflicts of interest. Why hasn’t Mr Trump done anything in this regard.
4
The Founders wrote the impeachment clause to cover that. Remove the president from office, as per the constitution, then civil authorities can charge him or her with whatever they think will stick. And let's face it: with Trump, there's plenty that's gonna stick.
4
@Pete Impeachment has zero to do with whether Congress's subpoena is trumped by Trump. Re indictment, at present we rely on a Dept. of Justice MEMO! That's not good enough! The Founders were not gods and the Constitution is not the Koran. We need to fix lots of stuff.
1
Dec 1: Trump on Mulvaney: " I hardly know the gentleman. He worked for me in an acting role and I never suggested that his position be made permanent. I thought he would do a better job than he did. It happens like this sometimes".
Dec. 15: Mulvaneuy resigns, signs book deal, agrees to testify that he took action only at the direction of Trump and Giuliani.
2
My fervent wish is that they will all turn on trump and leave him with his twitter account and nothing else.
12
But if it was a perfect call why all the drama?
6
Reading between the lines, Trump was likely none-too-thrilled with Mick's disastrous "Get over it!" news conference. Donald the narcissist demands loyalty but gives absolutely zero in return.
Mulvaney sees the handwriting on the wall that Trump would throw him to the crocodiles in a heartbeat. If a federal court orders him to testify in the impeachment inquiry, that would be quite something to see.
4
Let's fast forward a couple of steps ahead.
Mr. Trump will have thrown Mulvaney and Giuliani under the bus. And we are supposed to believe that Mulvaney, acting alone, decided to withhold $390 million in bipartisan congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, without Mr. Trump's knowledge or approval. And we are supposed to believe that Rudy Giuliani acted alone, on his own accord, to convince the Ukrainian government to publicly endorse conspiracy theories about the 2016 U.S. elections.
Give me a break!
Only someone under the influence of a cult leader would believe this tripe.
10
The only reason why Mulvaney may be needed is because only he can definitively say "Trump instructed me to withhold Ukraine aide until Zelinski publicly agreed to investigate Biden and Berisma."
Alternatively, he could say: "I, as Acting OMB Director acted on my own to withhold the aid Ukraine needed, and that Congress appropriated, for the purpose of defending itself against Russian aggression."
What do you suppose he will do? Will he take the hit for Trump, banking on a pardon?
6
Power and greed drew all these enablers to Trump. Everyone is going to sing when power is taking away from them.
4
Isn't telling your staff to ignore subpoenas de facto obstruction of justice?
7
@Fester it is and now he’s wanting to get the Bidens on the stand. Very laughable
1
These are cop-out cases. Those requesting them lack courage, in order to avoid the ire of the president.
Of course they can testify, and obedience to a subpoena must take precedence over a flat-out edict by a president who is the subject of the very investigation staff are being asked to attend.
If not, we have no rule of law here. Congress and the Executive branch are co-equal branches of government. The president can't issue subpoenas or launch investigations/oversight unless of course he has the DOJ in his pocket, which he does.
It's also a great attempt to delay, which Adam Schiff sees for what it is: forcing the Democrats to either drag this out and bore the public or finish up the impeachment process in a timely fashion.
The president is a master of weaponizing the court system to his advantage. He's actually done it all his life, which is why he's doing it now.
35
@ChristineMcM, unlike the courage of Anonymous?
Anyone who grew up in NYC as I did knows the trump MO. Sue, tie things up in the legal system for years. Roy Cohn taught him well in that regard.
4
This is a political ploy for Republicans to claim they are not hearing from important witnesses in an impeachment case. Adding to the list is to stall the proceedings into the new year and further which is a benefit to Trump.
Taking it to a judge will then lead to taking it to another until it reaches the supreme court. I have seen brave patriots move forward to speak to the House, Bolton and the like are wanting to make the case they should be heard, but if that is the case and they had something to support Trump he would not stop them from testifying!
The deep state starts with The Federalist Society trying to maintain its unjustified power.
21
The acting Chief will have to do his best acting to stay on the job.
9
The White House benefits from delay, snd it benefits from diversions from attention to the President's behavior.
Why did White House Counsel take a pass on objecting to Mulavney's legal maneuver? Because, even though a judge's ruling may force Mulvaney to testify later on, it benefits Trump now in his fight against impeachment, an imminent event.
For Mulvaney, the case can be a get out of jail card. Keep your boss happy while preparing to contradict him under oath. It's win, win for Mulvaney.
10
Any idea how long it will take for a ruling by the Court?
3
Congressional Sight “ is an “implied power.” The Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress power to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive branch. Neither does it explicitly give Congress power to subpoena documents or testimony from the executive office.
In 1921, the Supreme Court found that “a congressional investigation into individual affairs is invalid if unrelated to any legislative purpose.” So Congress pretends all its investigations are for legislative purposes. But Impeachment is not a legislative process. The purpose of the impeachment inquiry is to charge the president with impeachable offenses.
Mulvaney and other executive branch employees have joined the lawsuit in hopes federal courts or the Supreme Court set more definite restriction on congressional investigations. The issue transcends the Trump-Zelensky phone call furor; it's an separation of powers issue,
3
@William Case
Interesting hypothesis.
HOWEVER, impeachment and removal from an office of public trust [for abuse of public trust or violation of an explicit Constitutional clause] are judicial authorities granted to Congress.
The House investigates and may charge an officer of public trust with articles of impeachment and a trial is conducted in the Senate with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding and 100 Senators sitting as jurors. Upon "judgment of conviction," the sentence/sanction is removal from public office and disqualification from service in offices of public trust.
5
@William Case
I meant to type "congressional oversight."
@William Case Um, no, impeachment isn't a legislative process, but it is in the Constitution, front and center. You have to do an investigation to determine whether the offenses are impeachable in the eyes of a majority of House members. So, I'm thinking your answer is way off target.
2
I think that most Americans know what the response of the SC should be, which is one that allows for the pursuit of the truth by requiring these worker bees to testify before the “original power of government: the Congress.” However, given the monarchical and autocratic bent of mind and the push they have for each of the three parts of government to be “independent” too many of the SC judges and their own protectiveness towards their “specialness” it is not at all clear that the decision on this will serve our democracy. Rather, it may serve the continued usurpation of power by the Executive.
167
@B. Rothman Doesn't SCOTUS have to give some respect to the earlier decision that Nixon even as president had to hand over evidence (the tapes)?
32
@Bonnie Not according to Clarence - he is always ready to upend precedents in his push for a unitary executive.
14
@B. Rothman I’m with you. Today’s SCOTUS decides important matters far too often along party lines. The Dems have been making lots of hay as of late. I am not sure the potential benefits of asking SCOTUS to weigh in offset the risk that SCOTUS might act like an arm of the Republican Party to defend Trump.
9
I am more suspicious about the strategy behind this. Kupperman is far enough removed from Trump that I think his suit had a decent chance of succeeding - but add in Mulvaney, and I think the scale is tipped because there's more of a case for privilege. I think that's the reason, the strategy, behind Mulvaney joining the suit.
145
@Judy Mulvaney is dying to testify so he can invent testimony that will keep him and Trump out of trouble.
He's just covering himself by asking a court to "compel" him to testify. Either way, he and Trump are better off; the rest of us are not.
8
@Judy There is no privilege for corruption, for high crimes, felonies and or misdemeanors.
17
@Judy There's a strong case that executive privilege cannot be invoked to hinder impeachment! But who knows what they'll do - there's no bar too low!
Here's an article: https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/executive-privilege-and-impeachment/
13
Presumably, Mulvaney is seeking a declaratory judgement from the court. I doubt that the will give him one and may well dismiss his action. Complex issues involving relations between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government are involved; I think that the court would be unwilling to make a decision without a full hearing on the merits.
As other commenters have noted, Mulvaney may just be running the clock by filing this action.
108
@Giskander Yes and no. The Trump administration is relying on partisan judges to defy Congress and the foundation of the Constitution itself. No deeper full hearing is necessary. To allow this, the courts would be placing our Democracy on a path to obliteration.
37
Presumably, Mulvaney and other WH aides would argue in this lawsuit that the president's exec. privilege prevents them from testifying before the House. But it is not likely to succeed. Executive privilege is not mentioned or treated in the Constitution. The Constitution gives unequivocal authority to the House to exercise oversight over the executive, especially when it suspects wrong-doing and has embarked on impeaching the president. Under such circumstances, its powers are inviolable and they cannot be adjudicated.
223
@Parthasarthy,
And if a Supreme Court packed with Conservatives rules in favor of executive privilege, that would be a form of a coup, no? Trump with absolute power; our democratic institutions, especially the Supreme Court, losing all legitimacy? Seems to me that the extreme right-wing (and the Russians) have been working for precisely this kind of outcome for a long time now.
77
@Parthasarthy, Yep. I have a feeling how the judge is going to rule. Just wish it would happen sooner than next month.
10
@StrangeDaysIndeed
Certainly, the Federalist Society (despite the name) has been working towards an all-powerful unitary executive branch since 1986, when it held an open conference in Washington extolling the same.
20
If this lawsuit is so pivotal to the impeachment inquiry in the Congress, and I believe it is more important than Congressman Schiff thinks it is, then the House Counsel should go into court and ask for expedited treatment and get it. There's no way that Chris Cooper and Judge Leon should get to decide when and whether the impeachment proceedings should happen. Congress is a co-equal branch of government with the Judiciary, too, it's time for Judge Leon to do his bit and work weekends.
194
@ondelette, Congress and the Judiciary may be equal branches, but the Constitution places the power to impeach solely in the hands of Congress. Judiciary has no role to play at this stage. Only if / when there is a Senate trial, will the Chief Justice of the U.S. will be involved. Until then, the only thing the courts should do is dismiss these frivolous lawsuits as nonjusticiable political questions.
4
@The Real Mr. Magoo,
If that were really the case then the D.C. court would have said they had no jurisdiction in the Kupperman suit and dismissed it. Clearly it is not.
I understand the system. When I say that Congress and the Judiciary are equal powers what I mean is that the Judiciary should interfere and take actions that obstruct what Congress is doing, especially with impeachment. So the case should actually be expedited on its face, but since it apparently is not, House Counsel should demand it and the Court should comply.
1
@ondelette Geez, I hope you do not practice law or serve in a public office if this is how you think.
A co-equal part of government interfering in impeachment proceedings to shut them down? No, that is incorrect. The litigants should be told straight up, unequivocally, to honor the subpoenas. The job of the courts here is not to obstruct the proceeding since there is no legal basis for doing so.
3
clearly Bolton's comments about what he can add to the impeachment investigation involve Mulvaney's role and his words.
Mulvaney's move mirrors Sundland's do over on his testimony—Mick is a young man compared to the other's on the griddle and the prospects of massive legal debt and a prison sentence has become a reality for him.
241
@teoc2 - Couldn't be happening to a nicer, more DESERVING fellow.
46
@teoc2
"House Republicans have indicated that they may focus on Mr. Mulvaney’s role in the pressure campaign on Ukraine, possibly BLAMING him rather than the president, it has become clear that the chief of staff’s own interests may be in conflict with the White House on this issue."
The plot thickens.
Sounds like Trump is throwing Mulvaney under the bus and Republicans are plotting to make him the "fall guy".
Start singing Mulvaney!
18
@teoc2
I'm dubious. I doubt that he thinks that could happen to him. And precedent supports that.
3
I find nothing at all wrong with Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney asking a court to decide between the House's demand for testimony and documents and Trump's claim that those demands are invalid because of his claim of "executive privilege."
Keep in mind that, in Watergate, one of the "heroes" was Judge John Scirica -- that's "Judge" as in "the judicial branch."
Here, the House has repeatedly expressed reluctance to get the judicial branch involved, insisting that it's too slow.
I doubt that the courts would be slow and, regardless of whether they are, Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney have already asked that they step in.
On the merits, I wouldn't be so pessimistic if I were taking the House's position on this. I suspect that the courts will rule that Trump's people have to cooperate to some limited extent (as a district court said years ago in a non-binding ruling relating to Harriet Miers and George W. Bush).
Unless courts get involved, we'll be left with each of two branches of government purporting to decide the scope of its subpoena authority (House) and its right not to comply (Trump). All that Messrs. Kupperman, Bolton and Mulvaney are asking is that neither side get to decide -- that the clear conflict be resolved by a neutral decision-maker (the judicial branch), not by one of the parties.
I understand that the House may worry that courts will side with Trump. Maybe so, though that is not reason enough to exclude the courts.
4
Had to happen, now they are eating their own. Disgusting. Gives me indigestion.
28
It will be entertaining to watch Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows throw Mick Mulvaney, their former House Freedom Caucus colleague, under the bus.
Indeed, "There's no honor among thieves."
44
@MidtownATL That's Gym Jordan and he may yet have to pay the price for condoning (ignoring) the sexual assault issues from his time as a coach. I wish the D's would lean on this a little more.
4
@shirlyujest
Yes. The only difference between what Jim Jordan allegedly permitted, and what (former Speaker of the House) Denny Hastert did, and what Jerry Sandusky did at Penn State, and what Larry Nassar did to the Olympic gymnasts, is that Jordan stood on the sidelines with full knowledge and allowed it to happen.
3
Mr. Mulvaney: Go over to Adam Schiff's office and tell what you know - pronto. Then rush over to MSNBC with a c.v. and apply for a job as a "former Republican." That should secure your future.
29
@CommonSense'18 We don't need him or want him.
@Mars & Minerva Compromise, compromise.
@CommonSense'18 No.
1
Democracy has few values of its own: it is as good, or as bad, as the principles of the people who operate it.
In the hands of liberal and tolerant people it will produce a liberal and tolerant government; in the hands of cannibals, a government of cannibals.
– Norman Davies, EUROPE A History, pg.-969 in my paperback.
(Davies is Chairman of the History Dept at Oxford University)
17
Nick Mulvaney can see the bus, the one with the crowded undercarriage, speeding down the road toward him.
24
“Dysfunctional” Whitehouse is not the word to be used here. It’s basically a Whitehouse predisposed to “criminal behavior.” NYT continues to give the benefit of doubt to this President and his cronies in spite of continuing evidence to the contrary resulting in rationalizing and normalizing their behavior.
33
Bring him in. If there’s any hesitance, that’s all you need to know.
4
Dear Trump voters,
What makes you, individually, feel that you are the one special person that Mr. Trump will not throw under the bus?
Mr. Trump has routinely thrown everyone who got close to him under the bus. He's about to throw Mick Mulvaney and Rudy Giuliani under the bus. Roger Stone is currently laying on the street as the bus approaches. He threw Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen under the bus. He threw his ex-wives under the bus. The list goes on and on and on.
It's like the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Mr. Trump will sting you too, just like he stung everyone else. It's his nature.
47
“The House of Representatives shall chuse [sic] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 2.
Period, end of quote. Nothing more needed.
19
Mick Mulvaney called Mr. Trump "a terrible human being" in 2016. He should have listened to his former self before joining the Trump administration.
His fellow South Carolinian, Lindsey Graham, should also listen to his former self when he said the G.O.P. had gone "bats___ crazy" by supporting Mr. Trump.
You reap what you sow.
49
@MidtownATL
Poor SC. Graham and Mulvaney. Not exactly statesman to be proud of.
4
@Brown
"Graham and Mulvaney. Not exactly statesman to be proud of."
Agreed. (I have relatives in South Carolina.)
I see you are from the Southeast. I grew up in NC, and now live in Atlanta. You and I can help to change this (although not necessarily in SC in 2020). NC is a swing state. FL (including north Florida) is a swing state. GA is rapidly turning purple.
Volunteer. Donate. And VOTE!
3
Dear Mick Mulvaney,
Everything Trump touches dies.
I guess you didn't get the memo. It's like the fable of the scorpion and the frog. Mr. Trump will sting you, too. It's his nature.
18
'No honor among thieves'.
Ditto for malevolent mimes.
The wisdom of our ancestors is in this old truth.
The day of the locust may be upon Tump.
12
Mike Mulvaney is a little slow on the draw as he should have been able to see that Trump throws everyone under the bus like a disposable sheet of paper towels.
11
Really does any one truly believe he is going against Trump? Could it be this is just another stall ploy? The way the courts move the 2024 election might be resolved before they resolve this.
7
@Steven McCain
He may be hoping that, but he also knows Trump and company will not hesitate to toss him from the bus to try and cover Trump's rear.
1
Congress is entitled to enforce its subpoenas, and the President is entitled to executive privilege. Congress should prevail as it is also entitled to oversee the Executive branch, not the other way around.
15
@AAA As far as I know, "executive privilege" is not named in the Constitution. Congress right to investigate for impeachment is.
4
Mulvaney is not "going up against the President". That's simply not true. Mulvaney is caught in the same dilemma as others in the White House. The Legislative branch has issued subpoenas for them to testify and the Executive branch has told them not to. The lawsuit is simply a move to have the Judicial branch decide whether they should obey the Executive branch or the Legislative branch. It's a simple as that. They are not suing the President.
6
@JrpSLm
BUT everyone's court argument is "the president won't let me." Doesn't look good for Trump.
4
..., interesting to see the entire crew of this so-called America First Administration, putting their own interests above those of - well, America, the constitution and supposedly the law.
The best people indeed ...
15
GOP is trying to blame this on Mulvaney, too. Not just Trump. He knows it too. He can't trust the House GOP.
11
I fail to see how this move is anything but belatedly seeking legal cover for defying a Congressional subpoena, by joining a suit that will not be finally decided until the entire impeachment process is concluded. Rather that turning against Trump, Mr. Mulvaney is simply standing more deviously with him, in the process extricating himself from responsibility for doing so. This is but legal chicanery on a higher order than Trump's lawyers' delaying tactics with outlandish legal arguments every court is bound to reject as they nevertheless run out the clock on the 2020 elections.
9
Gosh, I hope all future trump appointees learn a valuable lesson -- if you go to work for this has-been reality teevee 'star,' just like sand under the wheels, you're gonna get tossed, under the bus. It's merely a quiet question of when, not if.
Good Luck, America.
We're gonna Need it.
12
Republicans and Democrats: you only need to call one witness to provide sworn testimony in the impeachment inquiry - Donald Trump.
8
In terms of optics, how is it that an inexperienced and unqualified person connected to the government only by nepotism, exits first? At least the chief of staff, rumpled as he is, appears to have been working during the trip. Harrumph.
5
Pence, Pompeo, Barr, Kishner, they all are soon to be auditioning for a roadshow of “Bus Stop.” Nobody gets out alive.
7
3 questions: 1. Why is it that every time I see jerod he's always empty handed?
2. Did he leave the suitcase full of cash on the plane?
3. Is it insane that we are even pretending this crew is innocent of anything?
10
As the Senate is highly unlikely to convict Trump, the Democrats must use the public hearings beginning this week and the Senate trial to present as compelling a case as possible against Trump. Voters will be the ultimate jury come November. The stronger the case, the greater likelihood that this lying, conniving, self-dealing president will be retired to spend his remaining days in infamy.
12
Among the countless ironies of this so-called presidency is the unlimited number of acting administrators, chief-of-staff Mulvaney included. Not only have they not been approved and voted for by Congress, but they are, as a result, part of what might be called the “as if” administration. In bypassing the legislative branch’s traditional vetting process, Trump is at least implicitly acknowledging that his appointees wouldn’t pass official muster, are unfit for their offices, and are, in a sense, part of a pretend or imposter staff. Chief among them is, of course, Trump himself who, along with his pseudo-appointees, is unfit for office, and only acting—and very unconvincingly—“as if” he were president.
12
The Founding Fathers couldn't possibly have imagined this happening. I couldn't possibly have imagined this happening. Every single thing that could possibly go wrong, did.
11
Mick Mulvaney is about to get thrown under the bus by Mr. Trump. He is trying to get legal cover from a judge to save himself.
You should have known better before you joined the Trump administration. Your political career is over, either way. Time to dust off your resume and start looking for work as an AM talk radio host.
63
Inside Mike is a man wildly signalling to get out.
Stefan, Amsterdam
19
Mulvaney should have paid more attention to what happens when you do shady stuff for trump. Cohen, Manafort, Gates and Papadopoulos went to jail. Stone and Giuliani are as good as gone too. You'd think they'd learn.
46
Save us Maggie Habermas. YOU know what's going on.
16
Trump's lawyers and cronies act like they're in a snake mating ball where no one knows whose tail is in whose mouth.
Enter Ouroboros. How long can it be before Trump ends up suing himself for something he claims he never did but has openly admitted to? As silly as that sounds it's pretty well exactly what's going on in Trump's desperate bid to create legal entropy or uncertainty and chaos in it's most basic form. Or, put it this way, if you keep throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery - eventually it will grind to a halt - which is the only defense left and what Team Trump is hoping for.
25
This is Jeff Sessions 2.0.
Just a matter of time until Trump fires up the "Sick Mick" tweets.
38
This story buried the lede way too deep, which is that it is just dawning on Mulvaney that he and Giuliani and Sondland are being groomed as the fall guys. If Mulvaney had a lick of sense, he would be waiting outside Adam Schiff's office tomorrow morning with croissants and coffee, and ready to spill the beans.
165
@james haynes , yes, with six lawyers in tow.
15
Mulvany always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. What didn’t dawn on him is that the dumbest guy in the room is the most conniving, least loyal and narcissistic (That’d be Trump).
20
I guess now that Mulvaney's fellow house GOPers want to blame him for Trump's Ukrainian extortion scheme he is open to talking to them if he has legal cover for disobeying the boss?
13
Mulvaney may be the anonymous self proclaimed "resistance warrior" inside the White House, the author of "Anonymous." Maybe once called in to testify he will have the opportunity to do the final killing. Yet, he would probably be "unmasked" and the intrigue story he has created would be over, with the "hero" ultimately diminished by his real life collaboration with the president and his dark regime. No glamour in finding out that the masked warrior is no other than Mick Mulvaney.
10
In admitting in a press conference quid pro quo, Mulvaney opened the pillow on the top of the hill, and shook the feathers out for all to see. That he attempted, hours later, to gather them back in claiming he was misinterpreted is clear to a 5-yr old he's wearing no clothes.
To hide in the court case is to bye time, that is all.
16
We'll wait a long time before Mick Mulvaney--or any other White House operative--answers to his (or her) conscience and decides to tell a lawful inquiry what he (or she) knows about alleged improprieties in the Donald Trump White House.
When you hope that the courts tell you what's right from wrong, you have no business being anyone's chief of staff. You have no business being an important, pivotal individual in government--or anywhere else. In short, you haven't the courage to decide what's good and what's not. You need to have an out--the courts, in Mulvaney's case.
What self-respecting president would want such a milquetoast to run his White House? Oh, I forgot: Donald Trump.
50
It is my understanding that one servesat the pleasure of the presidency but one is employed by the American people who are represented by congress.
22
@H. Haskin , the love of right-wingers for that phrase is one signal of their essentially authoritarian natures.
3
Mulvaney and Trump are on the same page: Delay. Would any court issue an injunction to keep him from testifying: No. So it's only a delay tactic. Besides if it was such a great phone call why not testify, why tell him not to testify. It all part of a sham by our criminal president and his criminal cabinet.
20
In admitting in a press conference quid pro quo, Mulvaney opened the pillow on the top of the hill, and shook the feathers out for all to see. That he attempted, hours later, to gather them back in claiming he was misinterpreted is clear to a 5-yr old he's wearing no clothes.
To hide in the court case is to bye time, that is all.
4
Why are the white house lawyers who pretend that ignoring congress like this is somehow the the President's prerogative despite the plain meaning of the constitution not also being impeached and disbarred?
How can the oversight power mean ANYTHING if the executive can just blanket ignore subpoenas? The people rationalizing this are not lawyers just more corrupt crooks that need to be disbarred and jailed.
23
Thank you, Mark. And while we’re on the subject, can someone please explain to me why the House has WITHDRAWN any of their subpoenas?
3
@Jordan F I think they are just going to add all this to the growing list of items proving the administration is obstructing the congress. An impeachable offense - see Nixon.
3
If it does happen, Mulaveny will become just one more enemy of the Republican Party (aka Trump evangelists), because as we all know by now: Even when Trump is wrong, he is right.
13
What all this President’s men have come to realize is that King Donald will send them to the Twitter chopping block the instant they no longer fill his needs. Unfortunately for this king, Twitter rants are not nearly as effective at silencing those in the know as non-surgical removal of heads.
8
“There’s never been a president who’s been so transparent,” Mr. Trump said. He won't release his tax returns. He has ordered aides to refuse cooperation with the House. He won't release White House visitor logs. He's had several meetings with Vladimir Putin for which there is no public record of what was said. It is mind-blowing that he would make such a claim. Has the Fox-led echosphere gone so far down the road to being a propaganda medium that he's completely confident he won't be called on such a preposterous lie?
26
@Blueboat - YES !
6
If only it could be so simple as paying to cover up the actions of a couple of burglars rather than this tortured and twisted impeachment plot the Democrats have dreamed up worse than any I’ve yet to see on the TV show Blacklist. Oh how I long for the good old days. I envy Trump’s base for not having to pretend to even try and care to understand it, content to just watch their slapstick on Fox, eat dinner and go to bed. Maybe there still are a few sane people left.
1
@John Doe I guess you haven't read any of the transcripts. Far more extreme than what House of Cards came up with. It's Trump & his admin who are indulging in the twisted and tortured. The impeachment is just revealing what they did.
Don't blame the messenger.
3
Republicans are now trying to force feed America a lie, rather than taking responsibility for Trump and removing him from office. That would be understandable and forgivable. The lies will not.
19
@Conservative Catastrophe - The First Liar (trump) in this White House (Castle ?) hasn't got a chance.
5
It's reassuring to know that the US government is run by people accountable only to themselves. The entire trumpolini junta is nothing but one big extortion racket. Nothing like being forced to pay for your own robbery, day after day.
14
Congress really ought just get a prison ready for the next person who defies a subpoena.
18
@Prometheus - A long, long time ago, in a Capital Building far, far away . . . there was a"jail".
The same room today is used to keep Toilet Paper, which the GOP uses a LOT of dealing with the Citizens of the late, great, United States of America.
3
"Mr. Trump has grown increasingly sour on Mr. Mulvaney in recent months, according to White House insiders. The president has technically not even made Mr. Mulvaney his official chief of staff, leaving an “acting” modifier in front of the title for more than 10 months (another never-before). "
Trump grows increasing sour on just about every individual he works closely with. Why? Because continuous exposure to Trump's outbursts, bullying, lack of understanding, lawless impulses, childish taunts, racist language, endless bragging and self-aggrandizement, Twitter diplomacy and alternate reality make it increasingly difficult to say "Yes sir, right away sir."
On some level that Trump barely recognizes, he's aware that he is wildly incompetent. Catching hints from those around him that they know it too is intolerable for him.
15
@Rob - trump is the ONLY Clown in the whole Circus that does NOT know he is NOT FUNNY.
7
@Rob
Mulvaney is acting head of three departments. Can he be head of one and acting on two others. Is there a limit?
I wonder if the Constitution allows appointing one person as acting head/head of all departments. It's not as if most of the current heads or 'acting heads' have any expertise in their fields anyway, and if they do it's more often than not been in the field of dismantling the department they are now head of. Most experts in their field have been fired for being experts in their field.
1
It is a scandal in it's own right that the courts seem unwilling or unable to decide these questions of great constitutional import in a timely manner. The House subpoenaed Don McGhan to testify in the Russia investigation in April and, when he resisted, filed suit to compel him to in early August. We still don't have an initial ruling on that dispute, and if the decision is adverse to the Administration, appeals can be expected. Charles Kupperman asked the federal courts whether he should obey the president or congress on October 25 and an initial hearing will not occur until December 10.
The McGhan and Kupperman cases do not require extensive forensic investigations; they only require the parties to present their arguments. Why should they take so long to be decided? It's crazy that the country cannot get the guidance from the courts it needs as events require. What if they concerned matters of great urgency such as, say, a president trying to extort foreign countries to rig our next national election?
59
@fbraconi -
We have not succeeded in solving all your problems.
The answers we have found only serve to raise a whole new set of questions.
In some ways, we feel we are confused as ever, but we believe we are now cornfused on a higher level and about more important things.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America..
3
@fbraconi agreed. The Judicial branch has been a disaster for years now.
1
There have been several articles about this subject, and all of them assume it will be testimony damaging to Trump. Hopefully this assumption is nothing like the one MSM had of Mueller. While the Mueller Report and testimony was damaging, it was sure nowhere close to the assumptions.
2
Both Mulvaney and Bolton are seeking court's decision to decide if they need to comply with a legal subpoena. Mulvaney is still in Trump’s camp and the delay the tactics are consistent with WH’s overall approach to the impeachment.
However, Bolton’s approach seems very strange. It seems Bolton doesn’t have any problems to make money out of his version of truth through a book deal. However, to tell the same Truth under oath, does he really need a subpoena or court’s approval? It seems Bolton’s priorities are misplaced. Strange times!
20
@VG - Nothing new there. Republicans ONLY do things for MONEY. For Republicans there is NOTHING ELSE.
6
It’s about wanting to sell a book. That’s Bolton’s delay for the secrets he knows. Some patriot.
3
Mulvaney has already demonstrated legal enlightenment by literally suing himself to resolve a local real estate dispute. His creative problem solving will be put to the test in these much more complicated and higher profile proceedings.
7
Why is there a presumption among these men that they have to have a court rule on whether or not they have to answer congressional subpoenas? This has nothing to do with presidential immunity. It's just Trump, as always, stretching the limits of legality and blurring the lines between ethics, moral behavior, and legal and illegal. Within that zone, anything goes.
21
Here is a novel idea for Mulvaney. How about doing the right thing for the country rather for himself or the president? One shouldn't have to sit around waiting for a judge to tell a public servant what is in the best interest of the public.
Perhaps I can make it even easier for Mulvaney with one simple question. What public interest is served when a president insists on dirt about a political opponent's son before congressionally authorized aid can be released to a friendly nation? You said it happens all the time...so provide the national interest justification.
17
This is a double jeopardy for Republicans. If they refuse to testify claiming they need courts permission, and then the Senate aquits. If then the courts require them to testify( which they will), the House can then call them to testify. What they will say we all know will be condemning to Trump and to all the Senate Republicans who voted to acquit. This will happen right before the election.
9
@Terry. You’d think so, but now that the Supreme Court is stacked with Trump supporters, I don’t believe they will require the individuals to testify. They’ll come up with a squirrelly reason, just like they did with gerrymandering. Trump himself has called it “his” Supreme Court.
3
And yet, trump's supporters don't believe Any of it. They're very much on board with the "witch hunt" and "read the transcript" stock response. Even though the transcript all by itself demonstrates a very clear impeachable offense - Solicitation, in felony violation of federal campaign finance law.
Trying to convince a trump supporter that trump very intentionally committed several serious crimes in his dealings with Ukraine is like trying to convince a born again Christian that Buddhism is the one true religion. Ain't gonna happen.
18
@Jon Doyle
Perhaps his core supporters have no reasoning ability?
1
I'm confused over the confusion. I looked up the definition of "subpoena" and it seems pretty clear what it means. Why does Mr. Mulvaney need a lawyer to understand what it means to be subpoenaed?
17
Trump is demanding to be above the law.
America can not exist if the law doesn’t apply to everyone, especially the President.
The laws are already in place, and Trump and his co-conspirators need to be held to them.
18
@Grove - But, But, But . . . The GOP Senate cannot Impeach themselves can they ?
Regardless of the outcome, countdown to Trump ousting Mulvaney and installing the next acting chief of staff -- but he'll make sure the next sychopant remains one under all costs.
8
@NYCtoMalibu How about Jared? That is, if he can take time out from his money making schemes with the Saudis. Or Ivanka, if she can take time out from pursuing her business on the side, you know, all those Chinese patents waiting to be acted on. Or the sons? Surely they can afford the time to help dad, now that it's not hunting season, and the trump brand is failing. So many possibilities, so little time. It's Grifter Heaven around the white house.
4
He simply needs to "do the right thing," which, strangely enough, is sorely lacking in nearly all of the pols who sit on their hands in Washington, D.C.
2
What a country. Here we have a real life tug of war at the highest echelons of our government base in Trump's estimation on 'fake news'. What a train wreck and if it did not involve the fate of our country it would be fascinating and some thing out of a Tom Clancy thriller.
Trump is always fond of lawyering up, and now the practice has spread to everyone around him But it seems those that do only incur huge expenses and wind up in jail anyway and now it includes the lawyers themselves.
8
Don’t understand why the Sargent at Arms of the House isn’t used to haul these guys in to testify? That kind of weakness only seems to fuel Trump and his supporters. Trump supporters seemingly use circular logic and Democrats are the only adults in the room and must push forward with all the tools at their disposal. This isn’t even close to the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
16
Is it possible that those who are asking the court try to avoid any legal penalty from nor complying with the subpoena?
4
Mulvaney? Barely heard of him
91
@Robert Roth I believe he's the new coffee boy.
11
It’s a good strategy by the house to not pursue any more court battles. To everyone but the most ardent Trump sycophants it’s endlessly obvious that if any of these cowardly unpatriotic persons had anything in defense, they would sprint to the hearings and beg to be heard.
I hope that as this thing moves into the open, as the GOP demanded, these losers find it in there empty hearts to do the right thing and stop protecting this mob boss.
192
Whoever rolls first avoids the most jail time. Mobsters know that. DC has become the rollover capital. Get in line folks and hope you have something worthwhile.
156
[[...some other current White House and administration officials simply defied the House.]]
Why hasn't anyone been jailed for contempt of Congress?
249
@Third.Coast
If they are not, this is setting a precedent for future officials to ignore subpoenas with impunity.
11
@Third.Coast I would appear that Trump would claim diplomatic immunity even for the guy who delivers Big Macs to the White House.
Why do we keep nibbling around the edges. What this cabal did was not seek a quid pro quo. They solicited a BRIBE, and we need to keep repeating that as the GOP tries to minimize this. The word is BRIBE.
493
@james doohan
QpQ is the republican insistence that nothing happened. It can't be "proven" to "be" a QpQ, so they did nothing wrong.
They know exactly what they're doing.
QpQ is a definition of a situation.
They're implying at the same time that QpQ sometimes is and sometimes is not a crime.
They're focusing on this definition in order to discredit the accusation.
They know you can't be convicted over a definition but the insistence is relentlessly there sowing doubt in the minds of people who can't tell the difference.
18
@james doohan Strategy, if they are doing what I think they are doing they are roping in the GOP and will start using this word in the public hearings.
3
@james doohan
Actually, it is extortion!
52
"The Honorable Donald Trump"? Sounds like a farce on its face.
83
" Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, and Mick Mulvaney leaving Air Force One..."
Someone, please, tell me, " What is J. Kushner doing on Air Force One? " Doesn't he have some real estate business to attend to?
130
@WF
Please. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why he's had national security clearance since Day 1.
33
@WF I wonder if Jared has done anything during his time as "advisor" to the president, other than scout business opportunities in the Middle East, Ukraine, and Russia? We know Ivanka has had some success with her marketing in China.
22
@WF
Perfectly legitimate to use AirForce One for his private real estate, no?
20
Four or five current members of the Trump administration have testified before congress, setting a practical if not legal precedent. I wonder if the court will consider these practical precedents when considering the case of Mulvaney and Kupperman. Waddaya think?
24
@Mike
If it hasn't been decided by a Court, it isn't a precedent
1
@Mike I thought the need to obey the law by complying with a subpeona was established long ago. Nixon had to hand over tapes, Clinton had to give testimony. When evidence is required for a court or Congressional investigation, how can there be any valid excuse for not obeying? Mulvaney et al are probably not protecting crucial government secrets so much as they are thinking of the future lobbying jobs they don't want to miss by offending Republicans too much.
8
@Mike I reckon so.
When the bullets come, nobody is friend of who is in front the wall.
23
Ahhhh...the Republicans are looking for scapegoats to save the President and Mulvaney is one of those in the crosshairs. Imagine that!
80
@Color Me Purple Absolutely predictable that people are starting to jump from the sinking ship of the Trump administration. Mulvaney and Bolton know Trump will drag them down with him, and they presumably want to preserve their future employment opportunities among the conservative crowd, by seeming to be "forced" to obey the law by complying with subpeonas. These are the awkward situations that occur if you take a job working for a deranged narcissist.
13
@Color Me Purple The only way to save Trump is to declare him King of America. Only a King can be a corrupt, incompetent fool and get away with it—read history.
Mulvaney has already testified ... in public on the record. What Mulvaney doesn’t get is Democrats are doing him a favor giving him another shot.
77
What are the ramifications if the courts were to rule that the president can keep his cabinet from testifying before Congress? Wouldn’t that severely limit the ability of Congress to investigate (and possibly impeach) the president?
48
@Rick W
Good point. Also, would such a ruling apply to 'acting' Cabinet members?
2
It would be the end of this country as a democracy.
13
The continuous assertion of "privilege" to hide obvious criminal offences should not work, if Mitch McConnell's court-packing efforts have left any integrity in the American judiciary.
I have some faith in even McConnell's flawed candidates. But if the "privilege" defense and the imperial presidency are sustained, I suggest sane Americans emigrate to Australia, New Zealand or Singapore -- places that still believe in the rule of law. Canada is too close to the disaster to be a safe haven.
23
@Howard Eddy Imagine millions and millions of desperate American refugees trying to head north ! You all would have to build a wall !
2
@Howard Eddy
You’re just saying that because you don’t Canada to get flooded with Americans.
4
It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall of the White House and listen in on conversations (if the President can really hold one) about all the congressional subpoenas.
Since Trump has a regular business practice of using the courts to get his way, or delay his way, I would presume that Mulvaney was encouraged by Trump to hitch his wagon to Kupperman's and seek guidance from the court. As the article observed, it will delay the time that Mulvaney has to answer for his participation in a conspiracy to shakedown the prime minister of Ukraine.
Finally, Trump wants to keep Mulvaney and others on board the White House ship because then he can keep them close by for better control of the situation. If Mulvaney were fired, then he wouldn't be able to hide behind his powerful president.
We are witnessing more delay, denials and deflections. And it works: witness the absence of consequence to Don Jr. and Jared K. for their participation in collusion with Russian and Saudi operatives in the run up to 2016 election. And of course, all of Barr's deflection of the Mueller Report.
43
My theory here is that Mulvaney is actually trying to sabotage the entire suit. Unlike most of the other officials who are trying not to testify (e.g. Bolton), Mulvaney probably *is* protected by executive privilege (at least until he gets fired). There is a cogent argument that he can't be required to testify, and by joining this suit rather than filing his own, he might be able to save Kupperman and Bolton too.
13
@Paul Zagieboylo join the suit, find out the strategy from the lawyer, repeat it to the white house staff.
3
I have a different take on this. I suspect that White House lawyers have expressed concern that the across-the-board refusal of White House staffers to testify helps the Democrats build an obstruction count. So the advice is to posture this as: let the courts rule as to whether we have to testify. They know that the judicial process will take so long that the impeachment process in the House will have already ended.
18
@DRF Taking long serves the Democratic larger purpose anyway...to string things out until the election, after which the "strong presidency" problem will headache the Republicans, especially if the Senate turns over. THAT's the actual long game I would strive for. Then even the right-stacked courts could be just as easily ignored as the Republicans do now.
4
In attempting to try to understand Mulvaney's decision to have the Courts rule on defying a subpoena, the article says:
"In effect, Mr. Mulvaney hopes the court will tell him whether to listen to his own boss, who wants him to remain silent, or to comply with a subpoena from the House, which wants his testimony."
Then, author Whipple, a Chiefs of Staff expert, says:
“Given that Mulvaney has been willing to do almost anything for Trump, it’s remarkable that he’s asking for a second opinion,” he said."
It's a trick started by Bolton. If the judge says, no, you must answer the subpoena, then they will, or more likely draw that out in the courts.
But if the judge says no; "executive privilege over-rides the subpoena " then Republicans have won the big prize they've always wanted; an ever more powerful Unitary Executive, the King of America...
And all those State Department officials will be found to be scoff-laws and this corrupt administration will use that to go after them and weaken the impeachment proceedings.
What's crucial about this trick is the ability of Trump et al to get a sympathetic judge. I'd love for the long knives to be coming out, but it seems much more likely that this is a stealth maneuver to further erode co-equal branches of government.
But I am not an attorney and perhaps some will comment here.
33
@Nelly
I don’t evidence that recent Republican Presidents have been more interested in consolidating power in the presidency than Democrats. The only third term a President served was a Democrat. The most executive orders issued by a President were issued by a Democrat. In the last 80 years the Presidents that issued the most executive orders were Truman, Kennedy and Carter. It’s true that Lincoln was probably the most egriegous example of usurping power including suspension of the Supreme Court, suspension of freedom of the press and having declared Martial Law.
@John. There’s an argument to be made that your executive orders point could indicate the exact opposite. When Republicans today refuse to even vote on any topic that might make Democrats look like they accomplished something, executive orders might be the only way to get things done. Then it’s not the President who’s abusing power, it’s the head of the Senate.
Every executive order situation should be judged on its own merits.
5
Can someone please explain to me why disobeying a subpoena is not a federal offense? Why can’t schaffner direct the cops to go arrest and jail someone who doesn’t show up to a congressional subpoena? Thank you!
80
I believe at this time, it's every man for himself. Mulvaney sees the writing on the wall & becoming a sacrificial lamb is not an option for any sensible human being. He's hoping to minimize Trump's ire by saying "the Court decided for me."
23
@Carmen Luna Sensible people probably would not have taken a job with Trump in the first place. Throughout the reign of Trump we have seen him humiliate and cast off people who tried to be loyal to him. The staff members whom Trump could not intimidate are long gone at this point.
7
The article mentioned the term “Lawyering Up” in regards to all the White House staff. Don’t they all realize that when the bills come due and they go to Trump and the Republican Party, the response will be “Hey I hardly knew you”. They will be stuck with legal bills for a long time. No 401k balance for them
If I was them, I’d be running as fast as I can away from this bonfire.
28
@Eric G Trump's staff are now entering the same sad status that Nixon's people ended up in. Branded for life as co-conspirators.
7
This is the first time I've heard of rats seeking a legal ruling as to whether they can leave a sinking ship.
So I guess this is another one of those "never befores"?
Due diligence takes such strange forms these days.
66
@crowdancer
I like to think of it as "ships deserting a sinking rat" but - hey - that's just me.
NOT my president
6
As the president and every member of his posse retain attorneys in an effort to sanitize their lies, is it we, the taxpayers, who pay their $500/hour cleaning fees?
40
Pretty simple, really. Mulvaney realizes that he is in legal jeopardy for the shenanigans he perpetrated on behalf of his boss and wants to try to indemnify himself.
20
I think it’s entirely possible Mulvaney is feeling guilt and remorse: letting slip the quid-pro-quo admittance during that rare, infrequent press conference by the chief of staff, may have been on purpose. He actually might want to talk because he know this presidency is rotten to the core.
We can always hope.
13
@JayKaye
If he wants to come clean why not quit and tell all? He is not a civil servant.
6
@JayKaye
I get your point, but Quid pro quo is benign, and happens all the time. A U.S. President extorting a foreign government to support his re-election campaign is what we are talking about. Let’s keep it in it’s proper perspective.
2
With so many lawsuits flying around it is just hard to keep track, especially since quite a number of them involve what appear to be issues of "black letter" law. It is frustrating that the courts do not fast-track some of them.
I wish there was a single place where readers could go to to check out the cases, court dates, jurisdictions, and statuses of them so we could know where the bottlenecks are.
Maybe the NYT could publish some sort of extended "Advent Calendar" of Court Dates or something along those lines.
19
Great Idea! On going timelines for each of these cases, in order to keep us informed.
3
@Ray Barrett the lawfare site has summaries of Trump related legal moves
3
@Ray Barrett ... there's a possibility that the website FindLaw might carry the info you're seeking.
2
At this point it's hard to tell what's real and what's just another ruse coming from a White House drowning in scandal and denial.
But this much is true. If Mick Mulvaney finally comes to the conclusion that this country is far more important than Donald Trump's orders not to cooperate with House investigators, he'd have a lot of beans to spill about what's really going on.
In any case, he's already jumped ship and there's no going back.
His goose is cooked.
18
Let's face it everyone who is in Trump's orbit is flawed and probably unfit for any position in government or they have left.
Mulvaney was part of the tea party cabal in congress and now he's part of Trump's corrupt cabal.
This all goes full circle to the main event. Donald J. Trump should never have become president. Yes, Hillary had her problems and she was destroyed by the Republicans. Does anyone think Hillary would have been as crazy as this president? Trump knew nothing about government and he thinks he can do anything he wants. Mulvaney is just following orders from the man sitting in the Oval Office.
I am sure Mulvaney,will sooner rather than later, be pushed aside just like John Kelly. There isn't anyone who could help Trump. Our president will never be any different. He alone will mess everything up as he has for the last 3 years.
19
"There’s never been a president who’s been so transparent,” Mr. Trump said.
Does that include tax returns or are they still being audited?
38
@LBH Trump says all kinds of crazy stuff in praise of himself. He is transparent, but not in the way he thinks. His bizarre degree of narcissism, his very thin skin, and his persistent hatefulness show fairly clearly the degree of angst and turmoil going on inside him. Not stable, and not a genius either.
4
@Bonnie
I only hope the "angst and turmoil going on inside" results in ......
@LBH Being audited (if that's even true) does not prevent anyone from releasing their tax returns if they wish to do so. It's just more lies from the King of Liars.
1
Mulvaney is a veteran of the vicious politics in the White House and the GOP. He is far from the "best and brightest," however, he is a key team player in the GOP / W.H. offense.
It seems certain that he will (because he is a survivor of "American Carnage") as Dylan says; "...be on the side that's winning...".
Trump might be easily played by Mulvaney since Mulvaney seems to be capable of digging a hole for himself and vanishing for just the right amount of time.
Perhaps we will eventually witness a Battle of the D.C. weasels.
11
Could someone explain the Democrat’s reluctance to subpoena witnesses for the impeachment inquiry? I understand they don’t want to bogged down in a protracted court process, but why can’t they subpoena, censure for failure to appear and let the no-shows wait out their legal fate while the inquiry completes its work? Doesn’t that route increase the pressure on Bolton, et al and underline the obstructive behavior of the administration?
27
This nation can no longer govern itself. Using the courts to run down the clock is only the latest example. A thorough airing of ideas is needed and hard conversations to be had about if it is worth continuing in this union or to explore other compacts.
17
@William Mansfield Since Obama's early days, I've thought that it's time to let the conservatives go their own way and we can go ours. I don't want to live in a country with people like Trump or his supporters. His movement is about little else than nastiness, antagonism and downright hatred of other people who just want to live their lives in peace and have an opportunity to succeed. If they want to build an entire country and lifestyle on the worship of one man, I think we should let them do that, in their own states and under their own flag.
3
As Mr. Baker mentions, the others may not want Mulvaney to join their lawsuit because he has already testified extensively on this matter in his TV appearance. Does that weaken the case for the others. Can the court reply that Mulvaney has nothing left to hide, so he is compelled to testify. Also, if the pressure to toss him under the bus intensifies, does his testimony become more about his personal culpability (less important for delaying the impeachment) that Trumps?
16
Pretty simple. Bolton and Mulvaney want to talk, but want to be able to say the Courts made me do it.
278
@Newsreader
Very smart observation!!!
16
@Newsreader Right on. Bolton and Mulvaney want the courts to force them to testify, so they have a "cover story:" But they made me do it!
34
@Newsread
This is simply more proof of a premeditated plan to stall the impeachment proceeding. Using 3rd grade napkin math it is obvious that it is not possible the court to rule on Kupperman or Mulvaney or Bolton within a democratically useful time frame. A simple yet very effective tactic. Time is of the essence and it is on the side of the repulsive forces in the white house in this case.
11
Any of Trump’s allies should really pay attention to how he betrays his time and time again when it’s to his advantage. My guess is that is what Mulvaney is doing.
22
I believe Mulvaney's tactic is simply a stalling tactic. The House has said it will not pursue legal action in the courts to force witnesses to testify. It would create excessive delay. This is nothing more than refusing to testify under the guise of respecting the law.
97
We know now that republican members of congress have cynically chosen their office over the needs of their constituents. They are now clearly choosing party over country. But even with that corrupt set of motives, there is truly no reason why elected republicans should oppose impeachment and removal of the most corrupt president in our nation's history. His removal would avoid the difficult reelections that were showcased in Kentucky for those who show fealty to the narcissist-in-chief. It would leave them with a republican (Pence) in the executive's chair -- and possibly avoid a 2020 clean sweep of both houses and the presidency. It would avert having to use pretzel logic to defend the indefensible.
Republicans: If not for country, do it for your own survival.
32
@Farmer D - That would be a good argument but it's not an option in that Pence is also in this up to his ears and they all know it. He was sent to Ukraine (in trump's place) to officially acknowledge Zelensky's Presidential win knowing full well why. Pence, Mulvaney, everyone that had knowledge of the Ukrainian shake-down and those who subsequently hid it in the top, top secret server, is exposed.
6
Wake me up when this nightmare is over. I’m looking forward to the day where our president acts like an adult and doesn’t tweet crazy tweets 24-7.
69
@Pigenfrafyn
Can you please be awake for the next presidential election?
We need your vote to rid the country of these Republican scoundrels, that have placed party over country.
All decent Americans must vote.
38
@Daria I became an American citizen almost 3 years ago. I have not missed an election since. Unlike many of my American born fellow citizens, I would never dream of not voting.
15
@Pigenfrafyn Great response! Kudos!
5
Everyone in Trump's cabinet carries the "acting" label. How about "Acting President." Kind of has a nice ring to it.
301
@Doug Leen "Acting President" And a very bad actor, at that.
40
Except that he's not even doing a good job of acting like one.
19
@Doug Leen
Nice touch, given his reality TV expertise!
15
To Mick Mulvaney- thoughts and prays!
18
@Michael
To receive a plenary indulgence for yourself or a departed loved one, the following five conditions must be fulfilled:
1. Make a sacramental Confession within 20 days before or after the day the indulgence is sought.
2. Receive Holy Communion, also within 20 days before or after.
3
And the thing that is America just gets more weird every day.
Cannot wait to see where this goes.
Amongst all this smoke and mirrors is the central issue that still needs to get resolved - the issue of the president of the United States of America trying to get Ukraine to provide falsified information to influence the outcome of the 2020 election. As Trump used foreign aid to bribe Ukraine into doing what he wanted in order to beat VP Biden we see just how corrupt and morally bankrupt the president really is.
Trump belongs in a prison cell as opposed to the White House.
You guys get to make the decision on that next November. Do you want a criminal enterprise running your nation or someone that might actually have the welfare of the nation and the people in mind? The choice is yours.
177
@Lew . No, the choice belongs to the voters in 5 swing states. The rest of us don't matter because of the electoral college.
26
@Lew The people actually chose Hillary. The Electoral College chose Trump. The people who like Trump (for whatever reasons) happen to live in states where their votes count more than those from California, New England, etc. This was a monstrous electoral malfunction.
34
@Bonnie Two thoughts come to mind: (1) Do the fine folks in the swing states want a man like Trump to be in charge of the nation? And if they do, what does that say about them? (2) Republicans will never change the Electoral College system since it now serves their interests so well.
Okay, I have a third thought as well: Why do folks in the swing states vote to protect the interests of large corporations above their own interests?
14
"Don't listen to them! They have proof I'm innocent! Don't even let them testify!"
An accused person does not resist testimony from people expected to exonerate the accused person.
133
Trump has already impeached himself in admitting that he discussed investigating Biden in phone call to Ukraine’s President. That’s an impeachable offense. Dems you have the votes to impeach now. The Mulvaney suit, he hopes, will last until Ivanka is running for Queen of the monarchy and empire. I thought we fought a war to free us from this sort of thing once. The sun never sets on Big Donny’s corrupt Empire.
137
@Time - Space He also stated on national TV that he had fired Colmey because of the "Russia thing". This is an open admission of obstruction of justice. Dems had this months ago and did not impeach.
23
@james doohan
No, it isn't. Mueller addressed this in the Mueller Report, which you apparently have not read.
2
Mulvaney once called trump a "terrible human being" and truer words were never uttered.
Now he follows along behind trump trying to clean up his messes while only making them worse. With a chief of staff like that, who needs imaginary enemies? Or real ones.
Place your bets: Mulvaney is really Anonymous.
He's certainly going to be anonymous as soon as trump gets up the courage to get someone to fire him.
73
@George Dietz
I hope that Anonymous steps forwards someday and identifies himself or herself.
4
It is truly astonishing to see such a spectacular example of the complete absence of any moral calculus being undertaken by the POTUS's Acting (!) Chief of Staff. Observing Mulvaney's contortions to avoid being linked with wrongdoers is akin to watching an insect trying to escape from a glass observation jar; he gets minimal traction then skids back to the bottom yet again.
Does this man really need a judge to tell him - what is the right thing to do?
- where his duty to the American people he is supposed to serve, lies?
Were one to compose a case study such as this for an ethics class, it would not be seen as credible and would be rejected out of hand as a flight of fantasy.
52
Courtesy titles have been taken too far when phrases like “the Honorable Donald J. Trump” appear in court filings. There is nothing at all honorable about Donald Trump.
324
My thoughts exactly.
28
At this point, is there any value in chasing “witnesses” or even future indicted conspiricists who refuse to testify? They won’t go under oath, they speak of conspiracy theories and make fake claims. Just indict ‘em and keep moving on impeachment.
38
so the court has been asked to referee the dog fight simply because these officials, who are paid by taxpayers, don't want to tell what they have done on their jobs ?
why do we need to pay them at all ?
571
@paul we dont pay them much -- it is their POSITION which gets OTHERS to pay them for the contacts and favors
6
@paul
Not only that, Mick Mulvaney holds THREE POSITIONS in this admin. "Acting" chief of staff, "Acting" head of the CFPB, and director of the OMB.
I would like to know if he is indeed collecting three paychecks. It is absurd! He can't possibly be responsibly doing all three jobs. (In my opinion he could not possibly do ONE of these jobs responsibly - but there he is.)
132
Better yet, why aren’t we throwing the lot of them in jail for contempt of Congress??
101
The rats are trying to save themselves.
If the suit gets clogged in the courts, Mulvaney can claim he was trying to do the right thing.
It’s more about protecting himself than the Constitution or the country.
322
We do not have a President. We have Donald Trump.
405
@jks no no we have donald trump as president. trump personifies the republican party and embodies its base. the corrupt gop - going back to, yes, architects lee atwater, paul manafort & roger stone and enforcer newt gingrich - has created (hopefully) its own destruction. but if the everyone left of trumpence does not unify to support absolutely any democratic candidate then with their purity tests they are just as complicit as though they had voted for trump.
54
@jks
Also, a misnomer :“the Honorable Donald J. Trump” .
31
pi, we do NOT have a President.[1] The loser has never won that office, has never fulfilled the duties of that office, and has never given that office the respect it has earned and deserved for over two centuries. Why call him what he's not?
Since Clinton won't take her oath, we must focus on getting him and Pence out of the offices they don't serve, and as soon as possible, so Pelosi or the 2020 winner can take theirs. Three years without a President is beyond enough.
[1] My only worry with jks' comment is that he still used the loser's preferred name, which he has a bizarre obsession with seeing even in the worst possible contexts. He's not earned that dignity and I refuse to grant him such, let alone while he attempts climate murder on us all.
19
A man with no moral compass looking for guidance from the courts?
160
With all the stacking of courts by republicans, there’s a very good chance moral compass has nothing to do with this. Especially if it goes right up to SCOTUS, where we know Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have no moral compass. Roberts sometimes surprises.
7
Now that Mulvaney has “ lawyered up”, his private counsel has undoubtedly informed him about any potential legal exposure he could face, including federal crimes of participation in conspiracies to extort/bribe a foreign government and seek its interference in an American election. New York prosecutors are reportedly already investigating some of these issues involving Giuliani and his already indicted associates. Any attempt by the Fake President to unscrupulously shift the blame to him for the deeply threatening Ukrainian scandal, which the inherently disloyal Trump is likely to do, would cause the equally transactional Mulvaney and his counsel to make a beeline to the feds. This could get even more compellingly interesting!
340
Another rat swimming from a sinking ship to a sinking ship. Mulvaney, Barr, Pompeo, Stone and Flynn are delusional if they think Trump is going to help the out. It may be time to buy a 4K television set, for the impeachment hearings.
162
@Keith Dow Who would Trump NOT throw overboard to save himself? Is there anyone?
4
@Keith Dow Just got a 4K TV. Stocking up on microwave popcorn and my favourite non-alcoholic drink.
1
@Bonnie
Maybe Ivanka.
When I saw Junior's (obviously ghost-written) book come out, ostensibly to do the usual right-wing "us-good, libs-bad" (anyone with fourth grade literacy could write one in their sleep) thing, all I could think of was that he was "writing" it in a pathetic attempt at getting Daddy's love or approval.
We'll know we have *really* hit rock-bottom when Eric's book comes out!
2
The expedition speed on a ruling to determine Congress's investigative power vs The White House's executive privilege will show the American public just how independent our Justice Department is. Can we count on the 3rd branch?
32
I am hoping good comes from the Trumpian madness. That once he is gone from office we can step back as a nation and agree on a constitutional amendment or two outlining some minimum competency and transparency to qualify as a candidate for president. it took one deranged man to drag us low. If Trump had been elected president during the depression instead of FDR we would be living in a different world. Phillip Roth wrote a novel about the idea - The Plot Against America.
361
@Haynannu The electoral college failed to keep this raging incompetent out of the White House. The fact that he asked Russia for hi opponent's emails -and Russia via Wikileaks delivered and the EC let him be President...
He never should have been allowed to run and snare the Repug's nomination. No tax returns, no prior government service, no expertise running anything other than the family business...
49
@Haynannu
Yes, I too hope good comes out of this, eventually. Elimination of some loopholes and strengthening of other parts of the constitution. Your comment made me feel hope. Thank you.
14
@Haynannu ~
"...outlining some minimum competency and transparency to qualify as a candidate for president."
The release of multiple years of tax returns is a start. Still shaking my head that trump was allowed to get away with withholding his with a false promise of he would after his audit. He's a carnival barker con man!
34
"Mr. Mulvaney hopes the court will tell him whether to listen to his own boss, who wants him to remain silent, or to comply with a subpoena from the House"
I suspect when the questions from the GOP reps start to outline a plan to throw Mulvaney and possibly Giuliani under the bus, as if it was their personal mission versus trump's to seek this illegal campaign assistance, he'll get himself to Congress quick enough. He won't want to be like Manafort and go to prison.
79
There Is No Honor Among Thieves.
This is the one thing everyone knows about El Trumpo or should be aware of. It is his most infamous habit and quality to turn on anyone he thinks it will serve him to turn on.
Congress is making the right call to avoid this fake drama.
The answer Mulvaney et al say they seek is obvious, all of them should obey Congress. This is being done as a ploy to try to hide the obstruction they are engaged in which is so obvious to honest eyes. Maybe they also intend to use the courts to insert more fraudulent arguments/questions into the public discussion they are trying to use to sabotage government process and undermine the Congress.
40
Quote: "Mr. Whipple could not think of any precedent for a chief of staff going to court rather than obey a president’s order. “Given that Mulvaney has been willing to do almost anything for Trump, it’s remarkable that he’s asking for a second opinion,” he said."
Simple answer, Mulvaney knows Trump is guilty, and is likely hoping for some sort of 'witness protection' program.
55
This article strikes me as exceedingly naive, or rather, it buries the most likely reason several paragraphs into the piece. Of course the motive is delay, and meanwhile to provide a rejoinder to Dems who might claim that Mulvaney's refusal is to testify is evidence of "obstruction." "Let the courts decide," will be the mantra, "like in US v. Nixon." The judge "fast-tracked" the initial hearing -- into December! And of course the Court of Appeals and then the Sup Ct will be called upon to review any decision. Fact is, it is still obstruction by the President in refusing to permit a key witness to testify in the House's impeachment inquiry. The President could instruct/permit Mulvaney to testify (presumably to explain/the defend the Ukraine call and related matters) but is standing on "privilege." That has consequences.
112
@jng
Pelosi and Schiff have already said (and the NYT has reported) that they don't care about the court action's since the Investigation is now a Legal Action; if you don't appear it will be treated as obstruction and added to the charges.
Congress isn't waiting for the Rope-A-Doper's.
As for the Presidential Subpoena's, the Supreme Court has
already ruled on this twice; Nixon and Clinton, that they have to appear. It's a non starter.
Bannon was correct (in this instance).
DON'T MESS WITH PELOSI !
17
@jng Exercising a constitutionally recognized prerogative is NOT obstruction. What matters is a proper determination of the scope of that prerogative.
Fine, presidential advisers do not testify to advice sought or advice given. That is an important protection. However, advisers can and should testify to actions by and directives given by the president. That is not protected whether it happens on 5th Avenue or in the oval office.
At the same time whether there is reasonable basis to inquire into whether Joe and Hunter were engaged in corrupt conduct is relevant to whether this offense is impeachable.
1
@TOM "...there is reasonable basis to inquire into whether Joe and Hunter were engaged in corrupt conduct is relevant to whether this offense is impeachable."
No, not really. Either the conduct is impeachable or it isn't. Given our laws and the founders' great concern with foreign interference with our elections and functioning of the government itself, I'd say asking a foreign power to investigate specific persons who happen to represent your political opposition, rather than a type of corruption or perhaps persons who aren't relevant politically, is impeachable. Add in the extortion component of withholding aid that he was legally required to provide (the president is not empowered to withhold money approved by Congress and signed into law) and it's pretty much a slam dunk, regardless of what the Bidens may or may not have done.
5
Support for Trump is all about the payoff. The tax break, the political coattails, the access to power. As the duck becomes increasingly lame, and the costs increasingly legal, the steerage becomes increasingly airborne.
24
I remember in Catch 22 when Milo Mindbender orders his own fleet to attack his own base at Pianosa. I thought THAT was crazy!
17
Bolton is grandstanding, not for the purpose of fulfilling his patriotic duty to provide timely truthful testimony, but merely to spike publicity for his book of revelations that will be published far too late to have a meaningful impact on this historical event.
158
@Brian Do you think maybe his 'book' is merely a threat he can use to get himself some kind of immunity?
@Brian I doubt Ukraine is the only topic he will be talking about in his book. I am sure there are far more explosive topics he will cover.
Anyway testifying would be fantastic pre-marketing if he really does have mesmerizing dirt to dish
I'm thinking it must be something else.
Immunity ?
1
What is remarkable is that going to the court for a determination is not the standard response.
When a person is stuck between two competing legal claims, rather than risk selecting incorrectly (at least in the eyes of the court and that is what matters) go to go court for a determination. Simple. Unless, of course the subpoena is withdrawn, then you have to ask what game is afoot.
11