• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

NYT: White House has blocked Gordon Sondland from testifying to Congress today

Darkstar0155

Darkstar0155

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,162
People saying to arrest him.... he wasn't subpoenaed so what grounds are you going to arrest him on? Seriously stop with the hot takes. When he ignores the subpoena THEN go after him.

I do agree they should have just started subpoena'ing people right out of the gate. However, this could have been a calculated decision to reinforce the image of obstruction by the WH, since they probably knew they would be blocked.
 
refusi0n1

refusi0n1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,899
Gov is so damn slow wish they'd up their urgency. They'll subpoena him to show up weeks from now...hope I'm wrong and make him appear tomorrow
 
sangreal

sangreal

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,890
Knuckle Sandwich said:
Their reasoning is that until the House actually votes on initiating impeachment proceedings they don't gotta do shit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's an internal matter that the White House has no authority to second guess. The House is free to ignore whatever precedent they want

Article I Section V said:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Garlador

Garlador

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
14,131
Pwnz said:
They just subpoenaed, although I can't find the deadline. It better be by end of today or Wednesday.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah.

I think everyone needs to know that any requests or subpoenas for Trump and his administration to comply will ALWAYS be met with an automatic "no".

"Turn this over." 'No."
"Come in and testify." "No."
"Cooperate with the investigation." "No."

That's going to be his response to every request, demand, and mandate. They should EXPECT that and be prepared for it.
 
dabig2

dabig2

Member
Oct 29, 2017
5,116
KHarvey16 said:
Upheld generally, but specific cases regarding the executive are not general. Issues of privilege have a good chance of not being subject to inherent contempt. And like I mentioned every single person it applies to will appeal right to the Supreme Court and then the whole thing is reset once the current congressional session ends.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, I think the Dems would very much welcome the chance to put another untested OLC opinion to bed.

Although the DOJ appears to have acknowledged that properly authorized procedures for seeking civil enforcement provide the preferred method of enforcing a subpoena directed against an executive branch official, the executive branch has consistently taken the position that Congress cannot, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, invoke either its inherent contempt authority or the criminal contempt of Congress procedures against an executive branch official acting on instructions by the President to assert executive privilege in response to a congressional subpoena. Under such circumstances, the Attorney General has previously directed the U.S. Attorney to refrain from pursuing a criminal contempt prosecution under 2 U.S.C. §§192, 194.262

This view is most fully articulated in two opinions by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) from the mid-1980s,263 and further evidenced by actions taken by the DOJ in the Burford, Miers, and Holder disputes, discussed below.264 As a result, when an executive branch official is invoking executive privilege at the behest of the President, the criminal contempt provision may prove ineffective, forcing Congress to rely on other avenues to enforce subpoenas, including civil enforcement through the federal courts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Factual, legal, and constitutional aspects of these OLC opinions are open to question and potentially limitations. For example, with respect to the argument that a U.S. Attorney cannot be statutorily required to submit a contempt citation to a grand jury, despite the plain language of the law, such a statement appears to be analogous to a grant of so-called "pocket immunity" by the President to anyone who asserts executive privilege on his behalf.281 The courts have concluded that the government, or in this case the President, may informally grant immunity from prosecution, which is in the nature of a contract and, therefore, its effect is strongly influenced by contract law principles.282

Moreover, principles of due process require that the government adhere to the terms of any immunity agreement it makes.283 It appears that a President has implicitly immunized executive branch officials from violations of congressional enactments at least once— in 1996, during a dispute over the constitutionality of a statute that made it a requirement for all public printing to be done by the Government Printing Office.284 At the time, the DOJ, in an opinion from OLC, argued that the requirement was unconstitutional on its face, directed the executive branch departments not to comply with the statute as passed by Congress, and noted that executive branch officials who are involved in making decisions that violate the statute face little to no litigation risk, including, it appears, no risk of prosecution under the Anti-Deficiency Act,285 for which the DOJ is solely responsible.286 Such a claim of immunization in the contempt context, whether express or implicit, would raise significant constitutional questions.

While it is true that the President can immunize persons from criminal prosecution, it does not appear that he has authority to immunize a witness from a congressional inherent contempt proceeding.
Arguably, an inherent contempt proceeding takes place wholly outside the criminal code, is not subject to executive execution of the laws and prosecutorial discretion, and thus, appears
completely beyond the reach of the executive branch. Furthermore, as previously indicated, inherent contempt, unlike criminal contempt, is not intended to punish, but rather to coerce compliance with a congressional directive.287 Thus, a finding of inherent contempt against an executive branch official does not appear to be subject to the President's Pardon power—as aninherent contempt arguably is not an "offense against the United States," but rather is an offense against a house of Congress. Likewise, it appears that the same arguments would be applicable to a potential civil enforcement by Congress.


The assertion that the legislative history of the 1857 statute establishing the criminal contempt process demonstrates that it was not intended to be used against executive branch official is not supported by the historical record. The floor debates leading to the enactment of the statute make it clear that the legislation was intended as an alternative to, not a substitute for, the inherent contempt authority. This understanding has been reflected in numerous Supreme Court opinions upholding the use of the criminal contempt statute.289 A close review of the floor debate indicates that Representative H. Marshall expressly pointed out that the broad language of the bill "proposes to punish equally the Cabinet officer and the culprit who may have insulted the dignity of this House by an attempt to corrupt a Representative of the people."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

alr1ght said:
oh boy

Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Don't forget how Kushner is WhatsApp buddies with MBS. In fact, lots of messages shared between them before, during, and after Khashoggi's murder and dismemberment at the hands of MBS....
 
The Adder

The Adder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,086
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
 

DeathbyVolcano

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
1,949
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

how good do your farts smell
 
PeskyToaster

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,312
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

i don't remember any of that.
 
julian

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
16,748
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uh no. People said they'd have stronger legal standing. We don't know the answer to that yet.
and this wasn't a subpoena.
And they also said they'd just mark these as additional acts of obstruction.
but good for you I guess.
 

pulsemyne

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,635
mikehaggar said:
They really need to start arresting people. The precedents being set by this administration's actions are TERRIFYING for future presidencies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is the only way some of these people are going to turn up. As someone looking at this from another country even I can see that this is obstructing an investigation. It's pure bullshit and the Dems need to start playing hardball.
 
Hollywood Duo

Hollywood Duo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,788
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Can't say I remember any of that sorry
 
cakely

cakely

Member
Oct 27, 2017
13,149
Chicago
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't remember that, no, but that's a pretty creative story you've got there.

If the White House wants to obstruct an impeachment inquiry, then it's Obstruction of Congress and goes on another article of impeachment.
 
FeistyBoots

FeistyBoots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,506
Southern California
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Who are you?
 
Indy in the Fridge

Indy in the Fridge

Banned
Oct 30, 2017
15,278
The Adder said:
Y'all remember how angry some of you were that dems weren't calling the investigations they were doing post-Mueller "impeachment" because impeaching based on Mueller's report wasn't popular, unlike the latest series of events? And i pointed out that they were the exact same investigations and court cases that would have to happen for impeachment, a bunch of y'all insisted that if they changed the label then the President couldn't obstruct it? And I pointed out that, no, it wouldn't change a thing and this would still end up having to go through the courts?

Well I hate to say I told you so.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Y'all remember the time when Bobby Boucher showed up at halftime and the Mud Dogs won the Bourbon Bowl, do ya?
 
Pai Pai Master

Pai Pai Master

Member
Oct 25, 2017
32,274
Atlanta GA
RiqxKXr.jpg
 
Link

Link

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
3,623
SlickShoesRUCRazy said:
Trump needs to live long enough to be labeled a traitor, see his name pulled off his buildings, see all his assets taking away, see his kids get thrown in prison or straight up hung, watch his administration get thrown in prison or hung, see his supporters become terrorists, etc etc etc. his legacy needs to be demolished.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey, that's not right.

It's "hanged."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.