I think that the key to it is telling him that it’s illegal and not doing it.
All this talk of Trump’s genius recently as his administration seeks to equate the Executive with the Law, is reminiscent of the Fuhrer Principle (Führerprinzip). Believing in Hitler’s unique genius made it easier for Germans to accept his word as supreme in all cases.
Well, I suppose to be fair to the press, it’s not their job to offer opinions on the law or its validity. But the reason a Google search doesn’t yield pages and pages of references to constitutional immunity is because… it hasn’t been asserted until now.
The court of jurisdiction is (naturally) the same court that issued the ruling I noted yesterday in Post #3310, before Judge Beryl Howell, who sits as the Chief Judge in that district court. It doesn’t necessarily mean she will hear this matter. I’m not sure how they assign cases, but reading through a list of the current judges, I recognize a lot of names who have issued predictable rulings within the norms of traditional justice. I note there are 4 Trump appointees on that bench at present on a bench of 25. And even if one of them is drawn to hear this case, it doesn’t mean they will feel beholden to rule in Trump’s favor just because he appointed them. That’s not how judicial appointments are meant to work.
It’s also worth noting that in their prayer for relief in the pleading, Kupperman’s lawyers asked for very specific things:
-
A ruling as to whether the subpoena issued is valid;
-
A ruling as to whether Trump’s assertion of immunity is valid; (emphasis mine) and
-
An expedited ruling.
The Defendants’ responses should be a fun read, and I look forward to the court’s expedited ruling.
All I can think of, in terms of “Constitutional Immunity” that isn’t “executive privilege” is the right against self-incrimination - if we extend the Executive to cover all of its employees.
Yup. Which means comply with the subpoena and appear, then plead the Fifth.
But can the Executive order his employees to do that? (Safe bet is ‘No. Teh lolz.’)
That’s a safe bet. It’s the right against self-incrimination. The so-called Executive doesn’t get to assert it on anyone’s behalf.
Can’t they just give immunity to the one they think might have the most to spill, eliminating the possibility of self-incrimination?
Josh Barro, NYMag:
This is one of many things I despise about this “administration.” They use terms that people recognize but don’t really understand and try to create some alternative interpretation of the term favorable to Trump.
Yes, there is such a thing as blanket immunity that works in a way like you describe. It can be granted by a law enforcement agency such as the FBI, when they work to build a case to ensnare a bigger fish. Also referred to as Queen for a Day, such as when the FBI offered blanket immunity to Trump’s accountant, Allen Weisselberg, in order to obtain more information about Trump, Michael Cohen and National Enquirer’s David Pecker and their catch and kill activities. “Tell us everything you know about criminal activity you committed with Trump, Cohen and Pecker, leaving nothing out, and we will grant you blanket immunity for your own criminal activity in this matter in exchange for your testimony against Trump, Cohen and Pecker.”
But Trump can’t claim “blanket immunity” or “constitutional immunity” or whatever else he wants to call it in an effort to prohibit the House committees from carrying out their lawful oversight responsibilities and protect himself.
The House committees aren’t acting as a law enforcement agency – at least, I don’t believe they are. They’re conducting an investigation into whether impeachable offenses were committed by one corrupt person who currently occupies the Oval Office. If they learn crimes were committed by other involved persons who are summoned to testify, in ordinary circumstances they would refer those matters to DOJ for formal charges. I don’t know what happens as things stand now. The US Attorney’s Office in DC is headed up by a Trump appointee.
Again, Trump is trying to claim “blanket immunity” for himself and all within his administration. It doesn’t work like that.
What he can claim is executive privilege – but as I said previously, it’s not a blanket privilege and never has been. He can’t use it to hide his crimes.
He and his Republican buddies are using these terms in an effort to muddy up the understanding about what he is allowed to do, so he can create narratives his followers will swallow. Congressional Republicans know this. It is the height of hypocrisy and abuse of their offices to perpetuate such misrepresentations. They make me sick.
Posts like this make me wish I had the authority to bestow MacArthur genius grants.
And we all know how well that worked out for them!
I would gladly do it, but I would want a cut.
Yes, and? Of course there will be arguments on both sides.
I have yet to hear any argument that would mean they could disobey the subpoena. And I think the possibility of a winning argument on that is exceedingly slim.
House is readying an impeachment resolution for a vote as early as this week.
Ed O’Keefe, CBS News:
Nancy Pelosi: “We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives.”
I dig it. Take away all Republican excuses.
Bold prediction: Republicans will continue to obstruct.
Eh, they’ll just come up with five or six more. And run through them all.
By Friday we’ll have a tweet saying “The vote was improper! Sloppy Nancy and Liddle’ Schiff didn’t dot an I in the memo!” Or something*.
- I don’t speak Trump well.