Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Opinion: Republicans who don't protect Trump's corruption will pay a very steep price
The Plum Line • Opinion
Republicans who don’t protect Trump’s corruption will pay a very steep price
By Greg Sargent, Opinion writer covering national politics
May 20 at 4:23 PM
....
As Politico reports, the Justice Department is preparing a legal opinion justifying the move on executive privilege grounds. It’s true, as Politico notes, that the long-standing position of presidential administrations in both parties, including that of President Barack Obama, has been that close presidential advisers have “absolute immunity” to congressional subpoenas, to preserve presidential prerogatives.
But in this case, the legal theory is being used as part of a much broader across-the-board strategy of maximal resistance to oversight on all conceivable fronts. Trump himself has openly confirmed this, vowing to fight “all” subpoenas, and we’ve also seen it applied in the administration’s naked breaking of the law to keep Trump’s tax returns secret.
Still, as Eric Columbus, who served as a lawyer in the Obama administration, points out, McGahn is a former employee of the White House, which means that if he wants to testify to Congress, he can.
But Trump has an answer to this problem, as the Times further reports:
That’s pretty remarkable: It is being discussed as a realistic possibility that Trump would threaten to destroy both McGahn’s career and the business prospects of his law firm if he honors a legitimate congressional subpoena designed to get to the bottom of an extraordinary accounting of alleged corruption and wrongdoing produced by a legitimate law enforcement investigation. ... That this was noted almost as a banal, unremarkable factor, observed with barely a raised Timesian eyebrow, is itself an indication of how low we’ve sunk here.
....
Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog. He joined The Post in 2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. Follow https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs
Republicans who don’t protect Trump’s corruption will pay a very steep price
By Greg Sargent, Opinion writer covering national politics
May 20 at 4:23 PM
....
As Politico reports, the Justice Department is preparing a legal opinion justifying the move on executive privilege grounds. It’s true, as Politico notes, that the long-standing position of presidential administrations in both parties, including that of President Barack Obama, has been that close presidential advisers have “absolute immunity” to congressional subpoenas, to preserve presidential prerogatives.
But in this case, the legal theory is being used as part of a much broader across-the-board strategy of maximal resistance to oversight on all conceivable fronts. Trump himself has openly confirmed this, vowing to fight “all” subpoenas, and we’ve also seen it applied in the administration’s naked breaking of the law to keep Trump’s tax returns secret.
Still, as Eric Columbus, who served as a lawyer in the Obama administration, points out, McGahn is a former employee of the White House, which means that if he wants to testify to Congress, he can.
But Trump has an answer to this problem, as the Times further reports:
If Mr. McGahn ... defies the White House, Mr. McGahn could not only damage his own career in Republican politics but also put his law firm, Jones Day, at risk of having the president urge his allies to withhold their business. The firm’s Washington practice is closely affiliated with the party.
That’s pretty remarkable: It is being discussed as a realistic possibility that Trump would threaten to destroy both McGahn’s career and the business prospects of his law firm if he honors a legitimate congressional subpoena designed to get to the bottom of an extraordinary accounting of alleged corruption and wrongdoing produced by a legitimate law enforcement investigation. ... That this was noted almost as a banal, unremarkable factor, observed with barely a raised Timesian eyebrow, is itself an indication of how low we’ve sunk here.
....
Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog. He joined The Post in 2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York Magazine and the New York Observer. Follow https://twitter.com/theplumlinegs
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
