Jump to content

For the Moonbats Here that Chastised Trumpy for fighting Supoenas and Blocking Executive Members from Testifying Before Congress


Recommended Posts

9 Times The Obama Administration Fought Subpoenas or Blocked Officials from Testifying Before Congress

MRM_cropped-sm.sized-50x50xf.jpg 
BY MATT MARGOLIS JUNE 5, 2019
AP_16166615049689.sized-770x415xc.jpg
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

After the long and thorough, and, of course, incredibly expensive Mueller investigation, Democrats were left distraught over a lack of any crime to justify going forward with impeachment. In the wake of the Mueller report, they’ve since promised new investigations in the hopes of finding some crime to justify putting the country through a process that most don’t want us to go through just because Democrats haven’t gotten over the 2016 election. In recent weeks, stories about subpoenas being challenged and Trump officials being instructed not testify have been saturating the news and being presented as evidence of further obstruction. Most notably, Attorney General Barr faces a forthcoming vote of contempt in the House for not wanting to be a part of the Democrats’ witch hunt.

It seems as good a time as any to remind Democrats that we know their outrage is phony and that we know this is just pandering to their base, who wants to see them "resist, resist, resist" at all costs. So, I've compiled nine examples of fights over subpoenas or testimony during the Obama years. The point here is that fights between the executive branch and the legislative branch over executive privilege are nothing new. Despite the rhetoric that the Trump administration's fighting back against Democrat witchhunts being unprecedented, Barack Obama spent eight years fighting with Congress over their exercising their rights to oversight.

 

 

9. Fighting subpoenas in the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation investigation

 

When the Obama administration inexplicably dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) in Philadelphia, many questions were asked as to why. The NBPP had dressed in paramilitary uniforms outside of polling places in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008, and the case against them, which was started by the Bush administration, and the Obama administration won the case by default when the NBPP didn’t show up in court to defend themselves, but the DOJ decided to dismiss the charges. Former Justice Department attorney (and current PJ Media contributor J. Christian Adams) quit his position in the Justice Department to protest the Obama administration’s handling of the case and confirmed the racial motivation behind the decision to drop the case against them.

Of course, an investigation was launched, which the Obama administration fought rigorously. The investigation was stonewalled, subpoenas were fought, and key players were instructed not to testify.

 

8. Refusing to let the White House social secretary testify on party crashers scandal

 

In 2009, two party crashers successfully got by the Secret Service during a state dinner, succeeding in meeting and shaking hands with Barack Obama. Congress investigated the breach in security, but when White House Social Secretary Desirée Rogers was asked to testify before Congress, the White House refused to let her testify. Obama’s press secretary explained during a press briefing that  “...based on separation of powers, staff here don't go to testify in front of Congress.” That explanation was questioned by legal scholars. “I'd completely fall out of my chair if they invoked Executive privilege with regards to a social secretary arranging a party,” explained Mark J. Rozell, a public-policy professor at George Mason and expert on executive privilege. For what was arguably a very nonpartisan investigation (and led by Democrats) it certainly makes you wonder what the Obama White House was hiding.

 

7. Refusal to provide subpoenaed Solyndra documents

 

Remember the Solyndra scandal? The Obama administration wasn’t exactly interested in letting Congress exercise their oversight responsibilities when they investigated how the Obama administration could have given them a huge loan when they were going bankrupt. When House Republicans subpoenaed documents for their investigation, the Obama White House fired back claiming their request would put an "unreasonable burden on the president's ability to meet his constitutional duties." House Republicans accused the Obama White House of hiding information, and they responded with accusations of a partisan investigation.

 

6. Justice Kagan's Obamacare conflict on interest

 

Prior to being nominated as a justice for the  Supreme Court, Elena Kagan served as solicitor general for the Obama administration, during which time she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense for Obamacare. This conflict of interest was important, since issues revolving around Obamacare would be going before the Supreme Court. Federal law dictates that Supreme Court justices must recuse themselves when their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”

Naturally, the Obama administration didn’t want Kagan to recuse herself from any Obamacare-related cases. So, when the House Judiciary Committee requested documents and interviews to get a clear understanding of her role relating to Obamacare while she was solicitor general, the Obama/Holder Justice Department refused to comply. When Eric Holder testified before the committee he claimed to have no knowledge of the request.

 

5. White House refuses to allow political director to testify

 

In 2014, Democratic operatives were concerned that the Obama White House wasn’t doing enough to help in the forthcoming midterms. In response to these concerns, Obama launched the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach. This raised eyebrows for some, who were concerned that Obama and his minions were using White House resources for political activity. So, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee began investigating in order to make sure the White House was complying with civil services laws designed to prevent executive branch employees from engaging in political activity. David Simas, the director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach was subpoenaed, but the White House refused to allow him to testify before Congress. In a letter to Congress,  White House Counsel Neil Eggleston claimed Simas was “immune from congressional compulsion to testify on matters relating to his official duties” and thus would not appear before the committee.

 

4. Treasury officials blocked from testifying on Obamacare subsidies

 

When Obama started making all sorts of unilateral (and illegal) changes to Obamacare, Republicans were none too happy about the abuse of power. When Obama’s IRS decided to expand Obamacare subsidies to be used in federal exchanges in addition to state exchanges, the Obama administration refused to allow Treasury Department officials to testify on the rule changing process, using the excuse that the issue was soon to be decided in the Supreme Court.

3. Ben Rhodes not allowed to testify on Iran Nuclear Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal was so bad Obama didn’t even try to get Senate ratification for it, and much of the negotiations were done without Congress being informed. When Congressional Republicans wanted to get answers after Ben Rhodes (the failed novelist turned Obama speechwriter turned top foreign policy adviser to Obama) let it spill to the New York Times that the administration relied on a false narrative to sell the Iran deal to the public, the White House wouldn’t let him testify, using the “separation of powers” excuse. “Specifically, the appearance of a senior presidential adviser before Congress threatens the independence and autonomy of the president, as well as his ability to receive candid advice and counsel in the discharge of his constitutional duties,” explained White House counsel Neil Eggleston. This was after the White House previously claimed they wouldn’t hide behind executive privilege.

 

2. Lois Lerner refuses to testify on IRS targeting

 

Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organizations Unit of the IRS when they were inappropriately targeting conservative and tea party groups, appeared before Congress in May 2013. She gave a statement but refused to answer questions by pleading the Fifth Amendment. Republicans called her back in March 2014, when she pulled the same stunt. At the time, Rep. Elijah Cummings blasted Republicans for wanting to question Lerner. Today, Cummings is the House Oversight and Reform Chairman and has a much different attitude about Congress’s role of oversight when it comes to Trump.

 

1. Eric Holder refuses to provide subpoenaed Fast & Furious documents

 

The investigation of the botched Fast & Furious investigation is perhaps the most significant example of the Obama administration using executive privilege to justify their refusal to cooperate with an investigation. Holder refused to provide subpoenaed documents to the House Oversight and Reform Committee. The blatant attempts by the administration to resist cooperating with the investigation ultimately led to a historic vote to hold Attorney General Holder in criminal contempt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buffalo said:

ti

 

1 minute ago, leftwinger said:

Keep whining. Make a fool of yourself.

NOPE! It was you moonbats that were whining that trumpy was not providing subpoenaed documents and instructing members of his administration not to testify in the rigged coup attempt. 

Seems it was a regular feature of the corrupt oliness' tenure. 

You moonbats screaming that trumpy is guilty without any evidence are going to be the fools. LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

It will be one of the articles of impeachment. Don't like it? Impeach Obama.


Throw it in with the rest....makes no matter to me. I’ve enjoyed watching the pretzels the Dems have twisted themselves into....one of my favorites. 
 

 

 

 

yummy!!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

Keep whining. Make a fool of yourself.

 

FACTS tend to make your DIAPER GET FILLED with RUNNY SCHIT from all those LIES YOU TELL!!!
 

SHUT THE FUC'K UP, SCHITSTAIN, and GO POUND SAND!!!

 

Your STENCH is getting more than noticeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yale psychiatrist: Impeachment hearings must include analysis of Trump’s mental health

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Wednesday to hear from a panel of legal scholars who provided a constitutional analysis of the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump. A group of psychiatry professors from around the country are calling on the committee to also impanel experts in psychology to analyze the president’s mental health and consider his state of mind as part of the ongoing investigation.

 

 

Bandy Lee, a professor of psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine and president of the World Mental Health Organization, has spoken out about the president’s mental health for years. She is the editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President” and convened a conference on Trump’s mental health at Yale in 2017.

 

Lee, along with Dr. John Zinner and Dr. Jerrold Post of George Washington University and more than 200 signatories, is leading a petition to the Judiciary Committee urging lawmakers to consider the views of mental health experts as they examine the possible criminality behind the Ukraine scandal.

 

The petition calls for the committee to enter a statement from the mental health professionals into the official record.

“Failing to monitor or to understand the psychological aspects, or discounting them, could lead to catastrophic outcomes,” the statement warns. “For these reasons, we implore Congress to take these danger signs seriously and to constrain his destructive impulses.  We and many others are available to give important relevant recommendations as well as to educate the public so that we can maximize our collective safety.”

Lee told Salon that there’s a tendency to see such warnings as hyperbolic “before things happen — and after things happen, people just assume that things have already happened and so they know how dangerous the president is.

 

“Each time he has a way of stepping up,” she continued. “We need to be prepared ahead of time, not just think we know afterwards,” even if that means talking about touchy issues of a public figure’s mental health “honestly, rather than what might be more palatable.”

Lee spoke to Salon about the petition, the impeachment inquiry’s impact on Trump’s state of mind, her view on the president’s enablers, the criticism she has received for speaking out publicly about the president’s mental health, and whether all presidential candidates should undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

The conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

 

You’re leading a petition to the House Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry. What do you hope this will accomplish?

We’ve been warning against the president’s psychological dangers for quite some time. And we are currently seeing them accelerate with the impeachment proceedings, as well as multiple pressures that are also obvious to the public. Loss of court cases and the impeachment inquiry continually bring up facts that do not favor him. So we would like to propose to the Judiciary Committee that it consider mental health parallel to its investigation of criminality.

 

You said you want Congress to take mental health into consideration. What does that look like? How do you want Congress to handle your input?

Initially, we were proposing to testify. But given the volatility of the president and his worsening condition, that should also be obvious for the public to see, in terms of his increased tweets, his greater attacks, his doubling down on unreality. These are all very concerning signs and more alarming to psychological professionals because of what they imply.

So initially, we were proposing to testify for the committee, but now we are suggesting private consultation, because we see concerning signs accelerate … [and we] are afraid that we would provoke the president further.

 

How have you observed the president’s behavior changing as the impeachment probe has ramped up?

When the impeachment inquiry was first announced, most people breathed a sigh of relief. But we were very concerned that psychologically he would worsen. So we put out an urgent letter to Congress, signed by 250 mental health professionals, asking for constraining measures at the same time as proceeding with impeachment. Within three days of our letter, he withdrew troops from northern Syria, allowed the massacre of our allies and handed over dominance to our enemies. This was the kind of thing we were afraid of.

It happened and we see signs of another such incident, if not worse, happening, which are daily observable in terms of psychological signs. But in terms of obvious behavior, his pardoning the war criminals who were already convicted or being charged by the military and enlisting them onto his campaign. His attack of Marie Yovanovitch during her testimony, when she was expressing that she felt intimidated and threatened by the president. He basically demonstrated how he intimidated and threatened people during the testimony itself.

And most recently, when the former FBI lawyer Lisa Page responded to his taunting of her during the rally by giving an interview, the president again put out a tweet, pretty much condemning her and again ridiculing her and attacking her. These are precisely the reasons why we warned since the beginning that the president was dangerous. And now we are learning that the signs are increasing in intensity and frequency, which indicates to us that the dangers are also accelerating. We should respond to these signs in advance of things happening. Prevention is, of course, much less costly than trying to recuperate and patch up after things have happened.

 

What does it tell you as a psychiatrist when you see Republicans like Devin Nunes and Jim Jordan defend what President Trump does, and spin it as a positive and a good thing?

I have also spoken about shared psychosis. Psychosis is a severe condition of mental impairment when you lose touch with reality, and shared psychosis happens when such a person is in a highly compromised state and is exposed to other people who would be otherwise healthy. But because of the close contact, healthy people take on the symptoms of the person who is compromised. Because of the president’s position and his direct access to a large proportion of the population, either via Twitter or his direct rallies, there is a phenomenon of shared psychosis going on at large scale, at national scale.

How do you think that this impeachment battle affects the psychology of the public? 

The impeachment process is proceeding based on rational, legal political considerations, but all of the domains presume psychological health. In other words, the mental capacity to consider facts, to think rationally and logically based on reality. But these capacities are precisely what are being lost with the spread of shared psychosis.

 

You and a lot of psychologists, psychiatrists or therapists who have opined publicly on Trump’s mental health have received a lot of criticism. How do you respond to that criticism? Why should Congress and the public take what you’re saying seriously?

Psychological factors require psychological expertise, especially in the pathological realm, which most people will be unfamiliar with and underestimate, or presume to be within the wide range of human normality.

So it is incumbent on psychological professionals — I would even say an obligation — to speak up when there are signs of abnormalities, especially because mental pathology has one of its symptoms as the inability to see that one has a twisted pathology. It is incumbent on those who are familiar with these signs and are able to observe from the outside to say so.

Also, the American Psychiatric Association allowed for the spread of this misconception that we cannot speak about anything unless we have examined the president. But we’re not speaking about the president’s personal mental health. We’re speaking about the effects of his mental pathology and behavior and pathological behavior on the public. So we are responding to our public health responsibility, not speaking as the president’s personal physician.

You’ve mentioned a proposal to analyze future presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Is that something you’d like to see going forward?

 

I think it’s reasonable, given our recent experience and given the history that those with pathological personality disorders disproportionately attain positions of power and wreak havoc on societies. It is far easier to prevent than to try to intervene after things have happened. And a simple fitness-for-duty test would allow for the screening of many destructive personalities. I would advise that not just for our own country, but for the countries around the world. It would do them a lot of good.

Is there anything you’d like to add for our readers?

Yes, that we are ready to consult with the Judiciary Committee. We believe they have four academic scholars, four scholars of constitutional law speaking [on Wednesday]. I believe that mental health is just as important, if not more urgent. What is of concern right now is criminality and psychopathology. And I would say that the psychopathology is a more urgent one because it deals not only with deeds that have already been done but deeds that can happen, and have too high a probability of happening for us to be safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, neue regel said:

Throw it in with the rest....makes no matter to me. I’ve enjoyed watching the pretzels the Dems have twisted themselves into....one of my favorites. 

You don't seem to be the type of person that revels in others' despair and frustration.  Have I assessed you incorrectly?

 

This president is a clear and present danger to the future of this country.  He doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor beanie.

 

NOW he drags in some HATERS from Yale who make an assessment without ONE SINGLE INTERVIEW AND EVALUATION FACE TO FACE!!!!
 

Wonder if he realizes that that it TOTALLY UNETHICAL and that this IDIOT he prances around COULD and SHOULD have their LICENSE TO PRACTICE totally REVOKED!!!

 

He loves him some quackery though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RollingRock said:

You don't seem to be the type of person that revels in others' despair and frustration.  Have I assessed you incorrectly?

 

This president is a clear and present danger to the future of this country.  He doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

 

neue regel is a hardline Trump supporter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RollingRock said:

You don't seem to be the type of person that revels in others' despair and frustration.  Have I assessed you incorrectly?

 

This president is a clear and present danger to the future of this country.  He doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

 

Really???

 

Over 150 Judges.

 

2 SCOTUS JUSTICES.

 

ECONOMY ROARING.

 

STOCK MARKET AT ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS.

MILLIONS less on FOOD STAMPS and WELFARE

 

HIGHEST EMPLOYMENT OF MINORITIES EVER!!

 

LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEARLY A CENTURY!!

 

NEW BUSINESS STARTUPS AT RECORD HIGH

 

Yeah, I would say that you "might" be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, neue regel said:


So blocking officials from testifying is OK, except during an impeachment?

 

Youre going with that?

 

Ha ha ha ha ha.  Typical imbecile con diversion.  Cons also conclude it's okay for Trump to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors" and get away with it.   Well Cons have another think coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

Really???

 

Over 150 Judges.

 

2 SCOTUS JUSTICES.

 

ECONOMY ROARING.

 

STOCK MARKET AT ALL TIME RECORD HIGHS.

MILLIONS less on FOOD STAMPS and WELFARE

 

HIGHEST EMPLOYMENT OF MINORITIES EVER!!

 

LOWEST UNEMPLOYMENT IN NEARLY A CENTURY!!

 

NEW BUSINESS STARTUPS AT RECORD HIGH

 

Yeah, I would say that you "might" be right.

Seems like all you care about is YOUR money.  Everyone else can (apparently) croak; as long as it's not you, huh?

 

If you're an immigrant, a member of the LGBTQ community, a woman, a minority, a poor person, an uninsured person then your world is absolute hell until this orange freak show leaves Washington DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RollingRock said:

Seems like all you care about is YOUR money.  Everyone else can (apparently) croak; as long as it's not you, huh?

 

If you're an immigrant, a member of the LGBTQ community, a woman, a minority, a poor person, an uninsured person then your world is absolute hell until this orange freak show leaves Washington DC.

Do you think your queer hero Petie Buttedger spits or swallows the load from his husband?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RollingRock said:

You don't seem to be the type of person that revels in others' despair and frustration.  Have I assessed you incorrectly?


Dude....come on....I revel, and love it!!! But never and someone in REAL despair. I’m not a monster. 
 

I do enjoy watching YouTube meltdowns. 😆

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...