• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court says Don McGahn doesn't have to testify in major win for White House

JasperL said:
From the ruling:



I don't know if you are hair splitting or have another point, but when they claimed they are "absolutely immune from compelled testimony" - period - which is what they did, there's no need to get to specific claims of privilege. If he cannot be compelled to testify, period, then privilege is a moot point.

Again, from the dissenting opinion:
Click to expand...

unfortunately the dissenting opinion doesn't matter.
they should have challenged the executive privilege clause. just like in the nixon case. it would have made for a stronger argument.

they didn't. the scotus might rule differently.

this court however doesn't have jurisdiction in which they are probably right. the scotus does though.
 
JasperL said:
This isn't about the court issuing a subpoena, but the House doing so while exercising a power granted to it by the Constitution. If they cannot enforce their subpoenas, and compel the disclosure of information and the appearance of witnesses, how can they fulfill their Constitutional duties?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a refusal by Congress to confirm nominated officials cause a problem for a president to fulfill his constitutional duties? How about refusing to appropriate funds for a particular purpose?

It's the same issue-- one branch of government not having all power. Separation of power-- checks and balances.

The court said these types of battles need to be resolved by the elected executive branch and elected legislative branch. It said the unelected judiciary should not be putting its thumb on the scale in either direction.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
From the ruling:



I don't know if you are hair splitting or have another point, but when they claimed they are "absolutely immune from compelled testimony" - period - which is what they did, there's no need to get to specific claims of privilege. If he cannot be compelled to testify, period, then privilege is a moot point.

Again, from the dissenting opinion:
Click to expand...

It should have pro-actively involved the Senate.
 
danielpalos said:
It should result in an automatic Article of Impeachment to be sent to the Senate. The Senate will have to vote for the Congressional authority found in our Constitution.
Click to expand...
As Dershowitz clearly laid out, this is not the what our founders envisioned as impeachable.
Which also does not preclude it's use as a tool.




jamesbyoung said:
It will be appealed.
Click to expand...
That is what the article quoted them saying, so, of course.

My question was there to spur the discussion.




j brown's body said:
So the threat of impeachment is only legitimate if you agree with the charges?
Click to expand...
So you too do not understand what is being said?
Did this impeachment work as a tool to gain compliance with their request? What was that? It didn't? Go figure, huh?
Now do you understand the point being made?
Do you really think Congress thought the president was going to be removed over that nonsense? I hope not.
With prior precedent known, they obviously knew they could not compel such disclosure, which is why they took it to the Senate hoping they would compel it as needed trial testimony. It was an end run which failed.
 
JasperL said:
You moved the goal posts. You said, "The issue was in appearing before Congress, not disseminating information." That's wrong. It was both. And it ruled Congress could not compel the executive branch to comply with a subpoena.
Click to expand...

It was about whether Congress could compel attendance.
 
Excon said:
As Dershowitz clearly laid out, this is not the what our founders envisioned as impeachable.
Which also does not preclude it's use as a tool.




That is what the article quoted them saying, so, of course.

My question was there to spur the discussion.





So you too do not understand what is being said?
Did this impeachment work as a tool to gain compliance with their request? What was that? It didn't? Go figure, huh?
Now do you understand the point being made?
Do you really think Congress thought the president was going to be removed over that nonsense? I hope not.
With prior precedent known, they obviously knew they could not compel such disclosure, which is why they took it to the Senate hoping they would compel it as needed trial testimony. It was an end run which failed.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean. The House has the sole Power of Impeachment in our Republic. Oversight is their responsibility and obligation. There is no executive privilege at law for this purely political process. That is what the Impeachment is for, removal from the protection of that High Office, and a date with Ms. Justice.
 
danielpalos said:
Where do you get your propaganda and rhetoric? The House is the authority responsible for oversight and impeachment. There is no other authority.
Click to expand...

Are you responding to my post? You did not address anything I said.
 
JasperL said:
This isn't about the court issuing a subpoena, but the House doing so while exercising a power granted to it by the Constitution. If they cannot enforce their subpoenas, and compel the disclosure of information and the appearance of witnesses, how can they fulfill their Constitutional duties?
Click to expand...

So, you are going with the theory that the House has unlimited subpoena power, even over the other branches? Then they are not equal, the Congress would be able to lord over the other branches.
 
JasperL said:
The court didn't refuse anything. They didn't rule on the merits. The court simply said - we have no authority. You cannot turn to us for help. And the court explicitly said that IMPEACHMENT is one tool you can use to bring Trump "to heel" when he refused ALL requests for information.

And it's not any old thing to tell the House, to all those related inquiries - You will get NOTHING! It's never happened before. The reason these issues have been so rarely litigated is the parties come to a compromise. There is no compromise with NOTHING!

Besides, the threat that the GOP will impeach the next Democrat is a hollow one. Of course they will and this decision didn't change that in the slightest, nor did the House filing impeachment articles against Trump. And it will be a lot harder to impeach the next Democrat when a perfectly acceptable response to the House or Senate's demands for information is - go to hell. We'll not comply with any request, and none of our people will show up to testify.
Click to expand...

The Democrats lowered the bar for impeachment. You don't even need a House vote to start it, now the Speaker can just decide to start impeachment inquires on his/her orders. The President was absolutely right to push back and defend the precedent set by prior Congresses. Pelosi decided to bypass those standards, since that was her only path.

This ruling is the exact reason Pelosi didn't wait, and went right ahead with her impeachment.
 
ludin said:
unfortunately the dissenting opinion doesn't matter.
they should have challenged the executive privilege clause. just like in the nixon case. it would have made for a stronger argument.

they didn't. the scotus might rule differently.

this court however doesn't have jurisdiction in which they are probably right. the scotus does though.
Click to expand...

You said McGahn didn't claim absolute immunity. He claimed precisely that.

Also, you should read the opinion. Nixon involved a criminal indictment, was DoJ (U.S. special prosecutor) against Nixon. This was Congress suing McGahn.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Wouldn't a refusal by Congress to confirm nominated officials cause a problem for a president to fulfill his constitutional duties? How about refusing to appropriate funds for a particular purpose?

It's the same issue-- one branch of government not having all power. Separation of power-- checks and balances.

The court said these types of battles need to be resolved by the elected executive branch and elected legislative branch. It said the unelected judiciary should not be putting its thumb on the scale in either direction.
Click to expand...

It's not about "all power." Even if McGahn was forced to just appear, he still could claim privilege for all relevant testimony, he just wouldn't enjoy, as he does now, "absolute immunity" to testify or provide a single piece of paper, or email, or other information.

The courts said, the Constitution grants you these powers but you have no legal right to compel information that would allow you to exercise them.
 
ludin said:
the court did no such thing. if anything they simply punted it to the scotus.
Click to expand...

They made a ruling. I've linked to it. It is THE LAW as we sit here. SCOTUS might or might not take the case.
 
Athanasius68 said:
It was about whether Congress could compel attendance.
Click to expand...

No, it was FAR broader than that. It essentially covered any subpoena from Congress to the executive branch - what the court called "information requests" as I recall - which would cover testimony, documents, emails, etc.
 
Anthony60 said:
So, you are going with the theory that the House has unlimited subpoena power, even over the other branches? Then they are not equal, the Congress would be able to lord over the other branches.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that. You quoted me - that theory is not mentioned, so I don't know why you made it up.

Of course it doesn't have "unlimited subpoena power" because executive privilege would apply and the requests would have to be related to some legitimate function of Congress, and both are serious restrictions on what it can demand and expect to get.

What the court ruled is Congress has effectively NO, NONE, ZERO, NADA subpoena power. It has e.g. the "sole power" of impeachment, but cannot compel testimony or documents from the executive branch. Makes it hard to exercise the power when the alleged wrongdoer just says, "NO!" when asked for information....
 
Anthony60 said:
The Democrats lowered the bar for impeachment. You don't even need a House vote to start it, now the Speaker can just decide to start impeachment inquires on his/her orders. The President was absolutely right to push back and defend the precedent set by prior Congresses. Pelosi decided to bypass those standards, since that was her only path.

This ruling is the exact reason Pelosi didn't wait, and went right ahead with her impeachment.
Click to expand...

That's all total nonsense. There was nothing wrong with the process, nor was there a significant difference between this impeachment and others. I don't know why you guys are still pushing that crap.

And the ruling vindicated NOT WAITING because the court said to the House - it's YOUR job to enforce your subpoenas, not ours. We will not help. You are one your own! That's the argument the House made and they were told by the court - you were RIGHT! It is YOUR job and only YOUR job.

The opinion said maybe five times - impeachment is one of the valid tools you have to enforce your subpoenas. The House agreed and did just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom