I know you know.
But, thing is, even I didn’t appreciate just how bad this is, until I sat back and concentrated on what is really happening here.
What is really happening, is a full court press into dictatorship, by someone who feels “above the law” but uses the taxonomy of “regular law” to get to the regime he cravenly desires.
This is far more serious than even we might initially think.
****
Yes, you know. Mark Summers covered this already this morning, Trump did this. From The Hill:
In a letter to House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) obtained by The Hill, Michael Purpura, deputy counsel to President Trump, wrote that acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had told former White House Personnel Security Director Carl Kline not to appear before the committee because the panel was not allowing a representative of the White House to attend his deposition “in order to preserve and protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”
“Former” White House Personnel Security Director. In other words, he’s not even there anymore.
A person not even in that position anymore, being blocked from testifying to Congress as to what he “saw.” To “preserve and protect Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”
****
Let’s look at the juxtaposed justification used to assert privilege in this way:
The White House has argued that the committee is overstepping its legitimate oversight authorities with the investigation that Cummings launched in January, noting that the power to grant or deny clearances belongs exclusively to the executive branch. White House officials have offered to discuss the processes and procedures used by the Personnel Security Office but refused to provide information about background investigations for specific individuals.
“Overstepping legitimate oversight?” Refused to provide background for specific individuals?
****
Let’s look at what Executive Privilege really is, because it sure as hell doesn’t mean “What happens in the White House, stays in the White House” as inferred by the Trump administration.
In the Dick Cheney case, the Sierra Club sued to get information pertaining to his meetings with energy executives.
In all honesty, I have some sympathy for the argument Cheney used. These talks involved policy gathering information, very closely fitting the “advice” and “consultation” among executives in the White House. There is SOME legitimacy to that argument.
The SCOTUS upheld the privilege in that matter, BUT Kennedy noted "Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power 'not to be lightly invoked.'" It is rooted in the president needing to receive “candid and unfettered advice.”
There is something to that, but keep that “not to be lightly invoked” in mind.
****
There is not one thing, not one, about the White House Personnel Security Director’s testimony that can in ANY way be cloaked in “advice” and “consultation” to the president. There is no “policy advice to the president.” It is national security policy concern, one in which the discussion is meaningless without knowing how it can play out individually, with “individual’s background.”
Just because the details might be embarrassing, and the motivation partly political, sure as hell doesn’t mean that Congress doesn’t have a very legitimate interest in it.
Only Congress can pass laws to address security lapses. Only Congress can enact an entirely new structure for national security issues. Moreover, Congress has more than ample evidence that there exist strong national security concerns in looking into where information went and when.
The Mueller report noted the incredible access Russia had to people around Trump. National security review requires knowing how they dealt with this extreme security concern.
In other words, this was not the president, sitting with the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs, talking about how to best approach congress about future funding, something that he would need “unfettered advice” upon.
****
But here is the hammer.
If Trump succeeds on this issue — which they are admitting is partly based upon the fact that THEY believe it is politically based — what can they NOT withhold in the future?
If THIS, involving national security and damn well needing review for perhaps changes in the LAW, cannot be accessed, exactly what can?
Anything that might have possible “partisan motivation”? That sure seems like the White House’s interpretation.
****
Of ALL of Trump’s “policy-obstruction” — as opposed to personal obstruction — of all his “policy obstruction” this is by far the most dangerous, the most insidious, the most potentially ground-breaking.
We come full circle. If Congress cannot get at information they absolutely need in order to consider the requirement for new laws to protect the country, then Congress becomes near useless with respect to national security. The president is now outside their control.
It is simply bad policy, irrespective of Trump, and it is being done to be “immune to embarrassment” and “immune from oversight” in national security.
****
“Immunity” from all that? Establishes a de-factor dictatorship, at least for four years.
And there is no reason at all to think the White House will be satisfied if they win this, and will look to expand ways to subvert Congress.
That’s why this is so insidious and dangerous, even more than denying release of his taxes (though this is a very similar Cong. concern), and such for “impeachment.” Impeachment is an Inherently political process,” and though the Administration shouldn’t be able to claim it there, either. It is actually a DEEPER claim here.
Congress so obviously has a constitutional duty to oversee what happened, that even the assertion of privilege is draw dropping. If it succeeds. I am not convinced it will, as some conservative justices know it wouldn’t be the least bit “conservative” to vest that much more power in the president.
The stakes couldn’t be higher.
It seems every week, it jumps to another level. It’s just that this is one hell of a jump, maybe not getting enough realization about those stakes.
****
Update:
According to MSNBC, the Administration is now invoking privilege to attempt to stop McGahn from testifying to Congress.
As a lawyer, I don’t see how this could possibly work. ALL privileges can be waived, and Trump had one chance to invoke the privilege prior to McGahn talking to Mueller. We also know that McGahn has said Trump said “Yes” about him answering Mueller’s questions.
I find this one to be SO obvious that I seriously doubt I would sign it as an attorney. We have “Rule 11” allowing sanctions for any attorney signing anything knowingly in bad faith, against established law, and I don’t see how it’s not obvious this is clearly “waived” even if it was ever proper.
****
Buy my novels bc they’re good, and it helps support the writers here, I very much appreciate it. Reviews.