White House tells official not to comply with Democratic subpoena over security clearances

[Norm dePlume]

White House tells official not to comply with Democratic subpoena over security clearances

(CNN)The White House has instructed a former official who was in charge of the security clearance process to not comply with a House subpoena demanding his appearance for an interview, the latest move by the Trump administration to thwart Democratic-led investigations into all aspects of the presidency.

After a day of tense negotiations, the White House late Monday told the former official, Carl Kline, who now works at the Defense Department, to not appear at Tuesday's deposition, contending that Democrats were seeking access to confidential information that should be off limits.
The move raises the prospect that the House Oversight Committee could seek to hold Kline in contempt, a step that Chairman Elijah Cummings warned Monday he would take. And it's the latest White House effort to stonewall Democratic investigations, coming the same day the Trump Organization filed a lawsuit to prevent an accounting firm from complying with Cummings' subpoena for President Donald Trump's past financial records.

Nothing to see here, nothing to hide...

[gary m]

Nothing to see here, nothing to hide...

There isn't a prison large enough to hold all of the people that have a contempt of Congress, but I doubt that is what you are trolling on about.

[Billy Jingo]

Nothing to see here, nothing to hide...

If the House issue a contempt charge, will the DOJ actually enforce it?

[scott]

If the House issue a contempt charge, will the DOJ actually enforce it?

That is an interesting question.

Did Obama's DOJ do so? I don't think so but I'm not sure.

[Billy Jingo]

That is an interesting question.

Did Obama's DOJ do so? I don't think so but I'm not sure.

Did the House hold someone in contempt? I they censured Holder and the head of the IRS but I’m not really sure without looking.

[80zephyr]

Nothing to see here, nothing to hide...

Nothing to see here either:

Should the House have held Eric Holder in contempt? The question is not whether they should have; the question is why they did not do it earlier.
Despite the attempts by the Democrats to spin this into something it is not, the contempt is very straightforward: Darryl Issa's committee issued a subpoena for documents relating to the Fast and Furious scandal. Congress, like the courts, has subpoena power. A subpoena is simply an order to appear at a certain date at a certain time to give testimony. A subpoena can also command someone to bring items or documents with them for their testimony. This is what has been happening in the House of Representatives.
When someone receives a subpoena, they can either comply or challenge the subpoena on certain legal grounds or claim the documents are privileged. What they cannot do is ignore the subpoena and that is what Holder did. For months, Holder has ignored the subpoena. When Darryl Issa asked if the documents had been assembled within the Justice Department, Holder refused to answer. In short, he was thumbing his nose at the committee.
Contempt is what is called a remedial power. If you fail to comply with a subpoena, you can be jailed until you do comply. You can also be jailed for contempt as a separate offense. Not shockingly, the most corrupt administration since the Nixon administration quickly announced after the contempt vote that it would not prosecute Eric Holder for contempt.
The problem here is that the Obama Regime believes it is above the law. Eric Holder went off to Disney World the day the House voted on holding him in contempt.
Doesn't that send a message? The only thing missing was Holder's extended middle finger pointed towards Congress and Darryl Issa. Holder should be jailed for contempt. He is not simply disagreeing with Congress. He is acting in defiance of the law.

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was-the-house-right-to-hold-eric-holder-in-contempt/eric-holder-is-defying-the-law-by-resisting-subpoena

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

Nothing to see here either:

https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/was-the-house-right-to-hold-eric-holder-in-contempt/eric-holder-is-defying-the-law-by-resisting-subpoena

Mark

Thanks for that, Rip Van Winkle. I think you folks complained about that back when it was relevant.

[80zephyr]

Thanks for that, Rip Van Winkle. I think you folks complained about that back when it was relevant.

What I thought is not important. Tell me Norm, did you rail against Holder, or were you happy with what he did?

Mark

[scott]

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...ongress-077988

[scott]

Thanks for that, Rip Van Winkle. I think you folks complained about that back when it was relevant.

Tell that to your alter ego.

http://www.notpolitical.info/forums/showthread.php?12651-White-House-tells-official-not-to-comply-with-Democratic-subpoena-over-security-clearances&p=171968#post171968

[Norm dePlume]

What I thought is not important.

Axiomatic.

[80zephyr]

Axiomatic.

Way to dodge the question Norm.

Mark

[Billy Jingo]

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/...ongress-077988

There you go. It’s meaningless. The President can tell Congress to go fuck itself.

[Michele]

What I thought is not important. Tell me Norm, did you rail against Holder, or were you happy with what he did?

Mark

Thread killer.

[Norm dePlume]

What I thought is not important. Tell me Norm, did you rail against Holder, or were you happy with what he did?

Mark

So what you thought is not important. But what I thought is important. You are incoherent.