Hello Everyone:
It is a May Gray Wednesday afternoon and time for a brief Blogger Candidate Forum.
 |
| The president politico.com |
It is edging toward high noon in Washington D.C. A showdown between the president and Congressional Democrats. Today, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt for refusing to testify and release the unredacted version of the Special Counsel's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Further, Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin has refused to release the president's tax returns and financial records after being subpoenaed. Meanwhile, the New York State legislature has advanced a bill that would release the president's state taxes. Finally, the president has invoked executive privilege to prevent former White House legal counsel Don McGahn from testifying and providing relevant documents. The Republicans are standing firm behind the president's claim of no collusion, turning a blind eye to multiple examples of obstruction of justice. Did you follow that? Let us start at the top
The House Judiciary Committee voted 24-16, along party lines to hold AG Barr in contempt over the Department of Justice's refusal to comply with the Democrats' subpoena for the unredacted version of the SCO's report (cnbc.com; date accessed May 8, 2019). AG Barr is not the first sitting attorney general to be held in Congressional contempt. Former Obama administration AG Eric Holder was held in contempt in 2012 for not releasing information surrounding the ill-fated "Fast and Furious" operation. The vote took place not long after Mr. Trump asserted executive over the SCO report, ratcheting up an intense situation even higher (Ibid). Never at a loss of words, Committee Chairperson Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said after the hearing,
We did not relish doing this, but we had no choice,... turning the entire Department of Justice into an instrument of Trump personally,... We've talked for a long time about approaching constitutional crisis. We are now in it. (Ibid)
Rep. Nadler accused the attorney general of misleading Congress during his testimony.
Democrats emphasized that they were holding AG Barr in contempt while they demanded the full report. Committee members argued over whether the assertion of executive privilege was legitimate and questioned the legality and political motives behind the contempt. Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) incredulously declared, This is all about impeaching the president (Ibid). Equally incredulous Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan (R) added, Bill Barr is following the law, and what's his reward? Democrats are going to hold him in contempt (Ibid).
Also getting hot under the collar is former White House Legal Counsel Don McGahn who refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to the SCO's investigation, deferring to last minute instructions from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands (politico.com; May 7, 2019; date accessed May 8, 2019). Mr. McGahn's refusal to comply with the subpoena prompted Rep. Nadler to threaten him with a contempt citation after Mr. McGahn's attorney William Burck said his client would defy the subpoena, due yesterday as part of the committee's investigation into obstruction of justice allegations against the president (Ibid). The House Judiciary Committee subpoena also demanded that Mr. McGahn testify before the panel in two weeks. Mr. Burck said,
Where co-equal branches of government are making contradictory demands on Mr. Gahn concerning the same set of documents, the appropriate response for Mr. McGahn is to maintain the status quo unless and until the committee and the executive branch can reach an accommodation (Ibid)
Rep. Jerry Nadler responded to William Burck in a letter, in great detail, outlining the reasons for the request and consequences for failure to comply (judiciary.house.gov; May 7, 2019; date accessed May 8, 2019).
Current counsel Pat Cipollone alluded to Mr. Burck earlier yesterday "that the White House considers the documents in McGahn's possession to be subject to executive privilege and that any discussion abut sharing them with Congress should be between law makers and the White House." Mr. Cipollone wrote to Mr. Burck,
The White House records remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional principles, because the implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege,.... For these reasons, Acting Chief of Staff to the President, Mick Mulvaney, directs Mr. McGahn not to produce these White House records to the committee's April 22 subpoena (politico.com; May 7, 2019).
So far this does not sound like the same White House, who only a mere few weeks ago, was proudly announcing to the world "No collusion. Total exoneration." It sounds more like a White House with something to hide. Speaking of something to hide, how about those tax returns.
Since the beginning of his campaign, the president has danced around the subject of releasing his tax returns. To be clear, no candidate for office is required to make public his or her tax forms, but there was something rather odd about then-candidate Trump's hesitation. First he said that he was instructed by his accountant and lawyer to release his returns because they being audited. Not true, an Internal Revenue Service and state tax agency audit does not prevent someone doing it. Then he said, he would eventually get around to it. By that point, conventional thinking was it was never going to happen. Then, he said it was useless, nothing to see. Finally, for some odd reason, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president was not going to release his returns because they were complicated for anyone to understand. She does know that Congress has members that are very well versed in state and federal tax law, does she not? Well, it seems we might finally have a reason.
In an explosive investigation in yesterday's New York Times, reporters revealed that between 1985 and 1994, private citizen Trump's tax figures showed over a $1 billion in business losses (nytimes.com; May 8, 2019). In the interest of full disclosure, The Times reporters used printouts from Mr. Trump's official IRS tax transcripts, with figures from his federal form for the years in question. The losses came from his core businesses--casinos, hotels, and retail spaces in apartment buildings. These enterprises continued to annually lose money, totaling $1.17 billion for a decade (Ibid). Mr. Trump lost so much money, more than the average American taxpayer, that he was able to avoid paying taxes for eight out the ten years (Ibid). What does this mean?
For a long time the narrative put out by Mr. Trump is that his success is tied to his wealth. The reality is that instead of trying to recreate and build on top of the successful model laid out by his father, the president did something different and through a series of bad deals making decisions, hemorrhaged money. These shocking revelations puncture a massive hole in the image of Trump the smart, successful, wealthy businessman. It also makes you wonder who bailed him out? If Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin has his way, we may never find out because he has refused to authorize the release of the returns, citing no legitimate legislative purpose. However, the New York State legislature may approve the release of the president's state returns and we may begin to get answers to all the questions surrounding the president's actual wealth. In the meantime, the I-word is echoing through the halls of Congress.
Calls for Articles of Impeachment are getting louder by the day. The White House's actions are part of an overall strategy to force the House of Representatives into beginning the Impeachment process. This may spectacularly backfire on the White House because the more they refuse to cooperate, the louder the calls for the release of documents and witness testimonies become. For the House Democrats, the ongoing investigations threaten to suck up all the energy from doing the work of the people who elected them. Looking down the road to the 2020 election cycle, the administration's recalcitrance is giving the president's eventual Democratic challenger more ammunition while Democratic lawmakers facing re-election may find their path back to the House more difficult. Stay tuned, this ride is about to take a a sharp twist followed by a deep dive.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62848717/1094509564.jpg.0.jpg) |
| Attorney General William P. Barr vox.com |
The House Judiciary Committee voted 24-16, along party lines to hold AG Barr in contempt over the Department of Justice's refusal to comply with the Democrats' subpoena for the unredacted version of the SCO's report (cnbc.com; date accessed May 8, 2019). AG Barr is not the first sitting attorney general to be held in Congressional contempt. Former Obama administration AG Eric Holder was held in contempt in 2012 for not releasing information surrounding the ill-fated "Fast and Furious" operation. The vote took place not long after Mr. Trump asserted executive over the SCO report, ratcheting up an intense situation even higher (Ibid). Never at a loss of words, Committee Chairperson Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said after the hearing,
We did not relish doing this, but we had no choice,... turning the entire Department of Justice into an instrument of Trump personally,... We've talked for a long time about approaching constitutional crisis. We are now in it. (Ibid)
Rep. Nadler accused the attorney general of misleading Congress during his testimony.
Democrats emphasized that they were holding AG Barr in contempt while they demanded the full report. Committee members argued over whether the assertion of executive privilege was legitimate and questioned the legality and political motives behind the contempt. Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla) incredulously declared, This is all about impeaching the president (Ibid). Equally incredulous Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan (R) added, Bill Barr is following the law, and what's his reward? Democrats are going to hold him in contempt (Ibid).
 |
| Former White House Legal Cousel Donald McGahn cnn.com |
Also getting hot under the collar is former White House Legal Counsel Don McGahn who refused to comply with a congressional subpoena for documents related to the SCO's investigation, deferring to last minute instructions from the White House to disregard House Democrats' demands (politico.com; May 7, 2019; date accessed May 8, 2019). Mr. McGahn's refusal to comply with the subpoena prompted Rep. Nadler to threaten him with a contempt citation after Mr. McGahn's attorney William Burck said his client would defy the subpoena, due yesterday as part of the committee's investigation into obstruction of justice allegations against the president (Ibid). The House Judiciary Committee subpoena also demanded that Mr. McGahn testify before the panel in two weeks. Mr. Burck said,
Where co-equal branches of government are making contradictory demands on Mr. Gahn concerning the same set of documents, the appropriate response for Mr. McGahn is to maintain the status quo unless and until the committee and the executive branch can reach an accommodation (Ibid)
Rep. Jerry Nadler responded to William Burck in a letter, in great detail, outlining the reasons for the request and consequences for failure to comply (judiciary.house.gov; May 7, 2019; date accessed May 8, 2019).
Current counsel Pat Cipollone alluded to Mr. Burck earlier yesterday "that the White House considers the documents in McGahn's possession to be subject to executive privilege and that any discussion abut sharing them with Congress should be between law makers and the White House." Mr. Cipollone wrote to Mr. Burck,
The White House records remain legally protected from disclosure under longstanding constitutional principles, because the implicate significant executive branch confidentiality interests and executive privilege,.... For these reasons, Acting Chief of Staff to the President, Mick Mulvaney, directs Mr. McGahn not to produce these White House records to the committee's April 22 subpoena (politico.com; May 7, 2019).
So far this does not sound like the same White House, who only a mere few weeks ago, was proudly announcing to the world "No collusion. Total exoneration." It sounds more like a White House with something to hide. Speaking of something to hide, how about those tax returns.
 |
| Cover of The Art Of The Deal abebooks.com |
In an explosive investigation in yesterday's New York Times, reporters revealed that between 1985 and 1994, private citizen Trump's tax figures showed over a $1 billion in business losses (nytimes.com; May 8, 2019). In the interest of full disclosure, The Times reporters used printouts from Mr. Trump's official IRS tax transcripts, with figures from his federal form for the years in question. The losses came from his core businesses--casinos, hotels, and retail spaces in apartment buildings. These enterprises continued to annually lose money, totaling $1.17 billion for a decade (Ibid). Mr. Trump lost so much money, more than the average American taxpayer, that he was able to avoid paying taxes for eight out the ten years (Ibid). What does this mean?
For a long time the narrative put out by Mr. Trump is that his success is tied to his wealth. The reality is that instead of trying to recreate and build on top of the successful model laid out by his father, the president did something different and through a series of bad deals making decisions, hemorrhaged money. These shocking revelations puncture a massive hole in the image of Trump the smart, successful, wealthy businessman. It also makes you wonder who bailed him out? If Secretary of Treasury Steve Mnuchin has his way, we may never find out because he has refused to authorize the release of the returns, citing no legitimate legislative purpose. However, the New York State legislature may approve the release of the president's state returns and we may begin to get answers to all the questions surrounding the president's actual wealth. In the meantime, the I-word is echoing through the halls of Congress.
Calls for Articles of Impeachment are getting louder by the day. The White House's actions are part of an overall strategy to force the House of Representatives into beginning the Impeachment process. This may spectacularly backfire on the White House because the more they refuse to cooperate, the louder the calls for the release of documents and witness testimonies become. For the House Democrats, the ongoing investigations threaten to suck up all the energy from doing the work of the people who elected them. Looking down the road to the 2020 election cycle, the administration's recalcitrance is giving the president's eventual Democratic challenger more ammunition while Democratic lawmakers facing re-election may find their path back to the House more difficult. Stay tuned, this ride is about to take a a sharp twist followed by a deep dive.
No comments:
Post a Comment