McAleenan says he won't testify at terrorism hearing despite receiving subpoena
Last edited Sat Oct 26, 2019, 10:14 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: CNN
(CNN)Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan informed the House Homeland Security Committee on Friday that he won't testify at a scheduled hearing next week, despite being issued a subpoena. In a testy letter to Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, McAleenan said he was "disappointed, and extremely surprised" to receive the subpoena.
The Mississippi Democrat and the acting secretary have previously worked together cooperatively. Thompson had issued subpoenas Thursday to McAleenan and acting National Counterterrorism Center Director Russell Travers to appear at a hearing next Wednesday on terrorist threats facing the country. The hearing is the day before McAleenan is scheduled to leave his job.
McAleenan said he is unable to testify given his impending departure, writing that he is focused on "winding down" his tenure and "facilitating an orderly and expeditious transfer" to his successor. In the letter, McAleenan writes that Thompson refused to limit questioning to the topic of the hearing. He also notes that the subpoena appears to have violated committee rules, as it was issued by the chairman alone and apparently without notifying his Republican committee counterpart.
Thompson responded in a statement that "the Acting Secretary's letter gets the facts wrong. To be clear, no rules were broken by the Committee and his appearance remains legally required. It seems he just doesn't want to testify. But it should be no surprise that a Trump Administration official would deliberately mislead the American public."
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/25/politics/kevin-mcaleenan-wont-testify-house-terrorism-hearing/index.html
Well add that to any other Articles dealing with obstruction.
= new reply since forum marked as read
H. R. Halderman
- click for image -
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRUuSCPDEHS8M3F702O6pf4gy5taK4czB-QNbzOfnemqNqpK0OHkg&s
Run away, run away.
But then what would he say if they changed the date?
exposed by refusing to testify.
He will join the rest of the un-American cabal in history books.
then the court can fine and/or throw them in jail if they don't. I think generally most eventually do go along with the court but end up taking the 5th.
As a note, this isn't new. G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of 2 counts of "Contempt of Congress" during Watergate for refusing to testify and had also refused to testify at a grand jury (but note the time differential between the offense and the sentence) -
By Anthony Ripley Special to The New York Times
May 11, 1974
WASHINGTON, May 10—One of the original Watergate burglary defendants, G. Gordon Liddy, was found guilty today of two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions last, July 20 before a House subcommittee.
Federal District Court Judge John H. Pratt, who heard the case without a jury, gave Mr. Liddy a suspended six‐month sentence and one year's probation, indicating that the penalty was light because of Mr. Liddy's other sentences.
Mr. Liddy, looking trim and fit but slightly pale from his confinement, is now serving two other sentences. He was jailed for up to 18 months for contempt in refusing to answer grand jury questions and given a term of 6 years 8 months to 20 years for his part in the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office building here.
His latest conviction grew From his appearance as a witness before an executive session of the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Armed Services Committee.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/11/archives/liddy-guilty-of-contempt-of-congress.html
It appears he appealed and lost again. Was trying to find if he kept going to the SCOTUS but I think by then, he had already served time and was released. Incredible to realize that he'll be turning 90 next year (but "younger" pictures of him still populate the internet although I did see one "current" one - and he looks almost like Bolton with a white mustache
)
In a nutshell, it's a slog.
They spectacularly lost the House in 2018 as you might recall. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be here today talking about an inquiry (or anything else related to one).
And there's no "gun shy Democratic leadership". The Dem Chairs and a number of Democratic members of the Committees, are mostly lawyers (vs many of the other side) and they have been crafting their strategy so that it will stand up in court.
During Watergate, the GOP did the same thing (obstruction and contempt), where John Mitchell was the William Barr of that time (and Mitchell ended up in prison). This was John Mitchell (Attorney General of the U.S. under Nixon) getting his mug shot -
And eventually 20+ others ended up in jail once that whole affair worked its way through the courts. And at that time, the SCOTUS was headed up by a conservative appointed as Chief Justice by Nixon himself (Warren Burger).
the U.S. system of government is so different from pretty much everyone else's system in the world.
Most countries have a "parliamentary" system where the "head" of the government is selected by the MPs (or whatever they may call their parliamentary members) that make up a majority coalition of parties. So there seems to be more direct accountability in that system where coalitions can fall and a new "snap" election gets called to reform a government if one wanted to attempt to get rid of that Prime Minister (which may or may not be effective - like we see happening in Israel - but it is an option for an early change).
Here the head is elected by a system of electors voted directly for by the voters and they in turn provide the votes needed to reach a majority to select the President... And that President is in there for 4 years (with a max of 2 terms) with the only way "out" being voting them out when the term is at an end, death while in office, resignation while in office, the 25th Amendment where a high bar is set to declare the person "unable to hold office" (originally aimed at handling a President who was incapacitated due to health issues), or impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, which would then mean removal from office.
And regarding the judges, note that despite all the blockages, Obama did manage to appoint over 300 judges - AND in the "important" courts - notably that D.C. district and D.C. circuit. I have posted the below in the past but will post again -
He filled two SCOTUS seats and made the judiciary more diverse than ever. But the GOP stopped him from doing more.
WASHINGTON ― Republicans cannot wait to begin dismantling President Barack Obama’s accomplishments, but there’s one thing they can’t undo, even with full control of Congress and the White House: his judicial legacy.
Obama will leave office with 329 of his judicial nominees confirmed to lifetime posts on federal courts. That includes two U.S. Supreme Court justices and four judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the two most powerful courts in the nation. Because of Obama, Democratic appointees now have a 7-4 advantage on the D.C. panel, and those judges will play a major role in deciding cases during the Trump administration related to environmental regulations, health care, national security, consumer protections and challenges to executive orders.
Obama also tilted the partisan makeup of circuit courts. Nine of the country’s 13 appeals courts now have majority Democratic appointees, compared with just one when he took office in 2009.
There is a caveat to his judicial success, however: When Republicans regained the Senate majority two years ago, they ground judicial confirmations to a halt. That has left 86 district court vacancies and 17 circuit court vacancies for President-elect Donald Trump to fill. That’s a huge number of court seats to fall victim to partisan politics. For some context: Obama inherited 59 district and circuit court vacancies when he became president. Trump is inheriting 103.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-judicial-legacy_us_586c1944e4b0de3a08f9eb1f
What Drumpf is doing is replacing some retirees and vacancies - but the key vacancies had been filled with Obama appointees and a number of Clinton appointees are still there as well. I think since he came in, 1 or 2 courts may have shifted back to majority R but the rest are still holding on as majority D.
And as a note, the civil service system here doesn't allow willy nilly "firing" of staff. Staff that you may see in the news being dismissed, who had previous federal civil service experience (like an Andrew McCabe, who was a "Deputy Director", which is not a GS-type position), are those who had been moved/converted to Schedule C or SES (Senior Executive Service) positions that require Senate confirmations (and those types of positions often go down to the "Regional Director" levels within the federal Departments and agencies, and they are usually done as big packages of confirmations that don't get reported on).
Before I retired, I worked under 6 Presidents and trust me, I was glad as hell to only have had to work under that 6th and final one (the current occupant) for a couple weeks and got out. But it's always the nightmare with a change of administration to GOP (I was under Raygun for 1 term, Poppy for his 1 term, and Shrub for his 2 terms) as there is usually some wacky pendulum swing of policy changes. However most civil servants just try to go with the flow and keep the government wheels running as best they can.
But the one thing that we Democrats here need to make sure we do, is not just focus on our national politics but the state and county and local politics as well and make sure that we vote at those lowest levels and get our friends and family out to do the same. And especially this coming year when there is a census, because what happens with that census count and redrawing of the congressional lines, will impact us for the next 10 years! I.e., the teabagger nightmare visited us during the census year of 2010 - and got a boost with that damn Citizens United case decided the same year.
That linked podcast sounds like a alternative rock "breakfast club" version of info from a bunch of guys who were probably infants during Watergate (or may not have even been born).
From here - https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2386891 (text below) -
As a note, this isn't new. G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of 2 counts of "Contempt of Congress" during Watergate for refusing to testify and had also refused to testify at a grand jury (but note the time differential between the offense and the sentence) -
By Anthony Ripley Special to The New York Times
May 11, 1974
WASHINGTON, May 10—One of the original Watergate burglary defendants, G. Gordon Liddy, was found guilty today of two counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions last, July 20 before a House subcommittee.
Federal District Court Judge John H. Pratt, who heard the case without a jury, gave Mr. Liddy a suspended six‐month sentence and one year's probation, indicating that the penalty was light because of Mr. Liddy's other sentences.
Mr. Liddy, looking trim and fit but slightly pale from his confinement, is now serving two other sentences. He was jailed for up to 18 months for contempt in refusing to answer grand jury questions and given a term of 6 years 8 months to 20 years for his part in the burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office building here.
His latest conviction grew From his appearance as a witness before an executive session of the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Armed Services Committee.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/11/archives/liddy-guilty-of-contempt-of-congress.html
It appears he appealed and lost again. Was trying to find if he kept going to the SCOTUS but I think by then, he had already served time and was released. Incredible to realize that he'll be turning 90 next year (but "younger" pictures of him still populate the internet although I did see one "current" one - and he looks almost like Bolton with a white mustache
)
------ And in addition to the above----
Before Liddy, the former Nixon AG (after Mitchell left to run the '72 campaign) pled guilty to "refusal to answer questions" with respect to a Congressional subpoena -
Accused of Keeping Data From Senate in I.T.T. Inquiry Bayh Expresses Concern Kleindienst Admits Misdemeanor Guilt Over Testimony in Senate on I. T. T. Case Accused of Withholding Data From Committee Negotiations With Jaworski
Richard G. Kleindienst, the former United States Attorney General, pleaded guilty today to a minor criminal offense growing from his testimony before the Senate in 1972 during an investigation of the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation case. Richard G. Kleindienst Leon Jaworski, special Watergate prosecutor, leaving court in Washington yesterday after Richard G. Kleindienst, former Attorney General, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor.
https://www.nytimes.com/1974/05/17/archives/kleindienst-admits-misdemeanor-guilt-accused-of-keeping-data-from.html
He was sentenced to 1 month in prison (and resigned his office) as part of the plea deal (although there were later uncovered reports that he was about to get slapped with an 8 count indictment including felonies but that was eventually pulled).
