White House Restricts Lewandowski's House Testimony on Trump

[spanone]

Lewandowski was NEVER a member of the trump administration.....

The White House is seeking to limit what former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski can tell a House panel pursuing an impeachment inquiry.

Lewandowski is scheduled to testify on Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, setting up a potentially combative session with the Republican strategist who’s been weighing a campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in New Hampshire.

While the White House has asserted a broad executive privilege to bar testimony from current and former administration officials, the claim Monday that Lewandowski also must keep confidential about at least some of his discussions with President Donald Trump takes the assertion a step further because Lewandowski never held a position in the executive branch.

The administration also moved to block testimony on Tuesday from two former Trump aides who did work in the White House, former Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and former Staff Secretary Rob Porter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-17/white-house-restricts-lewandowski-s-house-testimony-on-trump

[vlyons]

1. Can a congressional witness refuse to swear the oath?

What would happen if h/she did? Just curious.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. Trump IS NOT innocent....Otherwise, others would speak....

The more Trump blocks Congress, the more IMPEACHMENT becomes a reality.

For if Trump is innocent and has NOTHING to hide, why is he so against others from testifying and Congress doing its work? IMPEACH the Bastard!

[dalton99a]

5. And impeach his enforcer:

[kentuck]

3. I am so surprised.

They would say something like that! Not

[Kid Berwyn]

4. After all, Trump has an "Article 2."

That makes him a dick tater.

[rownesheck]

6. I keep wondering

about all these department heads who are "acting" since they haven't been confirmed. Since they haven't been confirmed, they're not "official" heads of their respective departments. Couldn't that mean they aren't "official" members of the administration and so they could be compelled to testify and would not be able to use the bullshit excuse of "executive privilege"? Isn't the DNI "acting"?

I could be wrong.

[kentuck]

7. Good point.

And why is the Republican Senate asleep at the wheel? Why haven't they held hearings on any of these "acting" positions?

[FBaggins]

10. It isn't that they're asleep at the wheel

It's that some of the parliamentary processes that we've been using gum up the confirmation process for all appointments...

... When faced with a decision to make someone permanent (who might be gone in a bit over a year if/when they lose the election) or another judge who will serve for life? They've been pushing through the judges.

[FBaggins]

9. No. They're still part of the Executive branch

OTOH... It hasn't been finally established that they can't be compelled to testify even if they were confirmed.

[Docreed2003]

8. "Executive privilege for anyone who has ever interacted with Mr Trump...Ever"

And yet they expect people to believe they are above board and haven't done anything wrong. Amazing