Mick Mulvaney refuses to comply with House subpoena and doesn't show up for impeachment deposition

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: CNN

(CNN)Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney refused to comply with House impeachment investigators' subpoena for a closed-door deposition Friday, citing "absolute immunity" from testifying. "This morning, one minute before his scheduled deposition was to start, Mr. Mulvaney's outside counsel informed us that his client had been directed by the White House not to comply with the duly authorized subpoena and asserted 'absolute immunity,'" an official working on the impeachment inquiry told CNN.

The subpoena came Thursday night following House investigators' request on Tuesday that Mulvaney testify on Capitol Hill, ratcheting up their investigation to target the President's top aide. The House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees sent Mulvaney a letter requesting he appear for a closed-door deposition as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into Trump and Ukraine. Mulvaney dramatically confirmed last month that Trump froze nearly $400 million in US security aid to Ukraine partially to pressure the country into investigating Democrats -- and proceeded hours later to deny having said so.

"That's why we held up the money," Mulvaney said after listing the 2016-related investigation and Trump's broader concerns about corruption in Ukraine, later adding, "get over it." "We do that all the time with foreign policy," Mulvaney said of the influence of politics in the Trump administration. Mulvaney also insisted that he knew only of a US request to investigate the handling of a Democratic National Committee server hacked in the 2016 election. But text messages between US diplomats show efforts to get Ukraine to commit to an investigation into Burisma, the company on whose board former Vice President Joe Biden's son sat. There is no evidence of wrongdoing in Ukraine by either Biden.

Mulvaney is by no means the first impeachment interviewee to receive such a summons. House Democrats have subpoenaed every White House official who has been called to testify so far -- except for former national security adviser John Bolton, who earlier on Thursday threatened to sue if served such a notice. Axios first reported the subpoena. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/07/politics/mick-mulvaney-subpoena/index.html

---

[Corgigal]

1. Keep being loyal pup.

The GOP is considering to throw you under the bus. Your life is going to get very complicated and expensive. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving clown. I personally, have hated you since forever.

[Alsteen]

2. Oh Why

Does the House not have the power to just go and get him? The police go get scofflaws all the time why can't Congress?

[Perseus]

7. I keep asking myself the same question, I wish someone who knows would enlighten

Its outrageous.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Absolute oversight trumps their phony absolute immunity.

But if they want to pile up more evidence of their criminal conspiracy... please proceed

[George II]

4. Yet just this morning trump was whining that there's no WH representation in these proceedings.

[Zambero]

5. After all, he'd already spilled his guts at the news conference!

No reason to refute it at this point. Next stop under the Trump bus, soon to be arriving.

[SWBTATTReg]

6. What the heck is 'absolute immunity' vs. executive priviledge? He's throwing words around...

like they have some legal meaning or such. Nail his ass to the wall! (pardon my language...

[Brainfodder]

8. Nothing says not guilty like avoiding testimony entirely?

[lark]

9. So the rules passed by Dems said no drumpf rep. if documentes & subpoenas not honored.

Neither are being honored, but will Dems play hardball and if so and he goes full on gangster and pushes his and his attorneys way into the hearing - what will happen? They will absolutely do everything to disrupt this and expect this type of behavior. Hope Dems don't just roll over and let him in - but don't know how they can physically keep him out - which they need to figure out ahead of time and let him know they will call his asshole moves out and they won't be allowed.

They better not roll over on this, its way way too important.

[noneof_theabove]

10. Send out the Capitol Police

Lock them up and $1,000 per day until compliance.

That is what you & I would get.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW !

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

11. Lock him up!!!!

[BigmanPigman]

12. He may be the one who had the idea to do all of this,

Ari Melber reported after reading the most recently released testimony. Will he be the fall guy?

[Mc Mike]

13. Absolute immunity, and unclaimed Executive Privilege.

Last edited Sat Dec 14, 2019, 08:49 AM - Edit history (1)

[EndlessWire]

14. "Absolute immunity?"

They seem to be saying that once you get elected, you can be a Dictator.

The Constitution counts. Donnie Two Scoops doesn't understand his limits.Oh G-d, I want him gone. And all the enablers who are violating their oaths of office. The shame they are bringing to their families...

[LTG]

15. No one will be prosecuted of criminal contempt.

Nor will they spend a day in Capitol Police lockup.

They may be saying “absolute immunity” but I would bet almost anything that the White House lawyers used “Executive Privilege in their notice to Congress. They almost certainly used it as well in their directive to the witnesses to not appear as the President was asserting Executive Privilege.

The difficulty is that the courts hold a Presidential assertion of Executive Privilege to be presumptively valid unless a convincing argument by Congressional lawyers convinces the court otherwise.

Unlike private privileges the judge isn’t permitted to review the materials in chambers to make such a determination. A very clear and convincing argument as to what is being investigated and what is believed to be in the testimony or materials and why it is crucial to the investigation. It can’t be a fishing expedition.

As to individuals who comply with a presumptively valid written Presidential directive. It won’t be considered legally criminal contempt until they defy a court order to appear and testify. Any direct criminal referral from Congress, until then, will be ignored by DOJ under prosecutorial discretion as established by court holdings going back over nearly 200 years.

There has long been discussion about the impropriety of Congress coercing or blackmailing the Executive Branch to prevent the exercise of a power necessary to the proper execution of Constitutional powers. It is not only a necessary power but a vital element in the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches.

It’s probably not even legally obstruction until a court rules that claim of privilege is invalid and orders the testimony or materials be provided.

All that said, it’s unlikely a court would like to get in the middle but would, due to the seriousness of the inquiry. It is also unlikely they will want to interfere with Congressional exercise of their recognized power of inherent contempt. That exercise of power, however, would probably not be wise prior to a court ruling on the validity of the privilege. The best option is a civil suit brought by Congress against the President re: the validity of the claim of Executive Privilege.