Quote from: Viper1 on December 05, 2019, 08:56:05 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 05, 2019, 08:17:10 AM

the subpoenas issued to the executive

The DOD is part of the executive branch. The subpoena was issued to someone from the DOD, thus the "executive". The DOD also used "executive privilege" in their bitch letter.

DOJ is part of the executive branch. Subpoenas were issued to them to get unredacted grand jury testimony from the Mueler report as part of the impeachment inquiry. The executive made the same sort of arguments and they've lost the case on multiple points. Course it's not going to be completely resolved until some time next year but it will most likely come down to the main point of whether or not the private information can be made available and nothing to do with whether the subpoena or request is legal or not.

Quote from: TECSHARE on December 05, 2019, 08:17:10 AM

controlled by your emotions and are unable to rely on logic.

Says the person who will not admit he was wrong about there being no subpoenas issued at all or that there is a high degree of at least circumstantial proof that the the Rudy/Pompeo subpoenas exist given they've said they do. That's some awesome high level reasoning and logic coming from you.

The response from the executive branch seems to be saying exactly what I have been. Funny how that all gets glossed over and dismissed as "bitching".

"Dear Mr. Levin:

I understand that you have been retained by Ms. Laura Cooper, the Departments Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia, as her private counsel for a deposition to be conducted jointly by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Oversight and Reform, [P]ursuant to the House of Representatives 'impeachment inquiry. The Department's October 15, 2019 letter to the of the three House Committees [Tab A] expressed its belief that the customary process of oversight and accommodation has historically served the interests of congressional oversight committees and the Department well. The Committees' purported impeachment inquiry, however, presents at least two issues of great importance.

The first issue is the Committees' continued, blanket refusal to allow Department Counsel to be present at depositions of Department employees. Department Counsel's participation protects against the improper release of privileged or classified information, particularly material covered by the executive privilege which is the President's alone to assert and to waive. Excluding Department Counsel places the witness in the untenable position of having to decide whether to answer the Committees' questions or to assert Executive Branch confidentiality interests without an attorney from the Executive Branch present to advise on those interests. It violates settled practice and may jeopardize future accommodation. Furthermore, the Department of Justice has concluded that "congressional subpoenas that purport to require agency employees to appear without agency counsel are legally invalid and are not subject to civil or criminal enforcement. See Attempted Exclusion of Congressional Depositions of Agency Employees, 43 Op. OL. C.(May23,2019) [Tab B].

The second issue is the absence of authority for the Committees to conduct an impeachment inquiry. In its October 15, 2019 letter, the Department conveyed concerns about the Committees' lack of authority to initiate an impeachment inquiry given the absence of a delegation of such authority by House Rule or Resolution. This correspondence echoed an October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel [Tab C] expressing the President's view that the inquiry was to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent and violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

"This letter informs you and Ms. Cooper of the Administration-wide direction that Executive Branch personnel can not participate in impeachment] inquiry under these circumstances [Tab C]. In the event that the Committees issue a subpoena to compel Ms. Cooper's appearance, you should be aware that the Supreme Court has held, in United States v.
Rumely, 345 U.S. 41 (1953), that a person can not be sanctioned for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena unauthorized by House Rule or Resolution.

To reiterate, the Department respects the oversight role of Congress and stands ready to work with the Committees should there be an appropriate resolution of outstanding legal issues. Any such resolution would have to consider the constitutional prerogatives and confidentiality interests of the co-equal Executive Branch, see [Tab D] and ensure fundamental fairness to any Executive Branch employees involved in this process, including Ms. Cooper."

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ukraine-clearinghouse-2019.10.22.WH-letter-to-Cooper.pdf

Cooper was never compelled, and that subpoena was never valid as evidenced by this reply. Just because she volunteered to testify (against orders BTW) has no bearing on the validity of the subpoena.