Trump Tweet Undermines Privilege Claims For Barring Testimony

Today, President Trump tweeted on the decision to bar EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland from testifying since it would be in front of a “a totally compromised kangaroo court.” The problem is that any fight would be on the basis for executive privilege, not the disagreement with the Committee agenda or fairness. Executive privilege is based on protecting confidential communications and diplomatic relations. Trump seems to be saying is that he simply does not trust the Committee, which is not a ground for refusal if a subpoena is now issued.

Trump also says that he would “love” to have the testimony occur if it were not for his dislike or distrust for the Committee. Again, that undermines later possible privilege arguments.

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump · 20m

I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify, but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public….

Donald J. Trump✔@realDonaldTrump

….to see. Importantly, Ambassador Sondland’s tweet, which few report, stated, “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” That says it ALL!9,5849:23 AM – Oct 8, 2019

Trump has previously undermined litigation arguments in areas like immigration. However, this could be a costly misstep as Congress heads toward court fights over privilege.

143 thoughts on “Trump Tweet Undermines Privilege Claims For Barring Testimony”

  1. Someone please edify me.

    What is the utility and effect of the “pingback” below and other variants throughout this blog?

    Pingback: Impeachment inquiry latest: Gordon Sondland, Ambassador to E.U., blocked from testifying to Congress by Trump administration — live updates – Blockchains Job

    1. WordPress Trackbacks and Pingbacks

      Trackbacks and pingbacks are methods for alerting blogs that you have linked to them. The difference between them is:

      Trackbacks – must be created manually, and send an excerpt of the content.
      Pingbacks – are automated and don’t send any content.

      A pingback is a type of comment that’s created when you link to another blog post where pingbacks are enabled. The best way to think about pingbacks is as remote comments:

      Person A posts something on his blog.
      Person B posts on own blog, linking to Person A’s post. This automatically sends a pingback to Person A when both have pingback enabled blogs.
      Person A’s blog receives the pingback, then automatically goes to Person B’s post to confirm that the pingback did, in fact, originate there.

      To create a pingback, just link to another blog post. If that post has pingbacks enabled, the blog owner will see a pingback appear in their comments section that they can approve.

      1. IT Guy – thanks for the info. I don’t have twatter or another blog, so it made no sense to me until you explained it.

      2. IT Guy, why do pingbacks occur at particular points in a blog; before or after particular posts My paranoia tells me that someone is tracking/copying my personal posts, not the entire blog, and reporting my comments and “social rating” to the communists in Washington D.C. and Beijing. I should be so lucky.

  2. Here is a serious question, though, Professor While Trump is clearly speaking colloquially here rather than with legal precision, is it not correct that *part* (though not all) of the WH Counsel’s objection to the particular process the committee is seeking to use is that it deprives the Administration of the opportunity to have the Administration’s legal representatives present alongside the witnesses in question (the Ambassador in this case)? And would not part of the consequence of that process be that the Administration thus would not be able to assert, in real time, privilege in response to certain subject-matter questions from the Committee? Might not a more artful expression of Trump’s point be “I would love to have Ambassador S and others testify but only if it involves a process that is designed to protect all of the various legal and constitutional prerogatives of the presidency, including the right to invoke executive privilege over prospective areas of inquiry (some of which might be easy to foresee in advance but some of which may not) involving the president’s communication with his subordinates?”

  3. Justin from Canada has a lot from his past that he doesn’t want to be exposed. He says he moved on with his career when he left the teaching gig he briefly held. Oops. Looks like he moved on because he had “improper relations with female students while working at the school…” and he’s trying to buy their silence. Oh Canada. Just say NO to Justin. You can do better.


    Somehow, the Liberal Party has managed to minimize the blowback from Justin Trudeau’s ‘blackface’ scandal, and with two weeks to go until election day, is still well within the margin of error in most polls.

    But there might be another scandal in the works. According to a report in the Buffalo Chronicle, the party is doing everything in its power to suppress a sex scandal involving Trudeau and the daughter of a wealthy Canadian businessman who Trudeau reportedly may have become involved with when she was a student at West Point Grey Academy, a prestigious private school where Trudeau worked as a substitute teacher in his 20s.

    The Chronicle’s sources claim that political observers had been anticipating an expose in Saturday’s Globe and Mail. However, it appears Trudeau and his people have gotten to the woman, and are in the process of negotiating an NDA. The woman is being represented by counsel, and is reportedly being offered monetary compensation.

    Trudeau worked as a substitute teacher at the private school from 1999 until an abrupt departure in June 2001. It has long been rumored that Trudeau had improper relations with female students while working at the school, though nothing has ever been substantiated.

    The prime minister was briefly embroiled in a sexual harassment scandal after being accused of “groping” a reporter back in 2000. Trudeau swiftly acknowledged that he was wrong and apologized for groping the reporter.

    But a sex scandal involving a potentially underage student would likely end his political career.


    Let’s hope so…

    1. Anonymous – we all have our fingers crossed. I had heard about this, but did not know if it was a joke or not.

    2. “It has long been rumored that Trudeau had improper relations with female students while working at the school, though nothing has ever been substantiated.”

      Let Justin fly a little higher since “we got nothing but time” and the fall will be spectacular:

    1. mespo – I think there is personal animosity between Gowdy and Schiff. Also Nadler.

        1. mespo – and Trump has some experience being questioned by top lawyers. Actually, it was an interrogatory of him that sold me on him.



    The report, written by the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee, also said the Internet Research Agency, which worked “at the direction of the Kremlin,” increased its activity after Election Day in 2016.

    Following the 2016 election, “Instagram activity increased 238 percent, Facebook increased 59 percent, Twitter increased 52 percent, and YouTube citations went up by 84 percent,” the report found.

    The committee’s work also affirmed the conclusions of earlier investigations on Russian interference in the elections, including the Mueller report’s findings and the Jan. 6, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment.

    “The Committee found that IRA social media activity was overtly and almost invariably supportive of then-candidate Trump,” the report reads. “The Committee found that the Russian government tasked and supported the IRA’ s interference in the 2016 U.S. election.”

    The Senate committee found that the Internet Research Agency sought to harm Democrat Hillary Clinton and support Donald Trump “at the direction of the Kremlin.”

    And the study also concluded that the IRA sought to focus on socially divisive issues like race to pit Americans against one another.

    The results of the report are part of an ongoing investigation into Russian election interference first launched by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2017.

    “By flooding social media with false reports, conspiracy theories, and trolls, and by exploiting existing divisions, Russia is trying to breed distrust of our democratic institutions and our fellow Americans,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr said in a written statement.

    The recommendations of the report include better coordination between social media companies, as well as more information sharing between Big Tech companies and the government.

    The report also recommends that Congress pass legislation that requires that tech platforms disclose who paid for online political advertisements and that the executive branch form an interagency task force to monitor foreign use of social media for democratic interference.

    Edited from: “Senate Report: Russians Used Social Media Mostly To Target Race In 2016”

    Today’s NPR

    1. Regarding Above: This report comes from the Senate Intelligence Committee whose Chairman is Senator Burr (R) N.C. His Co-Chairman is Warner of Virginia (D). Said report essentially validates findings of The Mueller Report. It also suggests that Trump was chasing conspiracy theories in Ukraine.

    2. Peter, Shill, why dont you create a new profile on Grindr using yet another screen name but use catfish as your avatar? Gays in WeHo will appreciate the new look


        1. Yeah, this is the same Estovir who’s always posting Catholic articles here on the blog. He’s obsessed with toilets and grinders as you can see above.

      1. OMG! LOL!

        This Shill clown is fooling himself and entertaining everyone else.

        This current scheme is HILl-ARIOUS!

        No, no. This Shill is Most Absurd!

        1. George, you’re so nutty, The Shill won’t even bother with you. Ever notice that? You might have been too busy posting ‘scholarly’ references to the constitution.

    3. Damn Shill, it is not surprising you would believe changing your ID would hide the fact you have no functional left-brain. What it actually does is confirm it.

    1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me thirty-eight citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after forty-five weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – I think the President is going to force them to either call a floor vote (for which they do not have the votes) or litigate it. Right now, my money is on him.

  5. Hmm.

    Why can’t Trump object to how Ds are proceeding as a denial of due process, as lacking constitutional lawfulness as an “impeachment inquiry” and inviting the issues he raises to be litigated and then later, if he is so advised, exert claims of executive privilege?

    I don’t see the 1st undermining 2nd.

    1. He cannot object because the House does not have to adhere to due process, they determine everything about the process of impeachment, and there is nothing Trump, or any Government Official, can do, even appealing to the Supreme Court will not help!

      You all think this is some kind of negotiation between equals, but the impeachment and removal process is anything but equal, and congress has complete control over every aspect of the Process and the condition of the President’s custody after impeachment while awaiting trial in the Senate and during the trial, they don’t have to allow Trump to perform his duties as President, in fact they can incarcerate him if they wish throughout the process until the finding in the Senate and there’s not a damn thing Trump, his party in the Senate, the Supreme Court, or anyone else can do to prevent Congress’s total control over him once he is impeached!

      That’s why the impeachment is like an indictment, and must be done as soon as possible, then Congress can control the situation as intended!

      And just in case you are wondering, I mean the States as they are assembled in Congress as the Union, not Congress assembled by party affiliation!

      1. FPR:
        “You all think this is some kind of negotiation between equals, but the impeachment and removal process is anything but equal, and congress has complete control over every aspect of the Process and the condition of the President’s custody after impeachment while awaiting trial in the Senate and during the trial, they don’t have to allow Trump to perform his duties as President, in fact they can incarcerate him if they wish throughout the process until the finding in the Senate and there’s not a damn thing Trump, his party in the Senate, the Supreme Court, or anyone else can do to prevent Congress’s total control over him once he is impeached!”

        You’re just flat wrong.

        SCOTUS has required due process in Congressional hearings since the days of Joe McCarthy. In Watkins v. US and Quinn v. US your proposition was flatly rejected. In addition, due process specifically applies to impeachment proceedings: Hastings v. US. And how do we know Hastings is good law? Why we have the Federalist Papers:

        “It is agreed on all sides that the powers properly belonging to one of the departments ought not to be directly and completely administered by either of the other departments. It is equally evident that none of them ought to possess, directly or indirectly, an overruling influence over the others, in the administration of their respective powers.” The Federalist, No. 48 (Madison).

        The Framers also said,

        “[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others.” The Federalist, No. 51 (Madison).

        I’m sure you read the Federalist papers just as I’m sure you have no idea what you’re reading. You do a tremendous disservice to anyone who reads your outlandish ideas about our Constitution. Some naive fifth grader might actually believe you.

        1. mespo – thank you for taking him on. I was just going to ignore his ignorance.

            1. You guys just don’t understand the first thing about the Constitution! It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious! I would tell you to go back to school, but it didn’t do you any good the first time, and I doubt another go will be futile!

              Ignorance is curable, however, stupidity is forever!

              1. “You guys just don’t understand the first thing about the Constitution!”
                Paul who taught it at the baccalaureate level, SCOTUS who interprets it and James Madison who wrote it have no idea about the Constitution but you — with no known credentials and demonstrably false ideas — do.

                Get a rubber room.

                1. You are so arrogantly stupid! If I can fire you, that means I have complete control over you, and in the case of our Government that means the States as they are assembled in Congress have complete control over everyone, and everything in our Government, including the President, and everyone on the Supreme Court, no one is safe from the power of the States as the Union!

                  Our Government is the ultimate right to work state, the States as the Union can get rid of anyone in Government without any provocation or justification, just by voting in Congress to reach majority Consensus, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it!

                  You’re a joke, you must have failed geometry and algebra, because you have no idea how to interpret a conditional statement!


                  1. FPR:
                    The arrogance is you thinking you know more than SCOTUS. Cite your authority for your wild ideas that Congress need accord no due process in hearings.

                    1. Article 1. Section 5.

                      Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

                      If you don’t understand that, then maybe returning to school to learn some comprehension skills is in order!

                      Remember, since I know you don’t know the difference, Congress is an Assembly of the States, not Parties, and each State has equal Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus according to the mode of Assembly in the Bicameral Legislature. That’s how we make decisions In our country, by majority Consensus of the people in their Collective Capacity! No person, or party, is above the people in their collective capacity.

                      Parties, and partisan affiliation, have no role in any aspect of how Congress is assembled, or how the People in their Collective Capacity reach Majority Consensus to make collective decisions!

                      And the States as the Union don’t owe anyone anything, due process, or protection from dismissal!

                      The States as they are assembled as the Union is the established Government Authority, and no one stands equal with, or above, the Union!

                      I know all this is a waste on you and your ilk, but miracles do happen!

                    2. fpr – what is the cost to be Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee?

                    1. Article 1 Section 2

                      “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”

                      Any State can at any time raise the question for impeachment of anyone within our Government, since the States reach Majority Consensus in the House based upon proportional assembly, it only takes as few ad 9 States to reach Majority Consensus and immediately place the accused person in the custody of the Senate for trial for removal, where again the States are assembled as equals in the Senate, they must reach a 2/3 Majority Consensus of the States as equals for removal, that’s 34 to be exact, because the States have equal Suffrage in the Senate, not their individual Senators, Article 5 of the United States Constitution!

                      This is a criminal proceeding, although it does not carry criminal penalties, but Congress can immediately remand the removed person over to the criminal justice system to face criminal prosecution and criminal penalties!

                      Removal means fired, dismissed, severed, or any other synonym you you care to use!

                      The States as the Union have power over everyone in our Government through the impeachment and removal process!

                      And notice this is not a partisan, or political, process, because the States are assembled in Congress per capita, not based upon partisan concerns, and the States have all the suffrage to participate to reach Majority Consensus to make collective decisions. Sorry, parties have no representation or Suffrage in Congress to participate to reach majority consensus, so parties are not part of collective decision making!

                      Partisan Government, partisan assembly, and partisan apportionment of Suffrage are not principles of a republican form of Government, see Article 4 Section 4!

                      Get a clue, the people are always in control in a Republic!

                  2. FPR:
                    So the only authority you have for this silliness is the refuse that emanates from your head and out some bodily orifice. You lose!

                    1. You’ve been educated beyond your ability to comprehend! Sorry, I don’t allow people to piss on me and tell me it’s raining! Either cite your constitutional references, or shut the “F”-up!

              2. fpr – both mespo and I understand the pragmatics of the Constitutions, something you haven’t the foggiest idea about.

                1. Pragmatics, the constitution doesn’t need your kind of Pragmatics, just follow it as written without your interpretations, or the interpretations of others who stand to gain by its misinterpretation and its principles misconstrued!

                  I’m a Constitutional Originalist, so show me where in the Constitution your pragmatics is relevant!

                  1. FPR:

                    “I’m a Constitutional Originalist, so show me where in the Constitution your pragmatics is relevant!”
                    Meglomania! Run this term by your internist.

                  2. fpr – the Constitution has been modified by the Supreme Court and legislation thousands of times. mespo and I realize that. You can be an originalist and still be pragmatic, however you are at a sophomore level (maybe).

                    1. You can’t modify the Constitution by congressional statutes, or by Supreme Court opinions, it can only be modified by Article 5 of the Constitution, period, end of story, and it takes a 2/3 majority Consensus of the States to amend the constitution and the States must have independent equal suffrage throughout the amendment process!

                      Amendment is by state, not by party affiliation! FOR A REASON!

  6. Finally, President Trump has told Pelosi to stuff it.



    October 8, 2019

    Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

    I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an “impeachment inquiry.” As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a maimer that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.

    For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

    Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the AmericanpeopleofthePresidenttheyhavefreelychosen. ManyDemocratsnowapparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member ofCongress explained, he is “concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.”

    For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. TheAmerican people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescriptiondrugprices,andaddressingmassshootingviolence. Wehopethat,in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

    1. Estovir,
      I think a compromise is possible if Pelosi and Nadler and Schiff would drop the “impeachment inquiry” line and call it an impeachment fishing expedition.

    1. i see jimmy has 625K subscribers. Rachel maddow has millions. Expecting that the main formation of liberals will wake up and start thinking more clearly like Jimmy or various other worthy left wingers in spite of their various hang-ups, actually do seem like they can think, mostly, that’s a vain expectation.

    2. Squeeky – don’t feel bad for Rachel Maddow, she passed the casting couch test for Batwoman and will have a continuing part as Bruce Wayne’s girlfriend.

  7. This “inquiry” seems to resemble a Star Chamber or — better yet — a typical university’s investigation of sexual misconduct. In case some of you haven’t noticed, courts have been awarding large sums of money to students railroaded in those one-sided proceedings.

    I agree with the president. No full house vote? Go pound sand.


    “Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits.”

    – Thomas Jefferson

    Enough enslavement to the welfare state, un-“just pursuits,” abuse of power and political mayhem (i.e. “resist”).

    Enough hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and nascent insurrection by the American communists.

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald J. Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  9. The stupid anonymous is back trying to avoid anyone counting how many times he posts. This is the type of trash that exists on the left.

Comments are closed.