This story is probably behind a paywall. If it is not, you will enjoy reading it in full. Dana Milbank is one of my favorite opinion writers.
He begins:
Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the irony.
Donald Trump successfully made the State Department’s — and Hillary Clinton’s — failure to turn over all emails demanded by Congress a centerpiece of his 2016 campaign. “When is she going to release her emails?” he would demand, prompting “lock her up!” chants at rallies by saying Clinton defied a “congressional subpoena.”
And now, how many State Department emails has the Trump administration released as required by congressional subpoena?
Hold on, let me tally it up . . . Zero! Not a single one.
And not just State: The Energy Department, the Pentagon, Rudy Giuliani and the White House have all defied subpoenas and refused to provide any documents, while the administration has ordered officials not to testify and, in some cases, has confiscated officials’ notes and records to keep them from being provided to Congress.
There have always been document disputes between presidents and Congress. But this is the first such blanket refusal at least since Watergate, when Congress made the refusal itself an article of impeachment. If Trump succeeds — Republican lawmakers have, so far, defended the refusal, while courts have moved slowly — it will mean no future president would feel compelled to turn over a single document to Congress.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Trump and his loyal stooges are working to put the US on the same level as third world countries. Will we be able to stop this? I don’t have an answer but the Democrats had better get some spine and demand that the subpoenas be enforced. Give a huge fine or put them in jail. Our democracy and this country depends people learning the truth.
It is astounding that the Republicans care so little for this country and continue to back a corrupt, lying, narcissistic, misogynistic, xenophobic, demented, easily manipulated bigoted, ignorant, non-reading, non-learning, want-to-be-dicatator. “The administration has ordered officials not to testify and, in some cases, has confiscated officials’ notes and records to keep them from being provided to Congress.” THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!
I worked for two years in Bolivia, a third world country. I saw the effects of the wealthy having huge palaces surrounded by high walls. There was a guard at the entrance seated holding a big gun.
Reporters could be paid to write anything in the local paper.
A wealthy family’s son committed murder. He was sent away to college and when he returned, all had been covered up.
Many roads were unpaved and in the rainy season, taxis would drive on roads where mud would come up to the top of the tires on the car.
Occasionally, dirty water would come out of the faucet in my place.
Local schools had no textbooks and teachers were not highly educated.
A large newly built library would not lend out books because they would be stolen.
Most stores had little on their shelves. The wealthy would go to Florida and pick up suitcases full of clothes and resell them in clothing shops.
McDonalds and Subway closed because they didn’t uphold necessary standards and couldn’t get needed products.
I had to get a physical and went to a clinic washroom. It was extremely filthy. An x-ray machine was old and a cast off from the United States.
Do we really want this for the United States? I fear that we are losing our democratic way of life. Corporations and the wealthy are gaining control and our politicians are being bought out by BIG money to promote only the betterment of the wealthy. Income inequality and lack of healthcare never seems to matter.
LikeLike
Republicans have a very short memory.
Republicans on the Benghazi committee argued: “Congress’s authority to oversee and investigate the Executive Branch is a necessary component of legislative powers and to maintain the constitutional balance of powers. . . . When needed information cannot easily be obtained — or if government agencies resist — Congress has legitimate cause to compel responses.”
LikeLike
The refusal of the Trump administration to cooperate with congress is eroding the power of congress. This is why that posting yesterday about the conservative opponents of Trump’s behavior is so telling. This whole thing is happening because we are moving inexorably toward an imperial presidency. When people we agree with get power, they think they need to act without congress. Will we support the continued erosion of congressional power brought about by a divided country? Or will we elect people who will fight for our ideas in congress?
LikeLike
I think it is about more than “eroding the power of Congress”, it is destroying the foundation of the American polity and, by extension, the concept of republican democracy on the globe.
LikeLike
Somehow, I’d think God’s chosen one would not grab women by the pussy, lie over 14,000 times, put children in cages, stand up for corruption because it personally benefits him, mock disabled people, increase hatred and fear, believe Russia over our own intelligence agencies, separate families and use foreign countries to benefit his re-election. There may have been imperfect people who did bad things throughout history but Rick Perry is no expert on this subject.
…………………………………………………..
Rick Perry announced on Fox News during the weekend that Donald Trump was ‘sent by God’ to lead the country. The outgoing US Energy Secretary also told Fox & Friends’ hosts that President Trump was ‘the Chosen One.’
“God’s used imperfect people all through history,” Perry said, naming several Biblical figures. “King David wasn’t perfect, Saul wasn’t perfect, Solomon wasn’t perfect.”
LikeLike
I blame the so-called left wing media for this.
The NY Times dutifully reports every claim and justification that Republicans spout, ignoring the fact that those Republicans said the opposite when a Democrat was in power.
Just like the NYT reported on HRC’s “emails” non-stop while blatantly ignoring the hypocrisy of the dozens of Republican officials caught using private e-mail accounts, including having classified e-mails on them.
I cannot believe how many times the NY Times has dutifully reported that Republicans are very concerned about anti-Trump bias in the FBI without ever once mentioning that there are far more Republicans in the FBI and the Inspector General adamantly refused to investigate any bias that they had. The NY Times pushes the false narrative that the FBI is full of pro-Clinton anti-Trump employees when it is just the opposite.
The real irony is that Republicans know that the so-called left wing media are their willing helpers in their quest to mislead the public with their propaganda.
The real irony is that without the so-called left wing NY Times aiding and abetting the right wing Republicans and giving credibility to all their lies, the Republicans’ efforts to destroy democracy would be much more difficult.
Even now, the NY Times has jumped on the bandwagon that without Trump agreeing to allow his co-conspirators and enablers in the White House to testify, there is absolutely no evidence that Trump did anything worth impeaching.
The entirety of the massive amount of evidence that was presented last week is minimized by the NY Times which is pushing the new right wing narrative that what is important are the crimes that have not yet been uncovered and not the ones that have already been revealed, and without knowing of the crimes that have yet to be revealed, the crimes that already are revealed are meaningless and should be ignored.
Sure that sounds idiotic, but Republicans know they can push the most idiotic narratives and the reporters at the NY Times will gladly give those narratives serious credibility.
The irony is that Republicans know that the NY Times will always be there to help them push whatever false narrative they want to push.
LikeLike
Jared Kushner uses private emails to communicate with foreign leaders. Donald Trump uses an insecure cell phone that other governments listen to. Ivanka uses her private email.
The emails!
LikeLike
Too bad the NY Times suddenly lost interest in caring about e-mails once it was Republicans who were doing it.
If the right wingers aren’t pushing that narrative, the NY Times just isn’t interested. Instead, their new interest is about how there just isn’t enough evidence to impeach without getting testimony from the people whose testimony the Republicans and Trump have guaranteed won’t be heard.
We’ll hear that drumbeat in the NY Times non-stop until the Republicans decide on a new mantra.
LikeLike
I blame the so-called left wing media for this.
I am not sure what “this” is from your narrative, but your rant sounds like it might have come from the many Trumpsters who think it is just fine that Trump calls the press (except Fox News) “the enemy of the people.”
Which news sources do you trust and why?
LikeLike
First of all, I apologize if your misunderstanding is due to my poor writing.
“I am not sure what “this” is from your narrative…” — to answer your question, the “this” is IRONY.
I was referring to the irony that the Republicans “rant” about the press being “the enemy of the people” and too liberal, but in fact, those same Republicans know that it the so-called liberal NY Times who helps them push their false narratives that mean Democrats get smeared for committing “crimes” while Republicans get away with significantly worse actions that are minimized by the NY Times.
None of the Republicans’ false narrative would have credibility without the NY Times giving them credibility. And that is exactly what the NY Times did when they reported on HRC’s e-mails or any other issues involving Democrats — reported on those issue as if they were already proven high crimes!
Meanwhile, when it is a Republican committing much worse transgressions of their office, the NY Times sure seems to bend over backward to push the false narrative that there just isn’t enough evidence to know if anything wrong happened.
Every time a Democrat candidate has lost to a far inferior Republican — Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Clinton – those candidates began with quite large leads. But the constant media drumbeat questioning their character was repeated by the mainstream media, not simply by right wingers. That gave it credibility.
I remember when the media had a reckoning after they helped Lee Atwater and company destroy Mike Dukakis. Bill Clinton was the beneficiary of that and instead of reinforcing the right wing attacks as they did with Dukakis, the media made a concerted effort to debunk them. That’s was instrumental in Clinton winning.
But by 2000 the media were once again back to being made fools of — NYT was running stories about Gore’s propensity for lying or questioning Kerry’s character. What they failed to do is to debunk those attacks. If you compare the NY Times coverage of the “faux scandals” the right wing promoted about Gore, Kerry, and Obama, you will find that the anti-Obama attacks were debunked or ignored instead of being taken seriously.
Whoever wins the Democratic primary — from Bernie to Warren to Biden to Bloomberg — is going to get the right wing propaganda treatment that Dukakis, Gore, Kerry etc. received. It doesn’t matter who it is, there will be a concerted effort to destroy their character with right wing propaganda.
Either the so-called “liberal” media will help amplify that propaganda by treating it seriously, or it will debunk it and stop it in its tracks as happened with Obama. I hope in 2020, the latter happens. But all too often the NY Times reports on Trump with right wing talking points being given serious credibility instead of being properly characterized as outright lies from corrupt people desperate to mislead the public. There is clear and convincing evidence that Trump has abused his office, and the NY Times still treats the Republicans’ denials of this as legitimate instead of making it clear that any Republican saying that is corrupt.
LikeLike
Watching cable news this evening just reinforced my belief about the co-opted media, and it was so-called “left wing” MSNBC.
There was a clip of Donald Trump defending Rudy Giuliani. Typical soundbite about how Rudy was a real crime fighter. No context. Apparently the media is now happy for the public to forget everything that Rudy has done since the 1990s and it’s Rudy, taking on the mob from 40 years ago.
Giuliani is the Mayor whose handpicked choice for NYC Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik, went to jail! This is the Mayor who “thanked” political power broker Ray Harding by appointing his severely under qualified son Russell Harding to a high paying position, where he hired another friend and they proceeded to spend their time racking up charges for irrelevant first class travel on the taxpayer’s dime. (Poor Russell eventually spent 5 years in jail and then took his own life).
Mayor Giuliani was questioned about why he appointed such an unqualified hack to a powerful position and said: “Russell Harding has done an excellent job for this administration… What I do is. I try to be fair and have the most talented people I can find in this administration… I knew when I switched him to this position that you would all criticize me. But sometimes I enjoy it. Particularly when I think you’re wrong and I’m right.”
Those words, spoken by Giuliani in the 1990s, could have been said by Donald Trump today. Giuliani was using city employees to help hide his affair with his mistress. He has long been exposed as a totally corrupt and dishonest politician.
And yet the media still mischaracterizes him as crime-fighting Rudy without informing the audience of why he is most certainly is not.
The irony is that it is the so-called “liberal” media that allows this to happen because they are too cowed to do anything but report Republicans’ dishonest claims without any context that would tell viewers how untrue they are.
LikeLike
Just how large is the “liberal” media compared to the “Conservative” media?
You might want to check each source after you watch one of their broadcasts to find out where they fit.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Trump Golden Rule: Do others.
LikeLike
After a busy lifetime of following the precept, “People to do, things to be.”
LikeLike
Don’t miss the Black Friday sale on Republican integrity. Highly discounted.
LikeLike
Current rates give a whole new meaning to the phrase “Barr, none.”
LikeLike
“…Black Friday sale on Republican integrity…”
Sorry shoppers, that item sold out decades ago.
LikeLike
Why hasn’t the House of Representatives used its power to have Trump Administration stooges that defy a Congressional subpoena arrested and tossed in jail?
It is called Contempt of Congress.
Following the refusal of a witness to produce documents or to testify, the Committee is entitled to report a resolution of contempt to its parent chamber. A Committee may also cite a person for contempt but not immediately report the resolution to the floor. In the case of subcommittees, they report the resolution of contempt to the full Committee, which then has the option of rejecting it, accepting it but not reporting it to the floor, or accepting it and reporting it to the floor of the chamber for action. On the floor of the House or the Senate, the reported resolution is considered privileged and, if the resolution of contempt is passed, the chamber has several options to enforce its mandate.
What can Congress do to a government official who ignores one?
If lawmakers want to punish someone who ignores a congressional subpoena they typically first hold the offender “in contempt of Congress,” legal experts said.
The contempt process can start in either the House or the Senate. Unlike with legislation, it only takes one of the chambers to make and enforce a contempt citation.
Typically, the members of the congressional committee that issued the subpoena will vote on whether to move forward with a contempt finding. If a majority supports the resolution, then another vote will be held by the entire chamber.
The Supreme Court said in 1821 that Congress has “inherent authority” to arrest and detain recalcitrant witnesses.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-how-powerful-are-congress-subpoenas-contempt-citations-idUSKCN1S81FP
But, from what I just read, Congress has to ask the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a federal prosecutor, to bring criminal charges against a witness who refuses to appear.
And since that federal prosector boss is Willliam Barr, it is possible that Barr will order him/her to defy Congress.
I think this is one more step toward a shooting Civil War. One side will be led by Trump and his mob of criminals and fascists.
The other side probably led by someone like Mattis will be fighting to protect the U.S. Constitution.
LikeLike
Trump, as usual, is planning to tie things up in court. Why should aides be able to evade subpoenas because ‘the president secrecy powers make his aides absolutely immune from such subpoenas’. Are the conservative judges really going to go this far to protect Trump? This is a constitutional crisis brought about by Trump who wants to keep knowledgeable people from testifying against him. He is guilty because nobody who is innocent would fight so hard to keep knowledgeable people from testifying.
Who has ever heard of ‘presidential secrecy powers’? The House has the right to subpoena people in the administration to get impeachment information.
…………………….
Ex-White House Counsel McGahn Must Testify to Congress, Judge Rules
A judge rejected the Trump administration’s argument that senior White House officials are immune from congressional subpoenas.
His administration put forward the theory that top aides to the president like Mr. McGahn were absolutely immune from being compelled to testify about their officials duties — meaning that they do not even have to show up…
But Mr. Trump, who had openly vowed to stonewall “all” oversight subpoenas after Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, instructed Mr. McGahn not to cooperate. His administration put forward the theory that top aides to the president like Mr. McGahn were absolutely immune from being compelled to testify about their officials duties — meaning that they do not even have to show up.
In August, the House Judiciary Committee sued Mr. McGahn, seeking a judicial order that he comply with the subpoena. That same day, the panel also asked a judge for an order permitting it to see secret grand jury evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, which Attorney General William P. Barr declined to provide to Congress. (Another federal judge ruled for Congress in the grand jury case a month ago, but the administration has appealed.)
The court filings said the House needed the information not just for oversight purposes, but also for an impeachment inquiry. While the impeachment focus has since shifted to the Ukraine affair that burst into public view in September, House Democrats are still considering an article of impeachment that would accuse Mr. Trump of obstruction of justice.
A question pervading both disputes is whether the Constitution permits Congress to subpoena aides to a president like Mr. McGahn and, potentially, Mr. Bolton, to talk about their official duties — or whether the president’s secrecy powers make his aides absolutely immune from such subpoenas.
Administrations of both parties have taken the position that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties,” as a 15-page legal opinion from Steven A. Engel, the current head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, put it. But there is no definitive court precedent on the issue…
LikeLike