Trump’s ‘total obstruction’ of Congress to be put to the test this week (updated)

The authoritarian Trump regime’s policy of “total obstruction” of Congress will be put to the test this week. By week’s end, contempt proceedings may be invoked and jail space made ready to enforce subpoenas for witnesses under the inherent contempt power of Congress.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings has pulled back from plans to initiate contempt proceedings against former White House security clearance chief Carl Kline — who blew off a subpoena demanding his testimony last week — instead agreeing to interview Kline with a White House lawyer present. Cummings drops contempt threat against former W.H. security chief:

The transcribed interview, according to Cummings, will take place on May 1 on Capitol Hill.

“Based on the record before us, I am confident that the Committee could move forward with contempt against you immediately, particularly since your defiance of the Committee’s subpoena was so flagrant,” Cummings wrote to Kline in a Saturday letter obtained by POLITICO. “However, I have always endeavored to be as fair as possible in the pursuit of truth, particularly with witnesses who are willing to come before the Committee.”

Cummings’ decision is an eleventh-hour attempt to avert the most serious confrontation yet between congressional investigators and the Trump administration and follows a last-minute effort initiated by the Oversight committee’s top Republican, Rep. “Gym” Jordan (R-OH).

* * *

[O]n Friday, Jordan reached out to the White House to urge counsel Pat Cipollone to permit Kline’s testimony next week. Cipollone responded late Friday by agreeing to the request as long as the committee agreed the White House’s initial demands — that a White House lawyer be present in the room and that Kline’s testimony be limited to “policies and practices” of the security clearance office.

In his letter Saturday, Cummings said he’d relent and allow a White House lawyer to be present but that the scope of questions would not be limited to the White House’s liking.

“The committee sets the scope of its interviews and depositions — not Rep. Jordan and not the President’s other defense counsels,” Cummings wrote. “You will be expected to answer all of the Committee’s questions, including questions about specific White House officials and allegations of retaliation against the whistleblower. If you answer all of these questions, there would be no need for the committee to pursue contempt against you in the future.”

Cummings emphasized that Cipollone and Jordan’s correspondence was not sanctioned by committee Democrats. He called the terms they agreed to “inadequate” and a recycled version of terms that Cummings had already rejected when the White House initially offered them. He also emphasized to Kline that he faces personal legal jeopardy if he capitulates to any requests by a White House lawyer to defy the committee’s questions.

“This burden rests squarely with you, with the advice of your personal counsel, and not with the White House attorneys who may direct you to disregard the Committee’s questions without an assertion of privilege,” he wrote.

Cummings also suggested that his pursuit of testimony on the security clearance process was intended to investigate “serious national security risks at the White House” and develop legislative reforms to address them.

If Kline agrees to Cummings’ parameters, he will be appearing on Capitol Hill at the same time Attorney General “Baghdad Bill” Barr is slated to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report … or maybe not. Attorney general may withdraw from Mueller report hearing over terms of his testimony, House Democrats say:

Democrats and the Justice Department are in a standoff over the terms of Attorney General William P. Barr’s planned testimony before the House Judiciary Committee this week, raising the prospect that the hearing might not go forward at all.

A senior Democratic committee aide said Sunday that Barr risks being subpoenaed if he refuses to testify over his objections to the lawmakers’ desired format for the hearing.

Barr is expected to appear before the Senate and House Judiciary committees Wednesday and Thursday, respectively, to address questions about special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election. But according to senior aides for the panel’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Justice Department officials have objected to Democrats’ plans to permit extended questioning, including by the committee’s lawyers, and threatened that Barr may withdraw.

A Justice Department official said discussions are ongoing.

“The attorney general agreed to appear before Congress,” Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said in a statement. “Therefore, members of Congress should be the ones doing the questioning. He remains happy to engage with Members on their questions regarding the Mueller report.”

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is warning Attorney General William Barr not to try to dictate the terms of his testimony on the Russia investigation this week. Nadler pushes back against Barr on terms of testimony:

“The witness is not going to tell the committee how to conduct its hearing, period,” the chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), told CNN on Sunday.

Barr is scheduled to testify to the Judiciary Committee on Thursday about special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report on the investigation, a redacted version of which was released earlier this month. He is also expected to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

Nadler wants to allow each committee member a five-minute round of questioning. A key point of contention has arisen over Nadler’s wanting to allow for another round of questioning of 30 minutes for each party’s committee counsels. The chairman also proposed that the panel go into closed session to discuss the redacted sections of the report.

Barr has rejected both proposals, according to CNN, which cited an unidentified committee source.

Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), a member of the Judiciary Committee, said Nadler’s proposed structure for the hearing was “not unprecedented.”

The Washington Post points out that:

The committee staff have researched other instances in which committee lawyers have questioned Cabinet officials during open congressional hearings, the aide said. The last time was during the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese, gave testimony during the Iran-contra hearings, the aide said.

“The attorney general can choose to come in voluntarily under the chairman’s framework or risk being subpoenaed at a later date,” the senior aide said.

UPDATE: The New York Times notes other occasions in which staff members have been allowed to question witnesses during public hearings and private interviews, including impeaching inquiries for both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and the GOP-led inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

And how quickly Republicans have forgotten that they hired Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell to question Christine Blasey Ford for the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing (until she was sidelined by Sen. Lindsey Graham who wanted to throw a pearl-clutching hissy-fit for viewers on Fox News aka Trump TV. Lindsey Graham Stages Meltdown After Christine Blasey Ford Finishes Testimony).

“It is not up to Attorney General Barr to tell our committee how to operate, and will I be puzzled if he actually decides not to show,” Dean said Sunday on “CNN Newsroom With Fredricka Whitfield.”

If Barr doesn’t appear on Thursday, Dean said, the committee is ready to “fully use our subpoena power.”

“The chairman has subpoena power, and we’ll have to go to a court of law and either hold him in contempt or have him come in, but I hope that cooler heads prevail,” Dean said.

CNN adds, Barr’s appearance at House hearing now in doubt because of dispute with Democrats:

Barr is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday and the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday. And he’s still expected to attend the Senate hearing.

While Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, has backed Barr’s handling of the Mueller report, the quarrel over the testimony is the latest in a series of escalating disputes between Nadler and Barr over the special counsel investigation.

The Littlest Rebel, Lindsey “Stonewall” Graham, once again demonstrated that he is a horseshit attorney and an even more despicable human being.

On CBS’ “Face The Nation,”  “Stonewall” Graham insisted that the president didn’t do “one thing” to obstruct justice — despite ten detailed instances outlined in the Mueller Report as a “road map” for congressional investigators — to which Graham said “I don’t care if Trump ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller” because “Trump’s subordinates did not carry out his orders” — thus there is no conduct to impeach him over.

How did this tool ever get past first year law school? Legal experts torch Lindsey Graham for saying ‘I don’t care’ if Trump tried to fire Mueller:

In simple legal fact, Graham is wildly wrong. Federal law says that anyone who “endeavors to” obstruct the administration of justice has committed a crime, whether or not the action taken actually does so.

On Monday, multiple former federal prosecutors took to social media to hit back at Graham’s mischaracterization of federal law.

Nadler has issued a subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report and the special counsel’s underlying evidence, and is prepared to go to court to obtain the documents if Barr will not comply. Barr has offered to allow select congressional leaders to view a less-redacted version of the Mueller report, with only grand jury material blacked out, but Democrats have rejected that proposal.

But the dispute between Barr and Democrats runs deeper than the report. Democrats have slammed Barr’s handling of the end of the Mueller investigation, accusing him of releasing a letter that mischaracterized Mueller’s findings on both collusion and obstruction and raising suspicions over his decision not to prosecute Trump after Mueller did not reach a conclusion on Trump. Barr’s decision to hold a press conference the morning before the report was released was seen by Democrats as a blatant attempt to spin the report in defense of the President.

Barr’s scheduled testimony comes ahead of House Democratic plans for Mueller to also appear next month to discuss the report and investigation. If Barr does not appear before the House Judiciary Committee, it’s not clear how that would affect the panel’s plans for Mueller’s testimony. “Stonewall” Graham has said he does not want to hear from Mueller himself because it would be too much of a circus.”

“You can’t handle the truth!”

The slack-jawed hillbilly from Arkansas, White House press propaganda secretary Sarah “HuckaSanders,” today whined that Democrats are ‘acting childish’ after AG Barr throws a fit and threatens not to testify:

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders on Monday called House Democrats “childish” because they plan to allow counsel for both parties to question Attorney General William Barr.

Sanders told reporters outside the White House on Monday that the move was “outrageous.”

“Frankly, they’re just acting really childish,” Sanders reportedly said. “It’s almost embarrassing to the House Democrats, the way that they’re behaving.”

Just wait until its “your time in the barrel” to testify under oath, HuckaSanders. Mueller may not have indicted you for your admitted lying to his investigators. The committee will not be so lenient with you.