Robert Reich in The Guardian (U.K.)

On Principles & Values: Refusing Congress' subpoena fits a dictator, not a president

"We're fighting all the subpoenas," says the person who is supposed to be chief executive of the United States government. In other words, there is to be no congressional oversight of this administration: no questioning a former White House counsel about the Mueller report. No presidential tax returns to the ways and means committee, even though a 1920s law specifically authorizes the committee to get them. Such a blanket edict fits a dictator of a banana republic, not the president of a constitutional republic founded on separation of powers.

If Congress cannot question the people who are making policy, or obtain critical documents, Congress cannot function as a coequal branch of government. If Congress cannot get information about the executive branch, there is no longer any separation of powers, as sanctified in the US constitution. There is only one power--the power of the president to rule as he wishes. Which is what Donald Trump has sought all along.

Source: OpEd in "The Guardian" (UK) on impeaching Trump Apr 28, 2019

On Principles & Values: When Nixon blocked aides' testifying, Dems threatened jail

Presidents before Trump have argued that complying with a particular subpoena for a particular person or document would infringe upon confidential deliberations within the executive branch. But no president before Trump has used "executive privilege" as a blanket refusal to cooperate.

Trump is treating Congress with contempt--just as he has treated other democratic institutions that have blocked him. Congress should invoke its inherent power under the constitution to hold any official who refuses a congressional subpoena in contempt.

When President Richard Nixon tried to stop key aides from testifying in the Senate Watergate hearings, in 1973, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate select committee, threatened to jail anyone who refused to appear.

When Nixon tried to block the release of incriminating recordings of his discussions with aides, the supreme court decided that a claim of executive privilege did not protect information pertinent to the investigation of potential crimes.

Source: OpEd in "The Guardian" (UK) on impeaching Trump Apr 28, 2019

On Principles & Values: Removing Trump via 25th amendment may do more damage

The 25th amendment allows the vice-president to become "acting president" when "the vice-president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or such other body as Congress may by law provide" declare a president incapacitated. The only thing that's going to get Pence and a majority of Trump's lieutenants to pull the plug before Trump pulls it on them may be so horrific that the damage done would be way beyond anything we've experienced to date. Source: The Guardian: Clinton Cabinet on impeaching Trump Sep 15, 2019

The above quotations are from The Guardian (United Kingdom) political articles. Click here for other excerpts from The Guardian (United Kingdom) political articles. Click here for other excerpts by Robert Reich. Click here for a profile of Robert Reich.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Nov 03, 2024