HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » CBS obtained a copy of th...

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:05 AM

CBS obtained a copy of the letter sent to Yates attorney by the WH.

CBS News‏ @CBSNews
JUST IN: A 3/24 letter from DOJ to Sally Yates states she must get authorization from WH to testify about convos w/ WH, CBS News can confirm



https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/846751317355872257


They seriously do not want her to speak to congress. The question now is will she be able to or not?

50 replies, 12395 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 50 replies Author Time Post
Reply CBS obtained a copy of the letter sent to Yates attorney by the WH. (Original post)
herding cats Mar 2017 OP
femmocrat Mar 2017 #1
global1 Mar 2017 #3
gratuitous Mar 2017 #7
herding cats Mar 2017 #18
mopinko Mar 2017 #12
yodermon Mar 2017 #2
Sanity Claws Mar 2017 #14
jberryhill Mar 2017 #15
Botany Mar 2017 #19
jberryhill Mar 2017 #20
Botany Mar 2017 #22
jberryhill Mar 2017 #44
Botany Mar 2017 #46
elleng Mar 2017 #17
Akamai Mar 2017 #30
FakeNoose Mar 2017 #4
femmocrat Mar 2017 #6
FakeNoose Mar 2017 #13
L. Coyote Mar 2017 #5
Gothmog Mar 2017 #8
FakeNoose Mar 2017 #11
KittyWampus Mar 2017 #9
ATL Ebony Mar 2017 #36
Warren DeMontague Mar 2017 #10
Pantagruel Mar 2017 #16
pinboy3niner Mar 2017 #21
herding cats Mar 2017 #23
Volaris Mar 2017 #33
herding cats Mar 2017 #34
ymetca Mar 2017 #25
ATL Ebony Mar 2017 #37
Pantagruel Mar 2017 #38
jmg257 Mar 2017 #43
calimary Mar 2017 #35
Augiedog Mar 2017 #24
Thekaspervote Mar 2017 #26
Fast Walker 52 Mar 2017 #27
pinboy3niner Mar 2017 #29
mainstreetonce Mar 2017 #28
Paladin Mar 2017 #31
Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2017 #32
jmg257 Mar 2017 #39
herding cats Mar 2017 #41
jmg257 Mar 2017 #42
calimary Mar 2017 #40
mahatmakanejeeves Mar 2017 #45
kentuck Mar 2017 #47
jmg257 Mar 2017 #49
Cha Mar 2017 #48
ck4829 Mar 2017 #50

Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:07 AM

1. Does anyone know if that is true?

Note the words "likely" and "possibly" ---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:12 AM

3. Could Be Just An Idle Threat.....

the best defense is a good offense. This might be the WH & Trump's attempt at an offense here.

What are the consequences to Yates - if she just goes public and tells all she knows. It would be the patriotic thing to do - in light of the damage Russian interference is doing to our democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:17 AM

7. The DOJ is punting to the White House

Even though Yates and another DOJ official met with someone from the Office of the Counsel to the President, DOJ is claiming that while it doesn't have any opinion on whether Yates can disclose what was discussed in the meeting, the Office of the Counsel might assert a privilege, and DOJ helpfully provided one or two grounds that the White House might assert (just in case nobody in the Office of the Counsel knew how to stop Yates' testimony to the House committee).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #7)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:27 AM

18. That was my take.

They made sure the WH knows what to use to block her testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:20 AM

12. yeah, weasel words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:11 AM

2. "deliberative process privilege"? is that a statute?

If the information is not classified, how does "deliberative process privilege" conflict with Yates' First Amendment rights?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:23 AM

14. Executive privilege

Also keep in mind that Yates was acting in her capacity as an attorney. Attorneys cannot divulge confidential communications. That trumps her First Amendment rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:25 AM

15. Your conversations with your attorney are confidential


There are a variety of types of "privileges" that render conversations to be immune from discovery or testimony. The most well known one is the "attorney client privilege".

If you consult with me on a legal matter, then if I am asked to testify about our discussion, it is not up to me whether I can provide that testimony. It is up to you. My first amendment rights don't enter into it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #15)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:32 AM

19. Legal ? Is this what Trump's lawyer is saying?

So a former U.S. Attorney General is not allowed to testify about a crime
unless the subject of the criminal complaint gives the OK to allow the
testimony?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:36 AM

20. what criminal complaint?


I'm not sure I understand your question.

Whether Yates can testify on the subject matter of her consultation with the White House is up to the White House at this point. It really depends on the exact subject matter in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #20)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:41 AM

22. Sorry criminal investigation .... not complaint

But does that letter have any weight? Can the Trump White House keep
Yates from giving testimony? And what about information she learned
when Obama was President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:54 PM

44. The first two questions require inquiry

When a privilege is raised, the facts around the assertion merit scrutiny. I'm not familiar with the precise capacity in which she was acting in relation to what the committee wants to know.

As for the previous president, I do not know, but if I had to guess my inclination is to believe that the privilege belongs to the office, not the person.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 04:59 PM

46. Thank you

# 21 in the thread ..... Yate's lawyer tells the W.H. to get bent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:26 AM

17. Deliberative process privilege is the common-law principle

that the internal processes of the executive branch of a government are immune from normal disclosure or discovery in civil litigations, Freedom of Information Act requests, etc.
Deliberative process privilege - Wikipedia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yodermon (Reply #2)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:05 PM

30. The following is from google, from wikipedia: "Deliberative process privilege is the common-law

 

principle that the internal processes of the executive branch of a government are immune from normal disclosure or discovery in civil litigations, Freedom of Information Act requests, etc."

I sure as hell hope this does not stop Ms. Yates from testifying. If it does, it clearly shows that Trump and his minions have something to hide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:14 AM

4. Sally Yates spoke to Obama directly

...why can't Obama testify as to what he was told by Yates?

Obama also has presidential communications privilege, am I right?

Just sayin'


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FakeNoose (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:16 AM

6. Hearsay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to femmocrat (Reply #6)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:22 AM

13. Possibly

But the rules are different for congressional hearings.
This isn't a trial - yet.

I think people can give opinions and impressions without actual proof.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:16 AM

5. DoJ just handed off the matter to the White House. They have 24 new attorneys who can look at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:17 AM

8. Trump is scared of Sally Yates

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #8)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:19 AM

11. You bet!

Plus - Trump fired Yates so she has no fucks to give.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:18 AM

9. Were the communications before or after Trump was sworn in?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #9)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:13 PM

36. After . . .

It was after the chaos of the first travel ban

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:19 AM

10. Geez. For a supposedly "nothing to see here, folks" situation

They sure are acting strangely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:25 AM

16. I get the Executive Privilege claim

but can Ms. Yates testify to things she learned or communicated about Trump's underlings when Trump was simply PEOTUS.

Can she testify as to her knowledge during the time BO was POTUS and HE owned the privilege?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 11:39 AM

21. Yates' attorney rejected the WH assertion of "likely" privilege

He informed WH Counsel that Yates intended to testify as scheduled today--And then Nunes abruptly canceled the hearing.

Now media reports indicate WH is claiming the WaPo report on this is false. I expect Shouty Spice will say at today's press conf. that the WH never blocked Yates from testifying...just invited her to consult with them so they could make a determination on privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:19 PM

23. You nailed it.


CBS News‏ @CBSNews
NEW: WH "took no action that prevented [Sally] Yates from testifying" in Russia investigation, @PressSec says (link: http://cbsn.ws/1UJwwDb) cbsn.ws/1UJwwDb

https://mobile.twitter.com/CBSNews/status/846772575283941377

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:39 PM

33. Right. Looks like they had Nunes take that action for them,

Somebody should ask that traitorous little obstructionist how the president's cock tasted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Volaris (Reply #33)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:57 PM

34. Nunes and Ryan for refusing to have him removed from the HPSCI

They're all in this together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:16 PM

37. No longer an issue . . .

Yates will testify for the Senate commission (eff the House and it's attempt to cover up)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:41 PM

38. Senate will hear Yates

Assume no privilege but it's unclear, my guess is some Senator will try to assert it at specific times ?

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel even if she doesnt appear before House committee


"Source: The Raw Story

Sally Yates to testify before Senate panel — even if she doesn’t appear before House committee

TRAVIS GETTYS
28 MAR 2017 AT 13:40 ET

Sally Yates, the former acting attorney general, will testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about Russian interference in the election.

The Obama appointee was blocked from testifying before the House Intelligence Committee after its chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), canceled this week’s hearings, where Yates had been scheduled to appear.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the committee’s vice chairman, told CNN that Yates would testify before a Senate panel even if she did not appear before the House committee."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:28 PM

43. Actually seems they just ignored the request.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pantagruel (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:00 PM

35. Welcome to DU, Pantagruel!

Good questions you bring up. One of the many problems we all face in this madness is - we've never been down this path before. We've never seen shit like this before. We've never seen machinations and sneaky-ass shit like this before. As bad as Watergate and Iran/Contra were, there was NOTHING like what we have now - with this Russian undercurrent running through everything involving OUR White House and this so-called White House occupant.

Unfortunately, we've also never had this kind of partisan divide, where the bad guys really ARE bad guys, putting party and power over country and bipartisan responsibility. We've never had adversaries THIS desperate to take OUR White House back so they can jam their agenda-from-Hell down America's throats. Back during Watergate, we had reasonable, honorable, patriotic, and willingly-accountable Republicans, with a capital "R", like Howard Baker and Lowell Weicker, who really did have the greater good as a priority. Those Republicans are LONG-GONE. Now all we have are mercenaries, apostates, idiots, and a raging cancer of adult-sized three-year-old "No-one-is-the-boss-of-me/I-hate-the-government" types who only want to tear down and destroy because they think that's how they'll get their way. And abysmal, willfully-ignorant collectives that call themselves the "Freedom Caucus" - when it would be more accurate to call them the ANARCHY Caucus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:39 PM

24. And the coverup gets thicker, deeper and wider

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:41 PM

26. She's a smart attorney, and I'm sure

She has her own legal team advising her. Likely and possibly don't sound like cease and desist. Someone posted earlier that Nixon tried the same thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:45 PM

27. maybe she can't testify about what she told the WH, but can't she testify about what she knows

 

in general about Flynn??? Her testimony would still be useful, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fast Walker 52 (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:52 PM

29. None of her potential testimony is restricted; the WH never asserted privilege.

Of course, they didn't have to go through with their threat because Nunes was canceling the hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 12:49 PM

28. I think Spicer just lied about this

Shaking my head( which is allowed because Spiicer can't see me)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:10 PM

31. I hope Ms. Yates is committing EVERYTHING to print and video.

And I hope she has more-than-adequate personal protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 01:19 PM

32. Just like Nixon tried to claim Presidential Privilege about the WH tapes. Didn't work then & not now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 02:49 PM

39. So the DOJ said to check with the WH, and the WH didn't offer an objection?

So the issue is Nunes canceling the hearing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #39)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:13 PM

41. When she said she still wanted to testify Nunes canceled the hearing.

Yates and another witness at the planned hearing, former CIA director John Brennan, had made clear to government officials by Thursday that their testimony to the committee probably would contradict some statements that White House officials had made, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Ken Wainstein, a lawyer for Brennan, declined to comment.

On Friday, when Yates’s lawyer sent a letter to the White House indicating that she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-sought-to-block-sally-yates-from-testifying-to-congress-on-russia/2017/03/28/82b73e18-13b4-11e7-9e4f-09aa75d3ec57_story.html?utm_term=.5a78ae35cd43

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:25 PM

42. Ah - maybe a question she would want to skip because she might have contradicted WH statements.

Doesn't make much sense she would change her mind to testify, but anyway.

So Nunes canceled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:11 PM

40. Fishier and fishier.

If they're so innocent, why are they twisting themselves into Cirque du Soleil contortions to blockade everything?

If everything's on the up-n-up, why are they trying so massively hard to hide it all?

Hey, if you're innocent, isn't your first instinct to want to shout it from the rooftops? And tell everyone who'll listen - and even those who won't - that you're innocent? Wouldn't you be rarin' to go with evidence and proof and exculpatory information - that you'd want EVERYONE to see, read, hear about, and receive - for closer examination? The behavior exhibited here loudly telegraphs something to hide. Ie: GUILT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 03:59 PM

45. ProPublica builds list of officials sent into Federal agencies as "beachhead teams."

ProPublica builds list of officials sent into Federal agencies as "beachhead teams."

Here are More than 400 Officials Trump has Quietly Deployed Across the Government

By Al Shaw, Justin Elliott and Derek Kravitz, ProPublica, March 8, 2017

Scott Schools is not on the list.

It says here he left seven years ago. He must have come back:

Longtime DOJ Official Scott Schools Leaving Agency

He did, in October:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/scott-schools-03090b8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 05:48 PM

47. That last paragraph sort of contradicts what Sean Spicer said today.

Don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #47)

Wed Mar 29, 2017, 01:56 AM

49. Na - Its just what he said...DOJ said check with WH, WH didn't object.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Mar 29, 2017, 01:50 AM

48. Go Sally Yates! trump scared

of her

Mahalo, herding!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to herding cats (Original post)

Wed Mar 29, 2017, 05:58 AM

50. Kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread