Pence says "White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”

January 6 committee pushes back on Pence 'closing the door' on his potential testimony | CNN Politics

“And I truly do believe in defense of the separation of powers and to avoid what would be a terrible precedent – the very notion of a committee on Congress, in Congress, summoning a vice president to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House, I think, would violate that separation of powers,” he said.

And the former vice president doubled down on those comments Wednesday evening, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper during a televised town hall that “Congress doesn’t report to the White House. The White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”




Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

This new House seems hellbent on investigations. Will this "Pence doctrine" apply? Can the house subpoena Biden, or Harris? Can Kamala Harris just say "we don't answer to Congress"?

Pence says he doesn't want to create a precedent. But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

fantome profane said:

January 6 committee pushes back on Pence 'closing the door' on his potential testimony | CNN Politics

“And I truly do believe in defense of the separation of powers and to avoid what would be a terrible precedent – the very notion of a committee on Congress, in Congress, summoning a vice president to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House, I think, would violate that separation of powers,” he said.

And the former vice president doubled down on those comments Wednesday evening, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper during a televised town hall that “Congress doesn’t report to the White House. The White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”




Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

This new House seems hellbent on investigations. Will this "Pence doctrine" apply? Can the house subpoena Biden, or Harris? Can Kamala Harris just say "we don't answer to Congress"?

Pence says he doesn't want to create a precedent. But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

Click to expand...

Depends on what is in the Constitution. Any authority any branch of the government has over the other is either in the Constitution or else it doesn't exist.
I don't know what that is bty, I just know that were I'd go to find out.

Pence has always been a sack of **** who shys from the truth, says what he's paid to say, and excells most at dancing around and dodging and never actually answering questions.
Even in Indiana he's guilty of so much crap (like making the HIV situation worse) that it's no wonder as VP he doesn't want to testify before Congress. He already knows his image is a facade.

The White House doesn't answer to the Judicial Systems either then. So they are above the law? I though co-equal means just that. They each have to answer to each other. Unless thinks the White House is King?

Without investigating the constitutional aspect
of this claim, Pence's argument does have a wee
bit'o merit. However, to merely be summoned for
testimony is not to exercise control...other than
compelling appearance. This seems consistent
with Congress's ability to impeach SCOTUS
justices & even the President.

fantome profane said:

Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

Click to expand...

The implication of Pence's statement is that Congress should impeach first and ask questions later.

That being said: if President Biden (the current president) doesn't object to the questioning, then I don't see how Pence's (a retired VP) past activities must be protected under separation of powers. He is no longer in power and retains his title only.

When a person joins the military that person is the property of the military, but when they leave the military they become a citizen again and own themselves again. The same is probably true of the president and vice president, or I would think so. The President is Commander in Chief until he leaves office, is voted out of office or his term expires. He ceases to be in the military, or one would think so. He's no longer in charge and is not under orders.

Revoltingest said:

Without investigating the constitutional aspect
of this claim, Pence's argument does have a wee
bit'o merit. However, to merely be summoned for
testimony is not to exercise control...other than
compelling appearance. This seems consistent
with Congress's ability to impeach SCOTUS
justices & even the President.

Click to expand...

Pence has also said he can't have unchaperoned lunch with a woman who isn't his wife.
He's also said a lot of other dumb crap. Like saying he doesn't have to accept a Congressional subpeona to give his testimony. Considering he thinks government overreach is more important to guard against than protecting people from second hand smoke (and the real reason public smoking bans must be opposed), I have a hard time wondering why he makes himself look this stupid because I doubt he actually is.

Shadow Wolf said:

Pence has also said he can't have unchaperoned lunch with a woman who isn't his wife.
He's also said a lot of other dumb crap. Like saying he doesn't have to accept a Congressional subpeona to give his testimony. Considering he thinks government overreach is more important to guard against than protecting people from second hand smoke (and the real reason public smoking bans must be opposed), I have a hard time wondering why he makes himself look this stupid because I doubt he actually is.

Click to expand...

Because his flavor of stupidity is seen
as wisdom buy by others of his ilk.

Does this sound harsh?

Revoltingest said:

Because his flavor of stupidity is seen
as wisdom buy(^wrong by) others of his ilk.

Does this sound harsh?

Click to expand...

It does make sense. I mean, he's had to mostly appeal to a state that is heavily populated by Bible humping methheads, Jehovah's people who think evolution is wrong and an attack on Christianity, where being openly racist is an acceptable pastime and anyone who even just looks different is made to feel unwelcomed and told to leave.

It might apply to a sitting President, but once one is out of office I would say that they are fair game.

fantome profane said:

Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

This new House seems hellbent on investigations. Will this "Pence doctrine" apply? Can the house subpoena Biden, or Harris? Can Kamala Harris just say "we don't answer to Congress"?

Pence says he doesn't want to create a precedent. But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

Click to expand...

I suppose can investigate whoever or whatever they want. But they're not really detectives or law enforcement officers themselves. If they cite someone for contempt for refusing to testify, I believe it has to be enforced by the Attorney General's office. If the Attorney General refuses, then Congress would be S.O.L. They could try to impeach, but a trial in the Senate looks like it would be another deadlock.

Few politicians do toxic coy-pompous-paternalistic quite like Pence.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Few politicians do toxic coy-pompous-paternalistic quite like Pence.

Click to expand...

And appearing soooo smooth

fantome profane said:

January 6 committee pushes back on Pence 'closing the door' on his potential testimony | CNN Politics

“And I truly do believe in defense of the separation of powers and to avoid what would be a terrible precedent – the very notion of a committee on Congress, in Congress, summoning a vice president to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House, I think, would violate that separation of powers,” he said.

And the former vice president doubled down on those comments Wednesday evening, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper during a televised town hall that “Congress doesn’t report to the White House. The White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”




Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

This new House seems hellbent on investigations. Will this "Pence doctrine" apply? Can the house subpoena Biden, or Harris? Can Kamala Harris just say "we don't answer to Congress"?

Pence says he doesn't want to create a precedent. But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

Click to expand...

He has to know that Congress has the right of congressional oversight, so my guess is that he just doesn't want to pisciare off fellow Pubs so as to possibly make a run for president himself.

pearl said:

And appearing soooo smooth

Click to expand...

More like greasy slick ...

fantome profane said:

I agree.

But Mike Pence does not.
Pence says "White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”

What do you think about Mike Pence saying what he said and refusing to speak to the committee? Does it set a bad precedent for future investigations?

Click to expand...

You requested my input... The Jan 6 committee has the authority to conduct its investigation into the events of Jan 6. That doesn't mean it has infinite power to conduct its investigation any way it wants. The same is true of a committee investigating Joe Biden.

It may issue subpoenas. But Executive Priviledge, historically by precedent, allows those in the executive branch to refuse. Pence is not setting a new precedent and Joe Biden would not set a new precedent either should he refuse to answer a subpeona.

fantome profane said:

January 6 committee pushes back on Pence 'closing the door' on his potential testimony | CNN Politics

“And I truly do believe in defense of the separation of powers and to avoid what would be a terrible precedent – the very notion of a committee on Congress, in Congress, summoning a vice president to speak about deliberations that took place at the White House, I think, would violate that separation of powers,” he said.

And the former vice president doubled down on those comments Wednesday evening, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper during a televised town hall that “Congress doesn’t report to the White House. The White House doesn’t report to the Congress.”




Do you agree? What about Congressional oversight? Is that just not a thing anymore?

This new House seems hellbent on investigations. Will this "Pence doctrine" apply? Can the house subpoena Biden, or Harris? Can Kamala Harris just say "we don't answer to Congress"?

Pence says he doesn't want to create a precedent. But isn't that exactly what he is doing?

Click to expand...

Mike Pence may invoke Executive Priviledge.

Interestingly, Hunter Biden can't invoke Executive Priviledge, because Hunter Biden's business dealings are already claimed to not be associated with the executive branch. In fact, if Hunter Biden claimed Executive Priviledge, then it would prove executive involvement (hence Joe Biden's involvement) in Hunter Biden's business dealings. A committee can't simply investigate Hunter Biden for crimes Hunter Biden may have committed, but a committee may investigate Joe Biden's impeachable involvement.

Ponder This said:

You requested my input... The Jan 6 committee has the authority to conduct its investigation into the events of Jan 6. That doesn't mean it has infinite power to conduct its investigation any way it wants. The same is true of a committee investigating Joe Biden.

It may issue subpoenas. But Executive Priviledge, historically by precedent, allows those in the executive branch to refuse. Pence is not setting a new precedent and Joe Biden would not set a new precedent either should he refuse to answer a subpeona.



Mike Pence may invoke Executive Priviledge.

Interestingly, Hunter Biden can't invoke Executive Priviledge, because Hunter Biden's business dealings are already claimed to not be associated with the executive branch. In fact, if Hunter Biden claimed Executive Priviledge, then it would prove executive involvement (hence Joe Biden's involvement) in Hunter Biden's business dealings. A committee can't simply investigate Hunter Biden for crimes Hunter Biden may have committed, but a committee may investigate Joe Biden's impeachable involvement.

Click to expand...

I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I do believe that one has to be in office to exercise executive privilege. How can Mike Pence, who was not eve the executive and is no longer in office exercise this?

Ponder This said:

You requested my input... The Jan 6 committee has the authority to conduct its investigation into the events of Jan 6. That doesn't mean it has infinite power to conduct its investigation any way it wants. The same is true of a committee investigating Joe Biden.

It may issue subpoenas. But Executive Priviledge, historically by precedent, allows those in the executive branch to refuse. Pence is not setting a new precedent and Joe Biden would not set a new precedent either should he refuse to answer a subpeona.



Mike Pence may invoke Executive Priviledge.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your input.

The first thing that must be understood about executive privilege is that it belongs to the President - the current President. Mike Pence does not have executive privilege. Joe Biden does.

Also, even if executive privilege did apply, that does not necessarily grant carte blanche to ignore a subpoena. The person subpoenaed could still be required to show up and evoke that privilege on a question by question basis. I think that would be better.

Executive privilege exists to allow for frank and open communication between the President and his advisors. It only applies to those communications, it does not apply to everything a Presidential advisor might have said, heard or done. It does not allow for planning criminal acts.

Ponder This said:

Interestingly, Hunter Biden can't invoke Executive Priviledge, because Hunter Biden's business dealings are already claimed to not be associated with the executive branch. In fact, if Hunter Biden claimed Executive Priviledge, then it would prove executive involvement (hence Joe Biden's involvement) in Hunter Biden's business dealings. A committee can't simply investigate Hunter Biden for crimes Hunter Biden may have committed, but a committee may investigate Joe Biden's impeachable involvement.

Click to expand...

No, of course Hunter cannot invoke executive Privilege, nor can Joe invoke it in regards to his communications with his son. I don't think anyone has suggested such a thing. Of course Hunter can invoke the 5th amendment just like any other citizen (yes, that does apply to congressional committees).

It is my opinion that Hunter has done some highly unethical things, but I am not aware of anything criminal he might have done, and absolutely no evidence that Joe has any involvement in anything illegal, or even unethical regarding Hunter. Yes, I know that is what investigations are for, but there is a pattern of these right wing theories that are pushed by pundits evaporating when they try to go to trial. We will see.

Ponder This said:

You requested my input... The Jan 6 committee has the authority to conduct its investigation into the events of Jan 6. That doesn't mean it has infinite power to conduct its investigation any way it wants. The same is true of a committee investigating Joe Biden.

It may issue subpoenas. But Executive Priviledge, historically by precedent, allows those in the executive branch to refuse. Pence is not setting a new precedent and Joe Biden would not set a new precedent either should he refuse to answer a subpeona.



Mike Pence may invoke Executive Priviledge.

Interestingly, Hunter Biden can't invoke Executive Priviledge, because Hunter Biden's business dealings are already claimed to not be associated with the executive branch. In fact, if Hunter Biden claimed Executive Priviledge, then it would prove executive involvement (hence Joe Biden's involvement) in Hunter Biden's business dealings. A committee can't simply investigate Hunter Biden for crimes Hunter Biden may have committed, but a committee may investigate Joe Biden's impeachable involvement.

Click to expand...

Former Vice President Pence is no longer part of the Executive Branch.

Ponder This said:

The Jan 6 committee has the authority to conduct its investigation into the events of Jan 6. That doesn't mean it has infinite power to conduct its investigation any way it wants.

Click to expand...

Like any such investigation, what led to the event in question and what damages if any resulted are still part of an investigation. So, why would Trump not testify like both Hillary and Bill did?

Are you so blind that you cannot see what Trump and some of his supporters were doing? Why do you think Bannon and some others won't testify? So, what are you afraid of?