Why wasn't President Trump subpoenaed by Schiff?

[Skewpoint]

Just as the title asks. I tried basic Google-fu to find an answer, but came up with nothing. I found the reason why Mueller didn't, but not the House Intelligence Committee itself. I thought up a few plausible scenarios, but nothing really seemed reasonable given they've subpoenaed a few people who didn't show. (Mulvaney, Pompeo, Rudy being 3 big ones.)

But not the President himself. Is there a reason given with the rules anywhere?

 

[SeventyOne]

Where would he get the power to do so? He's just a Congressman.

 

[Arcangl86]

Where would he get the power to do so? He's just a Congressman.

He would get the power from the Constitution.

But to answer directly the question of the OP, Executive Privilege is strongest for the President directly.

 

[stevil]

Just as the title asks. I tried basic Google-fu to find an answer, but came up with nothing.

Good question.

I just did a Google search and found this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/29/your-impeachment-questions-answered/
Can Trump be subpoenaed in the investigation? Not without a court case going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why hasn’t Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani been subpoenaed? Possibly because he’s Trump’s private attorney and could try to avoid talking by saying everything he knows would be protected by attorney-client privilege

When Trump decided to release the Ukraine military aid after a months-long freeze, what justification was given? Well, Trump has said he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and concern that European countries weren’t doing their part to protect Ukraine from Russian-backed separatists. But the White House didn’t give a specific reason when it released the aid in September after freezing it in early July.

I think the above is a good question. IF it was held up due to corruption and worrying about what contributions others were making then were these addressed and hence Trump then released the aid? What happened to prompt Trump to release the aid?

When the Senate trial begins, will Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. be in the position to enforce subpoenas? No. Subpoenas are entirely Congress’s purview. And it will be senators who will decide which witnesses to call. Roberts’s job is to interpret the rules, not set them. As we get closer to a Senate trial

I think this will be very, very interesting. Once the impeachment progresses to the Republican controlled Senate can they turn it instead into a trial of the Bidens or is there something that ensures this trial will be on point to the charges against Trump?

 

[SeventyOne]

He would get the power from the Constitution.

But to answer directly the question of the OP, Executive Privilege is strongest for the President directly.

There is no power granted to him in the Constitution to compel the POTUS to do anything. They are coequal branches of government. He holds no power over the Executive. A subpoena would have been just a showman's tactic.

 

[Skewpoint]

Good question.

I just did a Google search and found this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/29/your-impeachment-questions-answered/
Can Trump be subpoenaed in the investigation? Not without a court case going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why hasn’t Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani been subpoenaed? Possibly because he’s Trump’s private attorney and could try to avoid talking by saying everything he knows would be protected by attorney-client privilege

When Trump decided to release the Ukraine military aid after a months-long freeze, what justification was given? Well, Trump has said he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and concern that European countries weren’t doing their part to protect Ukraine from Russian-backed separatists. But the White House didn’t give a specific reason when it released the aid in September after freezing it in early July.

I think the above is a good question. IF it was held up due to corruption and worrying about what contributions others were making then were these addressed and hence Trump then released the aid? Why happened to prompt Trump to release the aid?

When the Senate trial begins, will Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. be in the position to enforce subpoenas? No. Subpoenas are entirely Congress’s purview. And it will be senators who will decide which witnesses to call. Roberts’s job is to interpret the rules, not set them. As we get closer to a Senate trial

I think this will be very, very interesting. Once the impeachment progresses to the Republican controlled Senate can they turn it instead into a trial of the Bidens or is there something that ensures this trial will be on point to the charges against Trump?

That.was more helpful, thanks.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It would set up a very delicate conflict between two coequal branches of government. When Republicans subpoenaed Clinton to testify, ultimately they withdrew the subpoena when Clinton agreed to testify voluntarily. That was back before politics became a no holds barred scorched earth fight over the president's declaration that he can 'do whatever I want'.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I think this will be very, very interesting. Once the impeachment progresses to the Republican controlled Senate can they turn it instead into a trial of the Bidens or is there something that ensures this trial will be on point to the charges against Trump?

Any investigation on the Bidens would have to go through the courts. Nothing they did has anything to do with the obvious fact that Trump withheld military aid for personal gain. He was just out to dig dirt on Joe Biden, not fight corruption.

 

[Hank77]

Where would he get the power to do so? He's just a Congressman.

Thomas Jefferson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were all subpoenaed while they were President.
Congress has the power to subpoena anyone they want to.

 

[straykat]

Thomas Jefferson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton were all subpoenaed while they were President.
Congress has the power to subpoena anyone they want to.

Congress and the Judiciary as a whole does. Not a lone partisan doing it on his whims.

 

[Hank77]

nm already addressed

 

[Hank77]

I think the above is a good question. IF it was held up due to corruption and worrying about what contributions others were making then were these addressed and hence Trump then released the aid? What happened to prompt Trump to release the aid?

Very good question.

 

[Arcangl86]

Congress and the Judiciary as a whole does. Not a lone partisan doing it on his whims.

He does if the Rules of the House gives him that power.

 

[Arcangl86]

Good question.

I just did a Google search and found this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/29/your-impeachment-questions-answered/
Can Trump be subpoenaed in the investigation? Not without a court case going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Why hasn’t Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani been subpoenaed? Possibly because he’s Trump’s private attorney and could try to avoid talking by saying everything he knows would be protected by attorney-client privilege

When Trump decided to release the Ukraine military aid after a months-long freeze, what justification was given? Well, Trump has said he was worried about corruption in Ukraine and concern that European countries weren’t doing their part to protect Ukraine from Russian-backed separatists. But the White House didn’t give a specific reason when it released the aid in September after freezing it in early July.

I think the above is a good question. IF it was held up due to corruption and worrying about what contributions others were making then were these addressed and hence Trump then released the aid? What happened to prompt Trump to release the aid?

When the Senate trial begins, will Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. be in the position to enforce subpoenas? No. Subpoenas are entirely Congress’s purview. And it will be senators who will decide which witnesses to call. Roberts’s job is to interpret the rules, not set them. As we get closer to a Senate trial

I think this will be very, very interesting. Once the impeachment progresses to the Republican controlled Senate can they turn it instead into a trial of the Bidens or is there something that ensures this trial will be on point to the charges against Trump?

Imagining a Senate Trial: Reading the Senate Rules of Impeachment Litigation

According to this the Senate can indeed focus on the Bidens and what ever other conspiracy theory de jour they want.

 

[DaisyDay]

They knew Donald would refuse to appear, so the fight over a subpoena would be distracting for no gain. This was only a preliminary inquiry, not the actual impeachment hearing.

 

[Bobber]

Any investigation on the Bidens would have to go through the courts. Nothing they did has anything to do with the obvious fact that Trump withheld military aid for personal gain. He was just out to dig dirt on Joe Biden, not fight corruption.

Sounds interesting but you can't declare that as an absolute fact. I take from the transcript including the later mention of the Biden's as an overall look at the whole thing of corruption that was taking place in Ukraine and Trump has the charge to certify corruption overall was being addressed before giving the aid. Was the Biden issue a part of that overall picture? And keep in mind technically and legally speaking it wasn't towards Joe Biden himself but towards his son.

 

[Bobber]

Imagining a Senate Trial: Reading the Senate Rules of Impeachment Litigation

According to this the Senate can indeed focus on the Bidens and what ever other conspiracy theory de jour they want.

I don't think anyone can honestly say there wouldn't like to see Biden's have to answer for what really took place in the Ukraine in regard to what we've heard. I haven't even seen former President Obama come to Biden's defence? Why aren't we hearing him state he was behind this threat to made to the Ukraine President that was fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money? Wouldn't that clear up a lot? But we hear crickets from him.

Yeah I know we hear the claim it was to clear up corruption that Joe Biden made his statements but I think most would agree it stinks to high heaven the optics of a VP talking about American tax dollar aid being connected IN ANY WAY to firing a prosecutor investigating a company on which his son is on the board. This is not some small thing when you're talking about a billion dollars. And even the NYT said years ago the optics of this wasn't good and appears like a conflict of interest.

 

[Arcangl86]

I don't think anyone can honestly say there wouldn't like to see Biden's have to answer for what really took place in the Ukraine in regard to what we've heard. I haven't even seen former President Obama come to Biden's defence? Why aren't we hearing him state he was behind this threat to made to the Ukraine President that was fire the prosecutor or you don't get the money? Wouldn't that clear up a lot? But we hear crickets from him.

It's pretty common for former Presidents to stay more or less silent during primary season. And really there is nothing to clear up because there is plenty of evidence that the idea to withhold funds didn't originate with Joe Biden. And even if it did, he had absolutely no authority to deny the guarantees.

Yeah I know we hear the claim it was to clear up corruption that Joe Biden made his statements but I think most would agree it stinks to high heaven the optics of a VP talking about American tax dollar aid being connected IN ANY WAY to firing a prosecutor investigating a company on which his son is on the board. This is not some small thing when you're talking about a billion dollars. And even the NYT said years ago the optics of this wasn't good and appears like a conflict of interest.

It doesn't look good, but that doesn't mean he did anything wrong. In fact, if he did commit a crime, why hasn't the DoJ opened an investigation into it?

 

[Fantine]

Trump and his attorneys were invited to the Judiciary Committee hearings, and their response shows not only their rudeness but their extremely tenuous grip on reality.

"House Democrats have wasted enough of America's time with this charade," he wrote. "You should end this inquiry now and not waste even more time with additional hearings. Adopting articles of impeachment would be a reckless abuse of power by House Democrats, and would constitute the most unjust, highly partisan, and unconstitutional attempt at impeachment in our Nation's history."

When are they going to realize that just calling it a "charade," and refusing to mount a defense (while simultaneously trying to obstruct the Democrats' prosecution) smacks of G U I L T?

 

[yougottabekidding]

Just as the title asks. I tried basic Google-fu to find an answer, but came up with nothing. I found the reason why Mueller didn't, but not the House Intelligence Committee itself. I thought up a few plausible scenarios, but nothing really seemed reasonable given they've subpoenaed a few people who didn't show. (Mulvaney, Pompeo, Rudy being 3 big ones.)

But not the President himself. Is there a reason given with the rules anywhere?

Personal Opinion only -

I can see one main reason why he has not - the moment they subpoena the President the whole dog and pony show slows down and ends up in the courts, which is the exact opposite of what they want. The more this is in the public eye, the more they loose support for their mission. The polls are not going in their favor and they are being confronted by their constituents. If this went to the courts, the time it would take would open them to great scrutiny by the public and that is exactly what they do not want.

That is why they are pushing this at such a breakneck speed.