Breaking News ! Federal Judge rules than former White House advisor Don McGhan must testify
In response to:
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with congressional subpoena, federal judge rules
By Katherine Faulders, Allison Pecorin Nov 25, 2019, 7:05 PM ET
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a congressional subpoena, a federal judge in Washington ruled Monday.
The ruling came in a case brought by the House Judiciary Committee in August in an effort to enforce its subpoena demanding McGahn's congressional testimony about events relating former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after President Donald Trump directed him not to comply.
"This court holds that individuals who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena -- i.e., they cannot ignore or defy congressional compulsory process, by order of the President or otherwise," Judge Kentanji Brown wrote in her ruling. "Notably, however, in the context of that appearance, such individuals are free to assert any legally applicable privilege in response to the questions asked of them, where appropriate."
In her decision, the judge wrote that her conclusion is "inescapable" because subpoenas are legal constructs and not political ones, and "no one is above the law."
"However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,
" Jackson wrote.
In a statement issued following the release of the judge's decision, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he now expects McGahn to "follow his legal obligations" and appear before the committee.
"Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and the Administration's claim that officials can claim 'absolute immunity' from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today," Nadler said in the statement.
The judge, sharing Nadler's sentiment, wrote in her finding that Congress has not been able to get to the bottom of some of the findings in the Mueller report partly because McGahn is "the most important fact witness" in the committee's "consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment and its related investigation of misconduct" by the president.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone has said, "McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president," citing previous opinions from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, along with OLC guidance that said McGahn specifically is "absolutely immune" from providing such testimony.
McGahn's lawyer, William Burck, previously wrote to Nadler that McGahn "remains obligated to maintain the status quo and respect the president's instructions."
Attorneys for the House wrote in their August complaint that the "absolute immunity" claim has "no grounding in the Constitution, any statues or case law," and say the president cited "no legal authority" for McGahn -- who is a private citizen -- to defy a congressional subpoena.
In its August lawsuit, the Judiciary Committee wrote that McGahn is a critical witness to determining whether articles of impeachment are necessary.
"The Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel," .....
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with congressional subpoena, federal judge rules
By Katherine Faulders, Allison Pecorin Nov 25, 2019, 7:05 PM ET
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a congressional subpoena, a federal judge in Washington ruled Monday.
The ruling came in a case brought by the House Judiciary Committee in August in an effort to enforce its subpoena demanding McGahn's congressional testimony about events relating former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation after President Donald Trump directed him not to comply.
"This court holds that individuals who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena -- i.e., they cannot ignore or defy congressional compulsory process, by order of the President or otherwise," Judge Kentanji Brown wrote in her ruling. "Notably, however, in the context of that appearance, such individuals are free to assert any legally applicable privilege in response to the questions asked of them, where appropriate."
In her decision, the judge wrote that her conclusion is "inescapable" because subpoenas are legal constructs and not political ones, and "no one is above the law."
"However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,
" Jackson wrote.In a statement issued following the release of the judge's decision, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he now expects McGahn to "follow his legal obligations" and appear before the committee.
"Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, and the Administration's claim that officials can claim 'absolute immunity' from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today," Nadler said in the statement.
The judge, sharing Nadler's sentiment, wrote in her finding that Congress has not been able to get to the bottom of some of the findings in the Mueller report partly because McGahn is "the most important fact witness" in the committee's "consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment and its related investigation of misconduct" by the president.
White House counsel Pat Cipollone has said, "McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the president," citing previous opinions from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, along with OLC guidance that said McGahn specifically is "absolutely immune" from providing such testimony.
McGahn's lawyer, William Burck, previously wrote to Nadler that McGahn "remains obligated to maintain the status quo and respect the president's instructions."
Attorneys for the House wrote in their August complaint that the "absolute immunity" claim has "no grounding in the Constitution, any statues or case law," and say the president cited "no legal authority" for McGahn -- who is a private citizen -- to defy a congressional subpoena.
In its August lawsuit, the Judiciary Committee wrote that McGahn is a critical witness to determining whether articles of impeachment are necessary.
"The Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the President based on the obstructive conduct described by the Special Counsel," .....
Comments (29)
Correct. And Trump has repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice by preventing witnesses from testifying in an investigation by Congress as a check on the executive branch, which is what the Constitution intended,
The impeachment effort is to protect the country from a rogue demagogue, who not only repeatedly breaks the law, but considers his position above the law.
There is no effort to hate anyone. It's more about love for the Constitution.
This is simply a perfectly legal solution to the current Constitutional crisis, as directed within the Constitution.
If you hate the Constitution, that would explain your objections.
They only care about their own power
As an independent, it seems to me, that in recent decades, the Democratic party cares more for the average American, and the Republican party, since the rise of the Tea Party within it, cares more for obstructing progress in favor of $$$$ and the wealthy who have most of it.
Impeachment is in keeping with the Constitution. Obstructing justice is not.
Her ruling appears very legitimate, appropriate, and thorough to me.
Here is the link for the complete 120 page ruling;
It has to do with the president's attorney's appeal, which is within their right.
Due to it's importance, the appeal will be taken care of relatively quickly, as was the initial appeal..
It will allow the president to cling onto the presidency a bit longer.
However, ultimately, just like the first appeal, it will be upheld, because it is just.
The White House is merely trying to delay it, which will work against the rest of the Republicans,
as it will move the testimonies even closer to election time.
70%
And a majority of U.S. Voters ...
Agree with you, Ken
Respondents to the polls cited above
I know Lefties IRL
... but rumor has it she's preparing for her Encore Performance.
The practice is really paying off for the skinny lady!
She's MUCH improved. Wouldn't y'all agree?