«

»

Nov 25 2019

McGahn Must Testify

This is big, really big folks. McGahn used all of the same arguments that every other Administration Official made and he had a much better case than most for Lawyer/Client Privilege.

All shot down.

As Burt Gummer says to Earl Bass in Tremors 2

Why are you hiding behind that?

You said it was going to be big.

Bigger than that!

Olly Oll Oxen Free! You get to Testify, and you get to Testify! Everybody Gets To Test-ify! Yes brothers and sisters you get right up here in front of the Committee and Testify! And you have to do it whether we immunize you or not because otherwise the Court Bailiff and the U.S. Marshals will throw you in Jail until you rot or you do.

Hallelujah and Amen!

And have a nice day.

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules
By Spencer S. Hsu and Ann E. Marimow, Washington Post
November 25, 2019

Former Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena, a federal court ruled Monday, finding that “no one is above the law” and that top presidential advisers cannot ignore congressional demands for information. The ruling raises the possibility that McGahn could be forced to testify as part of the impeachment inquiry.

U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of Washington, found no basis for a White House claim that the former counsel is “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony,” likely setting the stage for a historic separation-of-powers confrontation between the government’s executive and legislative branches.

The House Judiciary Committee went to court in August to enforce its subpoena for McGahn, whom lawmakers consider the “most important” witness in whether Trump obstructed justice in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

President Trump blocked McGahn’s appearance, saying McGahn had cooperated with Mueller’s probe, was a key presidential adviser and could not be forced to answer questions or turn over documents. Jackson disagreed, ruling that if McGahn wants to refuse to testify, such as by invoking executive privilege, he must do so in person and question by question.

The Justice Department’s claim to “unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity,” Jackson wrote, “is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.”

Jackson ordered McGahn to appear before the House committee said the conclusion she reached was “inescapable” because a subpoena demand is part of the legal system — not the political process — and “per the Constitution, 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 118-page opinion. “Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”

Jackson’s decision had been highly anticipated, with major implications for other high-value witnesses in the Democrats’ ongoing impeachment investigation, including former national security adviser John R. Bolton and Bolton’s deputy Charles Kupperman.

In a letter to colleagues, Schiff underscored that stonewalling by the White House could form the basis for a separate article of impeachment.

“Given that the House’s impeachment inquiry is proceeding rapidly, the Committee has a finite window of time to effectively obtain and consider McGahn’s testimony,” House General Counsel Douglas Letter had written last week in asking the judge to move quickly.

“The Judiciary Committee anticipates holding hearings after [the] public hearings have concluded and would aim to obtain Mr. McGahn’s testimony at that time,” Letter wrote.

The House Judiciary Committee is continuing to investigate obstruction of justice allegations detailed in Mueller’s 448-page report, which mentioned McGahn’s statements more than 160 times.

For instance, on June 17, 2017, three days after The Washington Post reported the special counsel was investigating whether the president had obstructed justice and a month after Mueller was appointed, Trump called McGahn at home twice and directed him to fire Mueller over alleged conflicts of interest, the House’s lawsuit stated, citing Mueller’s report.

Mueller’s report ultimately concluded that it was not the special counsel’s role to determine whether the president broke the law.

Trump’s July call to Ukraine came one day after Mueller testified to Congress about his probe’s conclusions.

Jackson’s ruling dealt a blow to the Trump administration’s assertion of executive branch power against inquiries by the legislative branch. The position was stated by current White House counsel Pat Cipollone in an Oct. 9 letter in which he said the administration will not cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.

William A. Burck, McGahn’s attorney, said, “Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson’s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal. DOJ is handling this case, so you will need to ask them whether they intend to seek a stay.”

Burck has said McGahn does not believe he witnessed any violation of law, and that the president instructed him to cooperate fully with Mueller but not to testify without agreement between the White House and committee.

On Capitol Hill, the ruling vindicated months of arguments from House Democratic leaders blasting the Trump administration’s blanket refusals to cooperate with their investigations — including from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who has repeatedly said her majority would “legislate, investigate and litigate” as they seek to hold Trump to account.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who issued the subpoena under dispute, said in a prepared statement that he was pleased by Jackson’s ruling.

“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,” he said. ““Now that the court has ruled, I expect him to follow his legal obligations and promptly appear before the Committee.”

The ruling does not mean that McGahn will have to immediately appear before Congress under his April 22 subpoena. The Justice Department can ask the judge to put her ruling on hold, and if she declines, ask the appeals court to temporarily stay the opinion.

However, Jonathan Shaub, a former attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, said a ruling against McGahn will “provide cover for other witnesses, especially former employees who are inclined to testify but feel compelled by the White House’s direction not to.”

Even if Congress prevails in the courts, McGahn could appear before the committee but still decline to answer certain questions. McGahn could assert a separate claim of executive privilege and refuse to respond to specific questions about conversations with the president, for instance, unless he is authorized to do so by the White House.

An appeal and binding circuit court ruling could set up a historic Supreme Court test over the constitution’s checks-and-balances, pitting Congress’s impeachment and oversight authority against the powers of the presidency.

House Democrats were closely watching the outcome of McGahn’s case because of how it might affect other impeachment-related witnesses. The House intelligence committee-led inquiry seeks testimony from Bolton and had issued — but then withdrew — a subpoena to Kupperman, Bolton’s deputy, while courts addressed the White House’s blanket immunity claim.

Charles J. Cooper, the lawyer who represents Bolton and Kupperman, has said the two will not participate in the House impeachment inquiry until a federal judge resolves the dispute.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also rebuffed a House subpoena for department records in the Ukraine probe.

In McGahn’s case, at a hearing Oct. 31 before Jackson, Assistant Attorney General James Burnham argued that the House “as a general proposition” can never sue the executive branch, nor compel top White House aides to appear.

House general counsel Douglas N. Letter told the court that “the Judiciary Committee cannot fulfill its constitutional investigative, oversight and legislative responsibilities — including its consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment — without hearing from [McGahn].”

What do you do Nancy when the rest of the Subpoenas come in and incontrovertible evidence is found the entire Administration is criminally corrupt from top to bottom, Putin used Unidicted Co-conspirator Bottomless Pinocchio’s multi-Billion Dollar debt to blackmail him into becoming an active Russian Agent of Influence, he subverted the Department of Justice to Obstruct Justice and attack his Political and Personal Enemies and has been Blackmailing weaker Nations right and left.

Oh, and the Pee Tape is real!

What do you do after you’ve shut down the Investigations and given this traitor a pass and his Criminal Henchmen too?

Re-open or simply slink away in defeat like a loser?

Don’t. Rush. Your. Pitch.

Republicans are a useless bunch of Racist, Misogynist, Greedheads. You will never be able to work with them because they are EVIL! You may lose but you should do as much damage as you can until, eventually, you crush them, all of them, like bugs.

Leave a Reply