Judges struggle over Trump bid to block testimony sought by House

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON — U.S. appeals court judges on Friday appeared skeptical about broad legal arguments by President Donald Trump's administration seeking to block a former White House lawyer from testifying to Congress as part of the impeachment effort against Trump, but also seemed wary about stepping into the heated political fight.

Judge Thomas Griffith asked tough questions of the Justice Department lawyer who argued on behalf of the administration and the lawyer for the Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary Committee that subpoenaed former White House Counsel Don McGahn, and could be the pivotal vote in deciding the case.

The case was being heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Griffith questioned whether the court should decide the case at all, in part because McGahn's testimony is not key to the two articles of impeachment against Trump approved by the House on Dec. 18.

Griffith, a Republican appointee, and Judge Judith Rogers, a Democratic appointee, questioned the administration's arguments that the House panel has no legal standing to enforce its subpoena and that there is broad presidential immunity that applies to efforts to seek testimony from close advisers.



Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judges-struggle-over-trump-bid-to-block-testimony-sought-by-house/ar-BBYzYhF?li=BBnbcA1

[Maxheader]

1. He has to testify...as ruled today...

Sweat stumpy..sweat..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/former-white-house-counsel-donald-mcgahn-must-comply-with-house-subpoena-judge-rules/2019/11/25/6de26cc8-018d-11ea-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

[lark]

4. Yeah, don't count on it. SCOTUS will put a hold on this & roll it up with others to be stopped.

they will protect drumpf and the rw administration at all costs because they are only loyal to the oligarchs worldwide and care nothing for our country or it's laws. If they did they never would have taken the other 3 cases, but the fix is in and Roberts will be a part of destroying our country.

[vsrazdem]

5. That is from November. It is now in the appeals court.

[Farmer-Rick]

15. The article says it is 20 hours old?

[vsrazdem]

16. I was replying to the #1 poster, who had a link from an article in November, not the original post.

[Farmer-Rick]

17. Oh, ok, I thought it was a reference to the current link.

[vsrazdem]

2. The court needs to do their F-in job and make a decision whether congress has the authority

granted to it in the constitution or not. This is a no brainer.

[bluestarone]

3. EXACTLY

[alwaysinasnit]

6. I hope someone can set me straight...

"...Griffith questioned whether the court should decide the case at all, in part because McGahn's testimony is not key to the two articles of impeachment against Trump..."

It is my understanding that the second Article is "Obstruction of Congress." In prohibiting a private citizen (McGahn) to obey a Congressional subpoena, isn't that the very definition of obstruction of Congress???

[bluestarone]

7. Can't help you out other than to say

He's gotta be a STUPID fucking judge not to see this!

[alwaysinasnit]

8. I sure hope one of the other judges point this out to him.

[FBaggins]

9. Here's the argument (IIRC)

The initial claim was that McGahn's testimony was needed in order for the House to determine whether or not to impeach on the basis of blocking McGahn's testimony. The response now is that this claim isn't true (because the House already decided to impeach on that count) and it wasn't true at the time (because obviously they were able to come to the determination to impeach on that basis without his testimony).

One possible response (don't know whether this was argued or not but have seen it here) is that his testimony would be critical in the Senate trial. The problem with that is that the Senate would have to subpoena him for that to be relevant.

So what remains is the House's argument that they could impeach again. (That is... to the extent that the House argues that it gains additional authority to overcome claimed executive privilege during an impeachment inquiry).

[alwaysinasnit]

10. There is a connection between McGahn and the Mueller investigation as McGahn did provide

testimony there. Is there an argument to be made that since House committees are in the process of obtaining the grand jury evidence from the Mueller investigation, McGahn's testimony is relevant and there is no executive privilege as to McGahn's prior testimony?

[ancianita]

11. Seems clear to me that there definitely IS an argument.

[FBaggins]

12. Was that rationale given to the lower court and part of the ruling?

I don't know... and I think it matters.

It's also true that there's a separate case (with two of the same three judges) regarding the grand jury materials request. The House would presumably have to win that one first.

there is no executive privilege as to McGahn's prior testimony?

His prior testimony was given to an officer (Mueller) of the executive branch. I think they argue that this has no impact on executive privilege claims.

[Igel]

13. They'd lose part of the McGahn argument--

to the extent that his testimony's been made public, privilege is waived. There's also testimony not made public but for which privilege was waived, to give Mueller some space.

[Karadeniz]

14. If I were a judge, I'd mainly be looking at congress' duty to oversee the executive branch

And I wouldn't want to disrupt that balance of power.