Former White House lawyer Donald McGahn must testify before Congress, which could shape impeachment hearings


Category:  News & Politics

Via:  john-russell  •  7 months ago  •  8 comments

Former White House lawyer Donald McGahn must testify before Congress, which could shape impeachment hearings

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T

WASHINGTON — Former White House counsel Donald McGahn, a key figure with firsthand knowledge of President Donald Trump's  alleged efforts to short-circuit the Mueller investigation , must testify before Congress, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The ruling affirms Congress' role in providing a check on executive power. It's sure to be appealed.

The decision comes in the middle of an  impeachment inquiry  into whether Trump used the presidency to force another country to investigate a potential rival in 2020.

Witnesses have testified that the White House dangled a state visit and withheld military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation into the family of former vice president and 2020 presidential contender Joe Biden.

As Democratic lawmakers investigate Trump and his administration, McGahn and other current and former White House officials have found themselves in the middle of legal battles that could redefine the powers of Congress and the presidency.

Bolton and Mulvaney could be important witnesses in the impeachment probe.

State Department diplomats have testified about Bolton's opposition to the Trump administration's campaign for Ukraine to announce investigations.

Bolton called Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who is at the center of these efforts, a "hand grenade,"  according to testimony from Fiona Hill , a former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia.

The House Intelligence Committee has not subpoenaed Bolton, who  has hinted  he will not stay quiet. 

Last month, his former aide, Charles Kupperman, defied a congressional subpoena to testify and  asked the court to decide  whether he should comply with it. The committee later withdrew its subpoena and asked a federal judge to dismiss Kupperman's lawsuit. 

Democrats also want to hear from Mulvaney, but he too has defied a congressional subpoena. Mulvaney was a key figure in the White House's efforts to justify Trump's decision to withhold aid to Ukraine,  The Washington Post  and  The New York Times  reported.

Mulvaney  was going to join  Kupperman's lawsuit but said he would instead file his own — only to ultimately drop that plan, too. 

Democrats' efforts to get McGahn to testify predate the Ukraine controversy. They want him to testify about episodes of potential obstruction of justice detailed in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report. 

These episodes included Trump's efforts to fire Mueller as he investigated Russia's interference in the 2016 election and its possible ties to the Trump campaign.

In June 2017, Trump called McGahn at home and told him Mueller should be removed because he had conflicts of interest, according to the Mueller report. 

McGahn decided he would rather resign than carry out that order. He feared a repeat of the "Saturday Night Massacre," which happened when top Justice Department officials resigned rather than carry out former President Richard Nixon's order to fire the Watergate prosecutor.

Trump met with McGahn in the Oval Office and pressured him again, according to the Mueller report. McGahn refused.

McGahn later told Trump's then-chief of staff, Reince Priebus, that the president had asked him to "do crazy s---," according to the report.

After news broke in early 2018 about Trump's efforts to have Mueller fired, the president told White House staffers to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to remove Mueller, according to the report.

McGahn, again, refused. He later   told Mueller's investigators that the news stories were accurate.

He resigned in October 2018. 

In May, McGahn  defied a subpoena  from the House Judiciary Committee for his documents and testimony.

White House lawyers  have argued  that the House can't compel McGahn's testimony because his communications as a top aide to the president are protected by executive privilege. 

Democrats  sued  to force McGahn to testify. They called him "the most important witness," other than Trump himself, to the events the committee is investigating.

The committee chairman, Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y.,  said  the White House's claim of absolute immunity is "nonsense." 

The House Judiciary Committee won in another court battle last month when a federal judge  granted access  to grand jury evidence behind Mueller's report. 

Another case involving executive power may go to the Supreme Court.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee  wants to review several years of Trump's tax returns  and financial records. Judges at the  district  and appellate levels have ruled in favor of the House.

Trump's lawyers have  asked the Supreme Court  to block the disclosure. The high court is expected to decide in the coming days whether to hear that case.


jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
1  seeder  JohnRussell    7 months ago

May be a brief appeal to the higher court  (Court of Appeals) not expected to be heard by the Supreme Court because the result is so obvious. 

Heartland American
1.1  Heartland American  replied to  JohnRussell @1    7 months ago

Separation of powers and executive privilege are Supreme Court issues and it well could go to them.  I wouldn’t expect a final resolution on the matter before the New Year.  

Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    7 months ago

The trump McGahn phone call has been public knowledge for almost two years. During the mueller sideshow, McGahn testified under oath to for mueller for some ridiculous amount of hours.

yet now, somehow, his testimony will suddenly yield an impeachable offense? 

2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2    7 months ago

If there was innocence there it would have happened already

Trump doesnt give a rats ass about constitutional principles

2.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    7 months ago

Neither do the fucking Democrats.

So what is your point?

3  seeder  JohnRussell    7 months ago

This may lead to Bolton and Mulvaney being forced to testify as well. 

4  Kavika     7 months ago

Interesting and this could lead to others being forced to testify..

5  Tacos!    7 months ago

For what? So he can testify that they talked about maybe doing something that they didn't end up doing? Yawn. 



Who is online


43 visitors