Tag: Don McGahn

House Judiciary: McGahn case could stop congressional oversight ‘as we know it’

Case before D.C. Circuit hinges on House standing to file suit

The House Judiciary Committee warned a federal appeals court Thursday that the wrong decision in a separation-of-powers showdown with the Trump administration over the enforcement of subpoenas could “effectively eliminate Congressional oversight as we know it.”

Committee lawyers filed the brief as part of the House effort to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify about events detailed in the Mueller report. The Trump administration has argued the close presidential adviser enjoys “absolute immunity” from such testimony.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is set to hear oral arguments April 28 on the committee’s McGahn subpoena, as well as the House’s effort to stop the construction of a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. Continue reading.

House Democrats request appeal asking court to enforce subpoena for former Trump White House counsel Donald McGahn

Washington Post logoHouse Democrats asked a federal appeals court in Washington on Friday to reconsider enforcing a congressional subpoena for President Trump’s former White House counsel Donald McGahn.

The request comes after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the courts have no authority to resolve the separation-of-powers dispute between the White House and Democrats in Congress.

Lawyers for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) want a full complement of judges on the appeals court to overturn the ruling from a three-judge panel of the same court. If last week’s ruling stands, it means McGahn can defy the subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee.

The McGahn ruling could shred Congress’s ability to oversee the executive branch

Washington Post logoTHE U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last week that it could not order former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before the House Judiciary Committee, though the committee issued a subpoena that Mr. McGahn flouted, on President Trump’s orders. If allowed to stand, the ruling would shred Congress’s ability to oversee the executive branch.

Courts have previously brokered informal compromises between Congress and the president on congressional subpoenas, avoiding definitive rulings that would settle the extent of lawmakers’ power to demand documents and testimony. Many judges still wish to avoid formal involvement. The D.C. Circuit’s two-judge majority warned that if courts refereed subpoena disputes between the executive branch and Congress, they would preclude the dealmaking and “flexible settlements” that typically resolve such problems.

But the era of give-and-take has ended. One party in the equation definitively broke faith: President Trump is now refusing to engage in any negotiations with Congress on providing information or witnesses. By refusing to act, courts are not preserving balance; they are ratifying its destruction, because the balance rested in large measure on the possibility that Congress could resort to the courts. “What would disrupt the present balance of power is not a holding that such lawsuits are permissible but the decision that they are not,” Judge Judith W. Rogers wrote in a dissent. “The judiciary can upset that careful equilibrium when it dismisses a suit that it ought to decide.” Continue reading.

Appeals court rules House can’t sue to enforce McGahn subpoena

The Hill logoA federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the House cannot sue to enforce its subpoenas, delivering a win for President Trump in his battle against a congressional subpoena of former White House counsel Don McGahn.

A panel of three judges for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 to overturn a federal judge’s order that McGahn must comply with the subpoena, which was issued as part of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into Trump.

The two judges on the panel who sided with Trump were both appointed by Republican presidents. A third, appointed by former President Clinton, dissented. Continue reading.

NOTE:  We wonder if, after this ruling, anyone needs to comply with a subpoena.

George Conway: Trump’s ‘King Kong’ nickname has come into full fruition

Washington Post logoNot for nothing did President Trump’s first White House counsel give him the nickname “King Kong.”

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn, who resisted Trump when he sought to violate the law and sometimes engaged in “epic” “shouting matches” with him, reportedly selected the sobriquet to connote Trump’s “volcanic anger” and “emotional decision-making.”

But as Trump’s behavior this week demonstrates, the moniker fits for another reason as well. It reflects Trump’s desire to escape constraints — in particular, legal constraints. That Kong-like urge was illustrated by two developments: the president’s latest executive clemency spree and his continued attacks against the federal judiciary. Continue reading.

Democrats aren’t ruling out more articles of impeachment against Trump: ‘McGahn’s testimony is critical’

AlterNet logoSome critics of President Donald Trump — Democrats as well as Never Trump conservatives — have argued that the U.S. House of Representatives should have brought more than two articles of impeachment against Trump. But there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution saying that House Democrats cannot pursue additional articles if they decide to, and according to a House Judiciary Committee court filing on Monday,  they aren’t ruling out that possibility.

Politico reported on Monday (12/31/19) that the House Judiciary Committee was trying to enforce a subpoena of former White House Counsel Don McGahn to determine “whether to recommend additional articles of impeachment.”

According to House of Representatives Counsel Douglas Letter in the court filing, testimony from McGahn “remains central to” the House Judiciary Committee’s “ongoing inquiry into the president’s obstructive conduct. If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

Continue reading

Judge temporarily stays McGahn subpoena

The Hill logoA federal district judge on Wednesday issued a temporary stay of her order that former White House counsel Don McGahn comply with House Democrats’ subpoena for testimony.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee on the district court in D.C., granted McGahn’s request for a temporary stay while she deliberates on whether to issue a lengthier one to allow him to appeal her decision.

The House Judiciary Committee, which had asked the court to enforce its subpoena for President Trump‘s former legal adviser, said it would not oppose a temporary stay.

View the complete November 27 article by Harper Neidig on The Hill website here.

Democrats eye taking fight over McGahn testimony to impeachment trial

The Hill logoLegal experts say the fight over whether White House counsel Don McGahn must testify under subpoena before Congress could be settled at the Senate impeachment trial before it finishes its path through the courts.

A federal judge on Monday ruled against the Trump administration, deciding that McGahn must comply with a House Judiciary Committee subpoena seeking his testimony.

The ruling is being appealed, but Democrats could look to secure testimony from McGahn and other key witnesses directly at the Senate trial, where Chief Justice John Roberts would preside, experts said. There, Roberts would have a key role in deciding questions about admitting evidence before the case even gets to the Supreme Court.

View the complete November 27 article by John Kruzel on The Hill website here.

Trump administration to appeal ruling over former WH counsel McGahn testimony

The Hill logoThe Justice Department on Tuesday said it would appeal a ruling by a federal district judge ordering former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) also asked the judge to pause the ruling while the appeal plays out. In the interim, House Democrats, who issued the subpoena for McGahn’s testimony, have agreed to a weeklong suspension, or stay, of the ruling that was issued Monday night.

DOJ lawyers argued that a stay pending appeal should be granted because there is a “significant chance” that a federal appeals court will find McGahn is “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”

View the complete November 26 article by John Kruzel on The Hill website here.

Want to Read the Judges Ruling on the Trump Suit to Block McGahn Testimony?

Here’s a link to the posting by Politico:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016e-a4c4-d442-a5ef-fee4e04c0000&nname=playbook&nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&nrid=00000160-02a9-d1c4-a372-0fedf62a0000&nlid=630318