Opinion: Trump impeachment: Judge's ruling may mean John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Trump impeachment: Judge's ruling may mean John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify

18:45  26 november  2019
18:45  26 november  2019 Source:   usatoday.com

Here Are The Top Trump Administration Officials Implicated By Gordon Sondland

  Here Are The Top Trump Administration Officials Implicated By Gordon Sondland Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, delivered a bombshell opening statement at the House impeachment hearing on Wednesday, testifying that a clear understanding existed among top administration officials that President Donald Trump sought to extort Ukraine’s government for personal political gain. “Everyone knew. It was no secret,” Sondland said, referring to leading White House, State Department and National Security Council officials, as well as Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Particularly when it comes to John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney . Mulvaney , who has stated publicly that the Trump administration withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Bolton and his attorney are currently embroiled in a separate case to determine whether he would have to comply

John Bolton should make the same decision.” Bolton , who has said he had conversations with While he said he would prefer for witnesses such as Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo to Mulvaney is among Trump officials who have refused to co-operate with the impeachment inquiry.

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft.

Pat Skipper wearing a suit and tie talking on a cell phone: In this Sept. 4, 2018 file photo, White House counsel Don McGahn, listens as he attends a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.© Provided by USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. In this Sept. 4, 2018 file photo, White House counsel Don McGahn, listens as he attends a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington.

A ruling in Don McGahn’s lawsuit could not have come at a worse time for the Trump administration.

Back in April, McGahn, a former White House counsel who resigned in October of 2018, was issued a subpoena by the House Judiciary committee who wanted him to testify about President Trump’s efforts to get him to fire Robert Mueller. President Trump, claiming an absolute privilege to prevent his current and former subordinates from testifying, ordered McGahn to ignore the subpoena. McGahn, finding himself in a constitutional no-man’s land between an executive branch claim of privilege and a legislative branch subpoena, opted to let the courts sort out the competing claims.

'Glad to be back': Bolton teases return to Twitter

  'Glad to be back': Bolton teases return to Twitter The former national security adviser teased a return to Twitter after more than two months since his last tweet.Bolton, who was President Trump's national security adviser since April 2018, left his post in September. Both he and Trump threw jabs at one another during his departure, with Trump claiming he fired Bolton, while Bolton claimed he resigned.

Notably, John R. Bolton , Mr. Trump ’ s former national security adviser, has let it be known Several potential witnesses to what Mr. Trump said and did to pressure Ukraine to announce investigations that could benefit him politically — like Mr. Bolton and Mr. Trump ’ s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney

Bolton and Mulvaney promise to be critical witnesses should they eventually be forced to testify in the impeachment hearings under Jackson’ s ruling . Several officials who have already appeared before Congress have named Bolton as having disapproved of attempts by Trump ’ s inner circle to coerce or

McGahn has a duty to comply

On Monday, a federal district court did just that, categorically rejecting President Trump’s claims and finding that McGahn had a duty to comply with the Judiciary committee’s subpoena and to appear before Congress to testify. “[T]he President does not have (and, thus, cannot lawfully assert) the power to prevent his current and former senior-level aides from responding to congressional subpoenas.”

The court observed that the duty to appear and offer testimony was completely separate from whether a witness could use an appropriate assertion of executive privilege — or some other privilege — to avoid answering a particular question. “White House aides can withhold the kinds of confidential and privileged information that distinguishes them from everybody else; they can do so by asserting an appropriate privilege if needed, when legislators ask questions that probe too deeply.”

Legal experts say U.S. court ruling on White House counsel could encourage witnesses to talk in impeachment probe

  Legal experts say U.S. court ruling on White House counsel could encourage witnesses to talk in impeachment probe Legal experts say U.S. court ruling on White House counsel could encourage witnesses to talk in impeachment probe(Reuters) - A court ruling expected on Monday could give cover to former national security advisor John Bolton and other administration officials to cooperate in the impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump, legal experts said.

Bolton is willing to testify if the judge rules in favor of the House, The Washingon Post previously reported. People close to Bolton and Kupperman said the two were flabbergasted by Mulvaney ’ s surprise request to join the lawsuit because they and others on the national security team considered

Trump impeachment : Schiff calls on Bolton to testify and slams Republicans. “At the end of the day, we have to decide what our constitutional duty is, even if our colleagues in the GOP and Congress have decided they’re more committed to the person and the president than their constitutional duty

Now it gets interesting. There is no wiggle-room in Judge Jackson’s decision. On the question of an administration official’s duty to comply with a subpoena, it is as clear as it is possible to be. This is immensely consequential for John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Mick Mulvaney and a host of others. While this case will almost certainly be appealed, there is no certainty that either Judge Jackson or the Court of Appeals will issue a stay of the order requiring McGahn to testify. In fact, there are good reasons why a court wouldn’t do so in this case. McGahn has already said he will respect Judge Jackson’s order and appear to testify if a stay isn’t issued.

To make matters worse — or better — Judge Jackson’s discussion of executive privilege is in the context of a normal “legislative” subpoena. That’s because this case began on August 7th, long before the House opened a formal impeachment proceeding.

Ruling on test of White House witness immunity claims coming Monday

  Ruling on test of White House witness immunity claims coming Monday On Monday, a federal judge plans to make the first major court ruling in the fight between the House and the White House over impeachment witnesses. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson says she will decide by the close of business whether former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify about President Donald Trump to Congress. Until this point, the case has lingered in the background, stemming from a subpoena the House Judiciary Committee sent to McGahn in April, well before the Ukraine impeachment scandal kicked House proceedings into high gear this fall.

When Trump fired Bolton last month, he sent out a frosty tweet saying Bolton ’ s “services are no longer needed” and later mocked him for supporting the According to legal experts, by keeping Mulvaney in place, Trump can make a stronger case that Mulvaney is immune from having to testify about

A U. S . federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a House subpoena for his testimony in the Trump Others who have resisted testifying include Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Adviser John Bolton , and acting Chief of

While this has never been directly tested by a court, most legal scholars agree that there is no such thing as “executive privilege” in the context of an impeachment proceeding. When the House is investigating what it believes is impeachable conduct, the president cannot simply refuse to provide information that it doesn’t want Congress to have. For obvious reasons, it can’t be left up to the target of an investigation to decide what information the investigators are allowed to see. As Judge Jackson observed, “[T]he primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings.” Indeed they are not. They are subject to the laws and to congressional oversight just like everybody else.

No lazy executive privilege

In other words, not only are all of the president’s aides legally required to testify before Congress, since this is now an impeachment inquiry, they will not be able to refuse to answer questions based on “executive privilege.” They most certainly will not be allowed to refuse to answer questions based on the “lazy” version that has become so popular over the last few years even without an express claim of privilege by the White House. “I can’t disclose my personal conversations with the president.” It’s those personal conversations that are now at the very heart of the impeachment inquiry.

Trump says he still has confidence in Mulvaney

  Trump says he still has confidence in Mulvaney U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he still had confidence in his acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney amid frustration at his team's response to the Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

A federal judge ruled that the former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify before impeachment investigators about Mr. Trump ’ s efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation. The Justice Department will likely appeal the decision, but it carries broader implications

Bolton and other officials have sought court rulings on whether they should comply with a congressional subpoena or honor the Trump administration’ s order not to testify , a process that could take months. Republicans defend trump . Trump has said he did nothing wrong and dismisses

So Judge Jackson’s opinion opens up whole new vistas of inquiry from what were previously unobtainable witnesses. No doubt many of them will refuse to testify no matter what. But some of them, like Don McGahn himself, may well decide to come in from the cold. Adam Schiff recently announced that the House Intelligence committee would be wrapping up its part of the proceedings shortly after returning from the Thanksgiving recess. He might want to rethink that now.

Republican Chris Truax, an appellate lawyer in San Diego, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump impeachment: Judge's ruling may mean John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify

Ruling Will Not Lead John Bolton to Testify Soon, Lawyer Says .
WASHINGTON — John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser to President Trump who resisted efforts to pressure Ukraine for help against domestic political rivals, dashed any expectation on Tuesday that he would testify soon in the House impeachment investigation in response to a court ruling involving a onetime colleague. Charles J. Cooper, a lawyer who represents Mr. Bolton, said that a court decision on Monday ordering another former White House official to appear before Congress under subpoena did not apply to Mr. Bolton because of the nature of his job. Mr. Cooper said Mr.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!