Politics: Ruling on test of White House witness immunity claims coming Monday - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

Politics Ruling on test of White House witness immunity claims coming Monday

15:26  25 november  2019
15:26  25 november  2019 Source:   cnn.com

House Democrats release pair of witness transcripts ahead of jam-packed week of impeaching hearings

  House Democrats release pair of witness transcripts ahead of jam-packed week of impeaching hearings House Democrats on Saturday released a pair of witness transcripts guiding their impeachment investigation, opening the latest window into the closed-door interviews that have dominated their examination of President Trump's dealings with Ukraine. Tim Morrison, a top aide at the National Security Council (NSC), had testified on Oct. 31, while Jennifer Williams, a career foreign service officer and top Pence advisor, had testified on Nov. 7. Morrison told impeachment investigators about concerns that Trump withheld U.S. aid to Ukraine in order to secure commitments from the country's leaders to investigate the president's political rivals.

With the White House defying the House , Mr. Mulvaney has refused to comply with a subpoena for Although more witnesses could still be called, the Intelligence Committee concluded its scheduled It could also use the coming days to renew its press for the administration to turn over long-sought

FILE PHOTO: Former White House counsel Don McGahn sits with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell while speaking to a gathering of the Federalist Society at the State Capitol in Frankfort, Kentucky, U.S. October 7, 2019. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston

Don McGahn, Donald Trump are posing for a picture© Getty Images

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. But depending on Jackson's ruling, McGahn's case could be pivotal for the House as it considers impeaching the President on multiple counts.

Manhattan DA asks Supreme Court to let them enforce subpoena for Trump tax returns

  Manhattan DA asks Supreme Court to let them enforce subpoena for Trump tax returns The Manhattan district attorney's office asked the Supreme Court to reject President Trump's effort to shield his tax returns from a grand jury subpoena, in a case where the president's lawyers have argued that he is immune to any criminal investigation or prosecution.A federal appeals court had ruled that Trump's accounting firm must hand over eight years of tax returns and other financial records and the president last week appealed that decision. The district attorney's office argued in a brief filed Thursday that the appellate ruling was narrowly focused to the facts of the case and does not merit a review from the nation's highest court.

Prosecutors offer immunity when a witness can help them or law enforcement make a case. Immunity from prosecution is an important tool for prosecutors. They can offer immunity to witnesses for all types of crimes, even serious ones like kidnapping and murder.

A judge ruled that Trump’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records even as the White House told a former top Trump aide not to show up at a The first, which it unleashed on Monday , is to claim that the Constitution gives close personal aides to a president “absolute immunity ” from

A ruling in the House's favor, for instance, could encourage resistant witnesses from the administration to testify and could bolster any case the House makes to impeach the President for obstructing its impeachment efforts.

The House sued McGahn in August, claiming the Judiciary Committee needed his public testimony about Trump's attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation. McGahn had been a key witness on several instances of obstruction that special counsel Robert Mueller investigated, and had since left the White House.

But McGahn never appeared before Congress. The White House had claimed he had "absolute immunity" and could ignore the call for him to testify.

The White House has since used the same idea to block several more witnesses in the House impeachment probe, including top former national security officials with knowledge of the President's dealings with Ukraine.

Trump administration to appeal ruling over former WH counsel McGahn testimony

  Trump administration to appeal ruling over former WH counsel McGahn testimony The Justice Department on Tuesday said it would appeal the ruling from a federal district judge.The Trump administration said on Monday night that it planned to appeal after the ruling was issued by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, an Obama appointee.

In an extraordinary article on Monday , The New York Times disclosed tension between two White That raises an intriguing possibility. I don’t think the White House has much of a shot if it claims Three appellate courts, as I mentioned, have ruled against government lawyers claiming privilege to

Another recipient of FBI immunity is Bryan Pagliano. He’s a former State Department tech worker and set up Clinton’s private email system. His immunity has been known for a bit. Combetta’s has not. The new revelation of Combetta’s immunity is particularly troubling to Rep.

All along, the House has called that assertion unlawful and has waited for a judge to weigh in.

Judge's roles

McGahn's case headed to the judge in DC District Court near the height of the House's Ukraine impeachment furor.

On Halloween, Jackson heard arguments from House lawyers and the Justice Department, which defends the White House and McGahn.

The judge, during the hearing, seemed floored that the White House was attempting to control even its former officials' public statements.

"We don't live in a world where your status as a former executive branch official somehow shields you or prevents you from giving information," Jackson said. "I see almost every day people who are former executive branch officials giving information to the media."

That same afternoon, another federal judge began considering the case of a different White House witness, former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman, whom the White House blocked from speaking about Ukraine, claiming the same type of "absolute immunity."

Ex-White House lawyer moves to block judge's ruling requiring testimony

  Ex-White House lawyer moves to block judge's ruling requiring testimony Former White House counsel Don McGahn on Tuesday asked a judge to put on hold a ruling that would require him to testify.The court filing asking for the delay while he pursues an appeal followed U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling on Monday that rejected the Trump administration's legal claim that current and former senior White House officials cannot be compelled to testify before Congress.

If she strikes an immunity deal that lets her dish on FBI insiders, figures like Andrew McCabe and James Comey could be hardest hit “Well, I think Page has the opportunity to become the anti-Strzok,” Farrell explained during a Monday appearance on Fox Business Network’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

The White House plan makes no change to the number of green cards allocated each year. But instead of admitting people through random chance, we will establish simple, universal criteria for admission to the United States. No matter where in the world you’re born, no matter who your relatives are, if you

In that case, the judge is about a month away from being able to rule, keeping Kupperman and his former boss John Bolton on ice.

The House has argued that the coming decision in McGahn is all they should need as a guide -- but the national security advisers' lawyer has made clear they may not follow in line.

Potential outcomes

Even so, a ruling Monday in favor of the House could help make the case that other former or even current White House officials should testify.

If Jackson says McGahn must testify, he could be called to the House right away, needing further action from the courts to avoid him being held in contempt.

He and the coming ruling also could become a key part of other potential impeachment avenues. The House has already hinted it's considering impeaching Trump on obstructing their proceedings, including by stopping witnesses with the "absolute immunity" claim, making a federal court's judgments even more significant.

Any increased chance that McGahn and others should now testify would be a triumph for the House, enabling it to draw even more attention toward arguments against the President. The House said it needed a ruling quickly regarding McGahn because he could speak to them about Trump potentially obstructing justice, and even perhaps Trump lying in written answers to the special counsel.

McGahn is the "principal witness," the House has told the court, on evidence that Trump obstructed justice. The Judiciary Committee says it wants him to testify after the House Intelligence Committee's hearings on Ukraine end.

(The Ukraine inquiry could lead to separate impeachment charges of bribery or abuse of office.)

But if the House loses in the McGahn case Monday, the White House's "absolute immunity" would stay strong for now, and one of the most significant witnesses against the President --and others -- would be protected behind the firewall.

Judge puts temporary hold on McGahn subpoena ruling .
The federal judge who ordered former White House counsel Donald McGahn to appear before Congress is temporarily delaying the effect of her ruling. © Provided by Associated Press In this Sept. 27, 2018, file photo, then-White House counsel Donald McGahn listens as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill. U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson says in a brief order Wednesday that she needs time to consider the legal issues raised by the Justice Department in seeking a longer halt.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 0
This is interesting!