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.
Donald Trump has blocked the former White House counsel Don McGahn from testifying before Congress about the special counsel report on Russian election interference, prompting sharp criticism and even threats of Trump must turn over financial records to House , judge rules – live.
Then- White House counsel Don McGahn looks on as President Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting in October 2018. A federal judge ruled against President Trump on Monday in a subpoena dispute not long after the White House said it is seeking to block its former top lawyer from talking to
WASHINGTON — Themust testify before impeachment investigators about Mr. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the Mueller investigation, a judge ruled on Monday.
Theby Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia handed a victory to House Democrats in their fight to overcome President Trump’s stonewalling.
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.
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee sued on Wednesday to force the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II to testify before Congress , asking a federal judge to strike down the Trump administration’s claim that top presidential aides are “absolutely immune” from its
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday handed a victory to House Democrats in their fight to overcome President Trump’s stonewalling, ruling that the former White House counsel Donald F. McGahn II must testify before impeachment investigators about Mr. Trump’s efforts to obstruct the
Judge Jackson rejected the Trump administration’s
Citing Congress’s constitutional power to investigate suspected abuses of power within the government, Judge Jackson wrote that the Trump administration’s “claim to unreviewable absolute testimonial immunity on separation-of-powers grounds — essentially, that the Constitution’s scheme countenances unassailable executive branch authority — is baseless, and as such, cannot be sustained.”
Still, Mr. McGahn is unlikely to appear any time soon because it is virtually certain that the Justice Department will file an appeal and seek a stay of the judge’s ruling. He and his lawyer, William A. Burck, have taken the position that the fight is between Congress and the Trump administration, permitting administration lawyers to handle the case.
Don McGahn must testify about time as White House lawyer, judge rules
The decision is expected to put pressure on other reluctant witnesses to also appear before Congress to discuss President Donald Trump’s behavior.
Federal Judge Rules That McGahn Must Testify , Delivering Blow To White House . The ruling also could have implications for other key witnesses, such as former national security adviser John Bolton who has refused to testify until a federal court weighs in on the conflict between Congress and the
A U.S. judge on Monday said that ex - White House counsel Donald McGahn must appear before Congress for testimony. Though the case predates the focus of the current Democratic-led impeachment inquiry in the House of Representatives, the ruling was expected to have implications
“Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson’s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal,” Mr. Burck said in an email. “The DOJ is handling this case, so you will need to ask them whether they intend to seek a stay.”
The Justice Department had no immediate comment, but a stay request and appeal is widely expected, following the pattern of.
But the ruling carries broader implications at a time when the White House has also invoked the same expansive immunity theory to block witnesses about the Ukraine affair from cooperating in Democrats’ impeachment inquiry in the House.
Several potential witnesses to what Mr. Trump said and did in connection with his pressuring of Ukraine to announce investigations that could benefit him politically — like his former national security adviser, John R. Bolton —because of the administration’s constitutional theory that they are immune.
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.
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 Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel , has maintained that he will heed the White House ’s guidance on whether to testify before
Former White House counsel Don McGahn must comply with a subpoena seeking his testimony about the president's efforts to impede the Russia investigation. WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 13: U.S. White House Counsel Don McGahn after the investiture ceremony for U.S. District Judge Trevor N
Mr. Bolton, who had a one-on-oneabout why he was freezing a military aid package to Ukraine in August, that he has pertinent information about the matter. But he has also threatened to sue if he is presented with any subpoena, seeking a judicial ruling about whether such a subpoena is legally valid.
A lawyer for Mr. Bolton, Charles J. Cooper,that Mr. Bolton’s situation is different from that of Mr. McGahn because Mr. Bolton’s official duties centered on foreign affairs and national security matters. But Mr. Bolton’s intentions and desires are unclear.
In her ruling, Judge Jackson appeared to respond to Mr. Cooper’s notion. She wrote that the law required not just Mr. McGahn, but “other current and former senior-level White House officials” who receive a subpoena to appear, and that it made no difference “whether the aides in question are privy to national security matters, or work solely on domestic issues.”
She added: “However busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the president does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires,” she said. “Fifty years of say so within the executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.”
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.
Don McGahn must testify to Congress about his time as the White House ’s top lawyer, a federal judge ruled Monday — a decision that will put pressure on other reluctant Trump administration witnesses to testify about President Donald Trump’s actions.
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must testify before Congress , judge rules . If upheld, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's ruling could be used to force Trump's closest aides to testify before Congress , including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and
If Mr. McGahn declines to testify until a definitive judgment is reached and Mr. Trump is prepared to keep appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, there appears to be little chance that the matter will be resolved in time for Mr. McGahn’s potential testimony to play any role in the impeachment inquiry.
Indeed, the current dispute is only about whether Mr. McGahn must show up to be asked questions. Even if the Supreme Court were to ultimately say he must, it would leave unanswered whether the questions that lawmakers want to ask him — primarily about conversations with Mr. Trump detailed in the Mueller report — are subject to executive privilege, so the litigation process might have to start all over again at that point.
In her ruling, Judge Jackson distinguished the issue she was ruling on — whether senior-level presidential aides, such as Mr. McGahn, are legally required to appear before a committee in response to a subpoena — “from the very different question of whether the specific information that high-level presidential aides may be asked to provide in the context of such questioning can be withheld from the committee on the basis of a valid privilege.”
The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Mr. McGahn in May after the release of the report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III. The report showed that Mr. McGahn was a key witness to several ofin which Mr. Trump sought to obstruct the Russia investigation — including when the president , and later tried to bully him into falsifying evidence to deny that he had done so.
Trump impeachment: Judge's ruling may mean John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney have to testify
Adam Schiff recently announced that the House Intelligence committee would wrap up impeachment proceedings. 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 email@example.com.
Former White House counsel Don McGahn will not appear Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, his lawyers said in a letter Monday, defying the committee's subpoena.
Former White House Counsel Donald McGahn must comply with a Congressional subpoena, a federal judge in Washington ruled Monday. The ruling came in a case brought by the House Judiciary Committee in August in an effort to enforce its subpoena demanding McGahn 's congressional
But Mr. Trump, who had openlyafter Democrats took control of the House in the 2018 midterm election, instructed Mr. McGahn not to cooperate. His administration put forward the theory that top aides to the president like Mr. McGahn were absolutely immune from being compelled to testify about their officials duties — meaning that they do not even have to show up.
In August, the House Judiciary Committee sued Mr. McGahn, seeking a judicial order that he comply with the subpoena. That same day, the panel also asked a judge for an order permitting it to see secret grand jury evidence gathered by Mr. Mueller, which Attorney General William P. Barr declined to provide to Congress. (Another federal judge ruled for Congress in the grand jury case a month ago, but the administration has appealed.)
The court filings said the House needed the information not just for oversight purposes, but also for an impeachment inquiry. While the impeachment focus has since shifted to the Ukraine affair that burst into public view in September, House Democrats are still considering an article of impeachment that would accuse Mr. Trump of.
A question pervading both disputes is whether the Constitution permits Congress to subpoena aides to a president like Mr. McGahn and, potentially, Mr. Bolton, to talk about their official duties — or whether the president’s secrecy powers make his aides absolutely immune from such subpoenas.
Administrations of both parties have taken the position that “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties,” as a, the current head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, put it. But there is no definitive court precedent on the issue.
In 2008, another Federal District Court judge, John D. Bates, rejected that theory in another subpoena dispute. HeHarriet Miers had no right to skip a hearing for which she had been subpoenaed. Judge Bates, a Bush appointee, said she had to show up — although she might still refuse to answer specific questions based on a claim of executive privilege.
But the executive branch did not appeal the Miers ruling, and because no appeals court weighed in, Judge Bates’s opinion does not count as a controlling precedent for other disputes raising the same issue. That left the Obama administration,, free to take the position that Judge Bates had been wrong, and the Trump legal team echoed that logic.
In, Judge Jackson had indicated skepticism with the Trump administration’s arguments that Judge Bates got it wrong 11 years ago, suggesting that the executive branch’s legal theory threatened constitutional checks and balances.
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.