DOJ moves to halt judge's ruling that McGahn must testify

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Politico

LEGAL

DOJ moves to halt judge's ruling that McGahn must testify
The planned appeal means impeachment investigators won't likely hear from McGahn anytime soon.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN

11/26/2019 09:35 AM EST

Updated: 11/26/2019 10:55 AM EST

The Justice Department asked a federal judge Tuesday to put a temporary pause on her ruling that orders former Trump White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in the House impeachment probe, saying it needs the delay to pursue an appeal.

While expected, the move from DOJ means that the primary congressional panel responsible for drafting articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump likely won't hear anytime soon from McGahn, one of the star witnesses in special counsel Robert Mueller's final report.

Also Tuesday, a lawyer representing two other key White House impeachment witnesses said his clients would keep resisting congressional subpoenas, arguing that Monday's decision didn't apply to their situation.

Both actions have crystallized the next steps in the months-long legal battle, one day after U.S. District Court Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson issued her potentially precedent-setting decision.

In her 120-page opinion, Jackson argued that Trump's advisers do not enjoy "absolute immunity" from facing lawmakers' questions about their work under oath. She found that "no one is above the law" and took issue with Trump's efforts to stonewall congressional oversight via a blanket order directing aides not to testify.
....

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/26/doj-moves-to-halt-judges-ruling-that-mcgahn-must-testify-073923

---

IWantNothingHat Retweeted

https://twitter.com/Popehat

DOJ has asked for a stay on Judge Jackson's ruling pending appeal. Says this is only the second time in history that a judge allowed a president's WH counsel to testify before Congress. First was GW Bush's counsel and judge issued a stay in that case.

Link to tweet

New filing in House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn: Stay

https://www.usatoday.com/documents/6560996-Stay ...

Link to tweet

-- -- -- -- --

Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear:

Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, judge rules

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142400380

For the young'uns:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v9ULBua8tF9I

1957_Lone Ranger 30 sec Intro
2,054 viewsJul 3, 2013

Tom Meros
8.36K subscribers

Tom Meros will be inviting us to join him on a trip back in time, to 1957: http://ycantarrestrocknroll.wordpress.com

[world wide wally]

1. It would only be right if Barr's salary was paid by Trump since he is serving as

Trump's personal attorney

[lagomorph777]

7. Barr's real salary is paid by Putin - is that good enough?

[ArizonaLib]

8. Putin is probably more likely to pay what is billed to him

Trump doesn't pay.

[lagomorph777]

11. Good point!

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

9. He's a slimy ass mob lawyer........ (no offense meant to actual mob lawyers). nt

[Iliyah]

2. Of course they did . . . .

protecting a lunatic far out weighs protecting the United States of America. Fuck them, seriously, me.

[Pachamama]

3. Is it the US Dept of Justice or the Legal Firm for Donald J. Trump?

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Criminals is all they are, stalling the day of reckoning in hopes that Kavanaugh-Gorsuch come throug

What do liberals have on the Supreme Court, 3 or is it still 4. For the life of me I cannot see CJ Roberts siding against subpoenas. It would ruin the very idea of courts as handed down from British Common Law since the Middle Ages. A court can summon who it wants even back when they were burning witches! Congress should be no different. To erode subpoenas is to condone lawlessness and mean the Fifth Amendment means not just the right to be silent, but the right to ignore the courts altogether. This Trump-Barr argument is total nonsense!

In fact, without subpoenas, you could hardly sue anyone successfully. A company could raid your accounts, and you'd have no muscle to ask for your day in court. In fact they could steal anything and everything you own, and guess what? The crooks don't want to come to court. Too bad. It even erodes private property rights.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. He can show up

answer the questions or take the 5th or claim Executive Privilege. But this "not showing up" thing is ridiculous.

[ArizonaLib]

10. I wonder if none of these individuals refusing to show

puts more pressure on the courts to say 'you can't just blow off subpoenas.' Oliver North's repeated 'I don't recall' mantra was ridiculous but at least there were proceedings. Those proceedings made him one of the poster boys for what criminals that administration consisted of. Many of them were reheated leftovers from Nixon/Ford.

P.S. Loved the impeachment threads!

[BumRushDaShow]

12. Yeah I think everyone thought that

Oliver North looked ridiculous but at least he showed up. This group is continuing the Drumpf/Bannon theme of "deconstructing the government" and seeing how far they can go.

And you are welcome! re: the hearing threads! I (and I expect crickets and others) hoped it was helpful because so many out there can't really watch during the day and might be too tired to try to go through a replay in the evening (especially considering how long the hearings were). Plus with the hearings starting at 9 am ET, that meant it was 6 am PT, so really early for those on or near the west coast.

[ArizonaLib]

15. Yes I could only catch brief parts at a time

because I was trying to work and taking phone calls.

Good on you!


Solidarity

[Brainfodder]

6. ....more obstructing.... ENJOY your temporary freedom, assholes!

ASSHOLES!
ASSHOLES!
ASSHOLES!






Not much left to say... This is absurd.

[Progressive Jones]

13. Asking for the stay, and getting it, are 2 different things.

Was the stay granted?

[AncientGeezer]

14. Not yet...likely will be....I'd bet my beer budget these will all be SCOTUS cases

[TomSlick]

16. I don't understand why the Trump DoJ is appealing.

The Order is very careful to distinguish between the claim of executive immunity (which is not a thing) and executive privilege (that is a thing).

Why doesn't Trump have McCahn and others appear as ordered by the Subpoena but assert executive privilege barring answers to any meaningful questions?

[maxsolomon]

18. Because they can appeal it up the ladder and delay another month or two

Which is the entire strategy.

They know they'll lose, or the SCOTUS will invent a new right, like they did in Bush v Gore.

[Haggis for Breakfast]

17. It must be patently obvious, even to republicans, that this administration

is attempting to destroy the other equal branches of government by constantly undermining their Constitutional authority.

I am sick of this bullshit.

We MUST get these bastards out of government.

BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.