House Democrats made a substantial push on Monday to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify in Congress, asking that a federal judge issue an early, final ruling on the matter.
I don’t have time to read the whole memorandum, but it looks like a very good and comprehensive statement of the case for forcing McGahn to testify, and an illumination of the stakes here. The second may be more important than the first. We have so quickly got used to Trump’s excesses and disregard for law and practice that we easily forget that vital precepts are at stake. This move is VERY important.
Here is a phrase we are going to be hearing more and more as we crawl into the future:
"Today, in a ruling that surprised legal scholars, a conservative Federal judge ruled that…’'
Would this have been made easier if a formal impeachment inquiry had been opened?
Nadler is doing a decent job of pushing the litigation forward. Schiff is all talk and no discernible action.
Your OneWordAnswer™: No.
It was always going to end up at the Supremes, this one will as well.
There’s nothing magical about a formal impeachment hearing that would short-circuit any of this, with the Trump administration determined to run the clock.
Indeed, “endorsing the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature would offend the Constitution more than undertaking to resolve the specific dispute that has been presented here. After all, the Constitution contemplates not only a separation, but a balance, of powers.”
I used to think this Unitary Executive Theory was a joke, but now we are seeing it being invoked in earnest. Hopefully, the courts will put this nonsense to rest and grant the injunction. Otherwise, Barr et al. will continue to raise it like it’s a real thing.
Liquidate your portfolio, and put every penny into “Slow Walker!” futures.
(George will be along shortly.)
Well, if McGahn refuses to testify after a court order to do so, that’s contempt of court, right? I’m pretty sure he could be disbarred for that which, if I’m not mistaken, would probably impact his income more than he would want. I think this will work.
Reminder: the McGahn subpoena was issued in April. The DOJ assertion of absolute immunity was made in May. It’s now almost September.
He’s already late.
Must be walking slowly to his laptop today.
What Nemo said.
Nevertheless, it is hopeful that Slow-walking Jerry may finally be picking up the pace.
Impeachment Now!
Cha-Ching!
Oh, there you are! We’ve missed you!
Don’t forget to ignore the fact that this is all on the courts and their processes, and there’s really not much that the Dems can do to push it along (note that even this “rushed” decision could show up in “weeks”).
It’s time to get rid of that DOJ opinion about not indicting a sitting president, too. If not revoked in its entirety, it at least needs to include some exceptions to a flat-out prohibition, such as when a president has broken the laws to attain or keep office or to obstruct lawful investigations of his possible crimes. Of course, it won’t happen with Barr in place.
in a word, yes.
While the memo repeatedly makes reference to thinking about considering whether to impeach Trump, at no point does it specifically invoke impeachment powers, instead using a very general “Article 1 powers” in an effort to elide the issue of impeachment powers.
But the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that once Art 1, Sec 2, Clause 5 is specifically invoked, the courts will give far more deference to the House’s need for information when confronted with executive privilege claims, and will be more likely to provide expedited consideration and review of cases and appeals.
In other words, this is all just more Kayfabe – another bit of business in the whole phony political wrestling match between the House and Trump.
And its especially notable because (as I keep pointing out) the House has already authorized Nadler to imvoke impeachment powers specifically to enforce the McGahn subpoena when it passedResolution 430, to wit:
Resolved, That in connection with any judicial proceeding [concerning the McGahn subpoena], the chair of any standing or permanent select committee exercising authority thereunder has any and all necessary authority under Article I of the Constitution.
Nadler has the power to invoke impeachment specifically when it comes to McGahn. But he isn’t using it. And that is going to be a huge problem when it comes time for oral arguments – and means that its extremely unlikely that the courts are going to provide expedited consideration, and this whole process will, as @castor_troy suggests, take forever to achieve finality in the courts.
House Democrats made a substantial push on Monday
At this rate, we’ll get all this info and testimony by Javanakas first term in 2024!
Nadlers pace only seems fast in comparison to others in the slow walker caucaus such as Neal. Every house action regarding the Trump administration should start with a subpeona followed quickly by a lawsuit.
If people get my drift, Trump’s biggest enemy right now may be this item:
In a Sly Stallone flick in the early 80s, he was cast as an Allied POW who escaped (alone). His mates-still-in-stir covered for him with a dummy.
It worked for enough time to get Stallone down the road a bit.
To an extent, Trump is now that dummy. Trump’s crew/enablers/handlers are his mates-still-in-stir.
In the flick, the dummy couldn’t keep up this “human (coherent)) person” thing…
…These are the same scholars that keep insisting with a straight face that the Supremes are not political, but independent arbiters of Justice.
yeah, but its going to take years to resolve the case, given that Nadler refuses to specifically invoke impeachment powers in any of his court filings. Without that specific invocation, the courts will rightfully see this as a “fishing expedition”, and do what the courts normally do in this kind of situation — find ways to delay any decision until that decision becomes moot (i.e. the parties reach a compromise, or control of the white house/congress changes).