The U.S. House of Representatives asked a federal judge Tuesday not to put on pause her ruling backing the Judiciary Committee’s subpoena of Don McGahn, after the Justice Department requested the halt while the administration appealed the case.
the need for prompt resolution of this case would remain critical given that the House Managers could potentially make use of McGahn’s testimony in the event of a subsequent trial in the Senate.
We’re talking to you Mr. Chief Justice. You can’t get away with kicking this can down the road. We’re going to make you decide either way.
Considering the absolutely withering language this Judge used in her rather lengthy opinion, I’d actually be surprised if she granted a hold. It doesn’t seem as it DoJ has a “reasonable” chance of winning, which is a prerequisite for granting a hold, as is my understanding.
The administration pointed to the Harriet Miers case from the George W. Bush administration in arguing for a stay. In that case, a district court ruling compelling Miers’ testimony was put on hold by an appeals court.
And the case they cite as a precedent was a case Miers ultimately lost.
Glad to see Nadler following up hard on this.
Article headline is strained. Should read:
House Stresses Impeachment Need In Request to Court to Not Pause McGahn Ruling
Sorry, I used to write headlines for my college paper and can spot an awkward one a 1000 ems away.
The walls, however slightly, seem to finally be closing in on the Trump Crime Family.
More please…
I pray that the 4 Dems live many more years and that Clarence Thomas enjoys great health until mid-January, 2021. None of the 5 Repubs are spring chickens but Thomas is the most likely to go first.
The trump administration agrees:
The administration also asked the appeals court on Wednesday morning to pause the judge’s decision.
ETA: This was supposed to be a reply to @pshah
Me too. More likely it will be held up by an appellate court, imho. I am still fairly confident that this will not make it as far as SCOTUS; Judge Brown wrote a great opinion.
actually, he can get away with that. its the whole point.
she won’t, but the appeals court almost certainly will – given the precedent in the Miers case (although in that case, the appeals court ruled that Miers’ testimony could be held off because even with an expedited schedule, the case would not reach finality before the next term of Congress – at which point the situation might change).
At that point, the best move for the House would be to try and leapfrog the appeals court, and go straight to the Supremes.
Its a terribly written headline.
She made it as appeal-proof as possible.
The momentum Democrats on the committees have worked so hard for must continue unabated - in the pursuit of truth. Too glorious a goal? I think not. Morality matters. FU Franklin Graham.
Gonna put out an unpopular opinion here, but, to me at least, seems like a pretty big hole in this argument…
“McGahn is an eyewitness to some of the misconduct that the Committee is investigating,”
How? He had vacated his position as WH Counsel months before the Ukraine phone call.
Would he have pertinent information regarding his testimony in the Mueller Report? Absolutely. But the House isn’t holding impeachment hearings based on that.
McGahn was not the president’s attorney, he was the attorney for the presidency.
Please rewrite the headline. It seems like gibberish.
I think the idea is that Congress has been looking into a lot of things when considering impeachment. Even this week they have been according to some continuing to look into whether to include the obstruction of justice during the Mueller investigation in their articles.
That’s what they have been telling the courts for months anyway.
I’ve been wondering about the constitutional power justification for any other branch to interfere with the house impeachment process. If the House is granted the sole power of impeachment doesn’t that imply the executive and judiciary has no authority to limit those powers to delay, stall, claim privilege, etc. The house can do anything they see fit in this small space. The check and balance is the trial by the senate presided by the Chief Justice.
Burglar Gets 15 Years in Stolen Violin Case
Eye Drops Off Shelf
Man Accused of Killing Lawyer Receives a New Attorney
Marijuana Bill Sent to Joint Committee for Further Evaluation
That’s what District Court judges have to do these days, given the Supremes’ current penchant for creating novel reasons for reversal.