Judge rules MCGAHN must testify to House Judiciary Committee

I’m almost certain they will appeal like the cowards that they are, but eventually justice will always prevail.

“Federal judge rules former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify, rejecting all 3 of DOJ’s arguments and finding that “the claim that a President’s senior-level aides have absolute testimonial immunity is meritless.”

1 Like

Another victim.

If anyone can McGahn can!

Didn’t Bolton join this action? Or at least indicate he would abide by the decisions in this case?

I think Mulvaney tried to join, too, but he got told to pound sand.

So…question…

Will the Dems vote on impeachment before the court decisions are made? And how long before an appeals decision would be decided? Any judicial experts out there?

I guess it may be pointless anyways as each admin official could just say I don’t recall or take the 5th.

Though I have a feeling McGahn would like to spill the beans.

Trump had a remarkable lack of memory in answering the questions of the Special Counsel.

The chosen one is a stable genius with the greatest memory ever recorded.

image

2 Likes

I assume all the witnesses would suddenly have serious lapses of memory. But obtaining documents, emails, transcripts would be far more helpful. Will this ruling cover docs as well?

Fine…he shows up…claims executive privilege, and nothing happens.

Yup- and why subpoenaing the docs/emails/phone transcripts is far more important.

1 Like

If a court says he cant use that then he cant. He can give vague answers

Exactly. If these people wanted to show up, they’d sjow up.

I don’t know what the WH has to hide…they are totally innocent there.

I’ll bet I’ll be shocked again when I find out who appointed this judge? Nope…it was Obama. There appears to be a pattern here where each time a judge rules against the Executive Branch, they were appointed by a D POTUS.

Hmmmmmmmmm…

If they do appeal and this judge’s ruling is overturned, would you then consider this judge to be an activist?

How many times does this make? :thinking:

“Now, this is what you need to understand, a president must be able to have legal advice. Must be able to have legal advice without Congress interfering,” Levin said. “Whether it’s an impeachment proceeding or any other proceeding. Otherwise, there’s no balance of power because the House of Representatives, unless there’s a criminal investigation, is not subject to any subpoenas.”

“If a president can’t turn to a lawyer for legal advice, then it’s a disaster,” Levin added, saying the ruling would be appealed.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ truth for anyone with open ears and an open mind ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

USSC will overturn this. No biggie.

Given that the judge’s ruling was in line with prior precedents, a ruling at the Supreme Court to extend the reach of Executive Privilege would be an act of Judicial Activism. The point of McConnell’s hyper-partisan Supreme Court has been to create a platform for conservative Judicial Activism in the mode of Antonin Scalia.

It may be cloaked behind an ideology of strict interpretation of the Constitution, but we should assess judges by what they do, not by what they say.