The decision in the McGahn case means that impeachment witnesses like Rick Perry, et al must testify

[ffr]

Jerry Nadler - The decision in the McGahn case means that impeachment witnesses like Rick Perry, John Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney will have to testify.

I am pleased the court has recognized that the Trump Administration has no grounds to withhold critical witness testimony from the House during its impeachment inquiry. Don McGahn is a central witness to allegations that President Trump obstructed Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation, and the Administration’s claim that officials can claim ‘absolute immunity’ from Congressional subpoenas has no basis in law, as the court recognized today.

“Now that the court has ruled, I expect him to follow his legal obligations and promptly appear before the Committee.”
The decision in the McGahn case means that impeachment witnesses like Rick Perry, John Bolton, and Mick Mulvaney will have to testify. - PoliticusUSA

[CincyDem]

1. This will climb the courts before that "must testify" becomes a reality.

I suspect the House will NOT file against Perry, Pompeo et al so as to avoid creating a contradictory ruling from a different judge. The likelihood of getting Judge Berman-Jackson is low and another judge may rule the other way and provide an equally compelling counter narrative for the Appellate (as insane at that sounds). Imagine this case getting in front of one of Trump's "fully unqualified" recent appointments. They're so unqualified they wouldn't even realize they should recuse.

I like the idea of running this up the flagpole as the sole case and letting SCOTUS (particularly the Alito/Thomas/Gorsuch/Kegger wing) try to counter Berman-Jackson's argument. My prediction is that Roberts will side with her. At that point, then we can conclude the "must testify".

But of course, when it comes to predicting the future, I limit myself to things like predicting the Ravens will beat the Rams tonight. (as we sit here at 45-6).

[msongs]

2. trumps get out of jail free gang on scotus will save him nt

[CincyDem]

3. I don't think so...they've got to get Roberts.

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2019, 02:13 AM - Edit history (1)

IMHO, Brown-Jackson's 120 page opinion is written squarely to him and him alone. She could have done this in 10 pages, including the administrative background. Instead she taught a history lesson going all the way back to the Revolution and its impetus. She's using the language of legacy and challanging the "Roberts Court" to be the one that upends 250 years of precedent and effectively coronating Trump.

I don't think he'll do it. (and I pray that I'm right).

[BigmanPigman]

4. I am with you 51%, believing Roberts may heed the warning.

[CincyDem]

5. 51% you say !!!

Well...I'll take it...it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

[BigmanPigman]

11. I just don't trust any GOP at this point in time.

From what I have learned about him lately I am somewhat optimistic. Also, my gut is steering me in this direction. My gut and brain told be tRump would win after "the golden escalator entrance" (ask my family and friends about my prediction). I hope I am right this time too.

[StarfishSaver]

7. Yep!

[Volaris]

10. I dont think he will either. If nothing else, Chief Roberts will give the Courts Power..

.. over to the 'MegaCorps'(that's a Shadowrun reference) before he EVER gives it up to a lunatic executive like trump..

And he will yank Kavs very short leash to make that real if he has to.
Someone here earlier posted the sentiment that the ghost of Tamey haunts Robert's office, and I think that's correct AND the Chief is AWARE of that fact.

YMMV

[Qutzupalotl]

6. I am somewhat more optimistic than Bigman,

in that I am fairly certain Roberts will uphold today’s decision.

Roberts is a very conservative justice, but that does not make him automatically anti-Democrat or reflexively vote against what we hope will happen — that’s what congressional Republicans are for!

A conservative justice is one who adheres strictly to the Constitution despite any adverse consequences. While in no sense a liberal, Roberts can be considered a swing vote on issues of separation of powers, in contrast to the rabid ideologues, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas.

The judge’s decision leaves no room to argue against it on constitutional grounds.

[ancianita]

8. +1

[ancianita]

9. I think they have to respect the subpoena and show up, but they might not testify. If they

choose to testify it might not be any more than yes/no answers, or they might take the 5th.

They'll show up, but the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth won't likely show up with them.

[malaise]

12. Yes indeed

K & R

[duforsure]

13. Rick perry will face prison

Because he's so stupid, and will lie, and he will be exposed and made an example of for others to see what'll happen to them if they lie. He also may decide to talk wanting to protect himself from going away.

[DeminPennswoods]

14. According to Barbara McQuade on MSNBC

last night, this ruling only applies to McGahn. It can't be used to compel other witnesses who are still complying with WH directive not to testify. However, the decision might be enough cover for "willing, but reluctant" witnesses like Bolton or Annie Donaldson to testify.