Trump wins appeal to block McGahn testimony

[Dennis Donovan]

Last edited Fri Feb 28, 2020, 07:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Politico

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN

02/28/2020 04:40 PM EST

Updated: 02/28/2020 05:35 PM EST

President Donald Trump scored a major legal victory on Friday when a federal appeals court panel ruled Democrats have no right to hear testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion overturned a lower court decision requiring McGahn’s testimony and told the judge presiding over the case to dismiss it outright. The ruling is a blow to House Democrats’ attempts to break the Trump administration’s intransigent stance that it can block Congress from talking to witnesses. McGahn was a key source of information for Robert Mueller and Democrats have been angling to secure an interview to find out what he told the special counsel.

The 2-1 ruling comes a little more than three weeks after Trump was acquitted in the Senate on largely unrelated impeachment charges involving his posture toward Ukraine. It’s also not necessarily final. Democrats are expected to appeal, and the case could face a fast-track Supreme Court review.

The opinion, written by GOP appointee Thomas Griffith, goes to the heart of long-running battles over the power balance between Congress and the White House that have played out during Trump’s tenure.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/28/trump-wins-appeal-to-block-mcgahn-testimony-118219

---

Son of a bitch...

[RKP5637]

1. Fuck! One more point for the orange dictator. n/t

[usaf-vet]

29. BUT he now has to deal with Covid-19. No court is going to rule in his favor. The AG is powerless.

[jimfields33]

2. DC court too

That’s a shocker. I wonder if they are protecting future presidents with executive privilege. Yes I know trump never called on it, but judges also realizes that trump is absolutely dumb.

[Perseus]

7. Hmm, protect future presidents or protect the country, very difficult choice isn't it?

The level of treason found around government and the courts is amazing.

[Mike 03]

3. It sure seems like we are losing a lot of cases that experts said

were "slam dunks" that would go our way.

[Kid Berwyn]

32. Odd, how wrong they've been.

And how wrong the side they support is.

[sakabatou]

4. Goddammit

[rurallib]

5. McConnell's court strategy must be paying off

the courts are now so stacked in Trump's favor can we get an independent decision?

[OliverQ]

8. The two judges that ruled against this were appointed by Reagan and Bush.

So it's a Republican decision, but not directly due to McConnell's court packing.

[The_Counsel]

6. Didn't This Court Flip Recently?

While the Senate has been ignoring House bills, they've confirmed about a bajillion Trump federal judge nominations. We're seeing why now.

If you ask me, this is the best argument yet for term limits in the judicial branch...

[Calista241]

11. Trump has only 2 appointments to the DC Circuit, and neither of them

Participated in this case.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. No - Obama filled the vacancies on this court.

When he left it was 7 (D) - 4(R) - https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit

(that was his priority when Harry Reid executed the nuclear option)

This was just a 3-judge decision. Am wondering if they can request en banc?

[ewagner]

19. That's my question also...

en bank is likely to yield an entirely different decision

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Yup.

[onenote]

35. I believe it takes a majority of the active judges to order a rehearing en banc.

There are 11 active judges on the DC Circuit: 7 appointed by Obama and Clinton, 1 by GHW Bush, 1 by GW Bush, and 2 by Trump.

So, it would take six of the 7 Obama/Clinton appointees to support rehearing en banc.

The federal rules of appellate procedure state that:
"An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or
(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance."

I would hope that there are at least six members of the court that are of the view that this case involves a question of exceptional importance.

Because it does.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Agree about "exceptional importance"

because the ruling as it stands at this court level basically negates Congress' role in oversight and anyone in the Executive could now point to this as a precedent and claim they don't have to comply to a lawful Congressional subpoena.

[karin_sj]

9. And this is why Mitch and his ilk are packing the courts...

.. at breakneck speed

[budkin]

10. Recently flipped court pays off for Mr. Orange.

Doesn't matter though, the SCOTUS would have overturned it anyway. That's what really matters.

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Not flipped. This was just a 3-judge decision. Not the full court.

[onenote]

16. The DC Circuit has not been "flipped". The balance is unchanged.

The make up of the Court is 4 Obama appointees, 3 Clinton appointees, 1 GHW Bush, 1 GW Bush, 2 Trump. The two Trump appointees replaced two GW Bush appointees, including Kavanaugh, so his appointees didn't change the balance of the court.

And in this particular case, none of the three judges were Trump appointees.

[kentuck]

14. Can it be appealed?

Then, they should do so.

[OliverQ]

17. Yes. It can be appealed to the full DC Court

and the Supreme Court.

[Evolve Dammit]

15. Party at 1600. Bring a public servant to flog, and let the good times roll.

[sarcasmo]

18. The court system will never hold Trump accountable, November is our only hope.

[MyOwnPeace]

21. REALITY kicks in..................

We've been watching, waiting, and hoping for so much from different sectors of our government: judicial, legislative - hoping that someone would stand up and say "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
It has become apparent - only WE can do that.
Congress isn't gonna' help.
The Courts aren't gonna' help.
Only WE can fix this.
We MUST GET OUT THE VOTE!
We have no choice - no "fall-back" to count on.
We've been there too many times already in the past 3+ years.
Remember all of the "Mueller Ain't Going Away" shirts and hats? Where did THAT get us?
Remember the excitement of all of those "career professionals" that were there to testify to the House of Representatives? How did THAT work out?
Yes, there have been "victories" - small and not-too-frequent. No matter what we think and believe, this is all happening - and we are becoming less and less able to stop it!
We MUST GET OUT THE VOTE!

THAT is our strongest hope - our life-line - our way to return to sanity - our way to truly make America what we believe it should be - GREAT.

[EndlessWire]

31. I agree. n/t

[riversedge]

22. "refusal to enforce the House subpoena effectively gutted Congress's impeachment powers."

agree. damn


........The House then sued McGahn. Last November, it secured a victory when U.S. District Court Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson ruled McGahn couldn’t hide behind the Trump administration’s claim of “absolute immunity.”

The dissenting vote on the three-judge panel backing Jackson’s original ruling came from Judge Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton. She emphasized that the demand for McGahn’s testimony came during an impeachment inquiry, adding that her colleagues’ refusal to enforce the House subpoena effectively gutted Congress’s impeachment powers.

“In the context of impeachment, when the accuracy and thoroughness of the investigation may well determine whether the President remains in office, the House’s need for information is at its zenith,” Rogers wrote.
MOST READ
Rosa DeLauro

Republicans storm out of coronavirus briefing after Democrat rips Trump's response
GOP scramble is on to succeed Donald Trump in 2024
55 Things You Need to Know About Bernie Sanders
Senate Intel chair privately warned that GOP's Biden probe could help Russia
Trump complains Democrats are blaming him for coronavirus



In his majority opinion, Griffith conceded that in some situations, possibly including the current dispute over McGahn’s testimony, cutting off lawmakers’ ability to appeal to the courts will mean Congress does not get the testimony it is seeking.

“Sometimes, those tools will yield fewer concessions than Congress might wish, but the remedy for that perceived wrong is in politics or at the ballot box,” the judge wrote.

However, Rogers warned that turning lawmakers away from the courts could goad Congress into more extreme enforcement measures, potentially including use of the long-dormant “inherent contempt” powers to physically detain recalcitrant witnesses.

“It suffices here to note that the prospect that the House will direct its Sergeant at Arms to arrest McGahn is vanishingly slim, so long as a more peaceable judicial alternative remains available,” she wrote.

[SergeStorms]

23. This is what happens when you stack the courts...

with GOP loyalists. One step closer to fascism.

[czarjak]

24. This incursion will not stand forever

[turbinetree]

25. And these quotes from this "judge"...........Thomas Griffith...............Federalist Society......

"The news is staged, anticipated, reported, analyzed until all interest is wrung from it and abandoned for some new novelty."

"Its attitude, which it has preached and practiced, is skepticism. Now, it finds, the public is applying that skepticism to the press."

"Journalism is in fact history on the run".

Well dude when someone has quotes like yours........................no wonder people have the shit we have in this country.........................

What do you think of the Constitution..................maybe you and the AG Barr another member of Federalist Society can go and have a beer and talk about Unitarian executive power......................... maybe you can talk about how to expand the libertarian federalist society BS.................................after all the news is staged....................


I think Nancy MacLean nailed the Federalist Society group ...................in her book.....................


https://www.bookdepository.com/Democracy-Chains-Nancy-MacLean/9781911344681

[Karadeniz]

26. I really can't believe this. How is Congress supposed to do oversight.

[SunSeeker]

28. Cut money or have the Sergeant at Arms arrest noncompliants, as suggested by the Court of Appeal.

They need to play hardball using all their powers. Courts are too slow a remedy anyway.

[Kurt V.]

27. this is what happens when a body doesn't use its own full powers.

[SunSeeker]

30. Yep. nt

[Firestorm49]

33. So, I guess that invalidates totally legally issued subpoenas for once and for all.

Just another Republican breakdown of the rule of law. And yet, nothing, it seems, will come of it. Marvelous!

If by some quirk of democracy we can vote what’s his name out of office, I hope Republicans remember just what it is that they’ve created, because this utter mess can work both ways. Republicans, however, don’t seem to be too concerned. I believe that they feel that it’s their show from now on, so what’s the worry.

This “election” will be a doozy. I get surveys asking who would be my choice as president, and honestly, have no answer. At a time when we desperately need a John F. Kennedy, we, as a party, are faced with some difficult choices as to whom we believe can defeat(?) what’s his name.

Looking back at the fact that an absolute fool with less than grade school intelligence managed to get elected, I guess we should be prepared to expect the unexpected. That is, of course, if we actually have a fair, non-rigged election. And, if we do win, prepare for the fool to act again like a child and call for civil unrest.

[Grasswire2]

34. BUT WAIT...........

No court authority to allow Congressional subpoenas means....

No court authority to stop them.

Congress is free to use its inherent power of contempt, to jail those who refuse to comply.

Court has admitted it has no power to stop that.

[Progressive Jones]

37. The cover up continues. nt