Appeals court rules for U.S. House over subpoena for ex-White House lawyer

SNIP
A U.S. appeals court on Friday dealt the administration of President Donald Trump a major legal setback, ruling against its bid to block a Democratic-led congressional panel's subpoena for testimony from former White House Counsel Donald McGahn.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on a 7-2 vote said the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee had legal standing to seek to enforce the subpoena.
ENDSNIP

https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-rules-against-143937709.html

Finally.... wasn't sure why this obvious decision needed to take 3.5 months...

And this isn't a "major legal setback"... McGahn is still no closer to getting his shaggy-haired ass in a Congression hearing seat, but it's gonna happen eventually.

Reo takes it on the chin again... I wonder how many tissue-thin decisions she authors will be overruled when she's all done?

Victories like this still make it blatantly obvious our legal system was never meant to handle a fully corrupt and rogue administration.

Thoughts? (and yes, I fully expect some bright bulb will respond with "none"... you know who you are)

 

Trump has been fighting these subpoenas like crazy. Seems there is a lot to hide by him.

 

So the President of the United States can no longer have private confidential conversations with his legal counsel and that anyone in Congress can demand copies and or testimony about? Does the President get the same with the Speaker of the House and the Senate leaders and their private confidential conversations with their legal counsels and advisers?

 

Strawman... McGahn needs to testify about the details of what he already testified to to Bob Mueller... That way, the news that Trump attempted OOJ several times might just seep into more brains, although I'm not banking on it..

Whatever he says or doesn't say, he doesn't have the right to refuse a subpoena, especially now as a private citizen.

Worst case scenario and Trump wins in November, Impeachment #2 comes immediately after McGahn testifies...

 

He's fought McGahn the most, by far.... He allowed that munchkin Lewandowski to come plus his little dolly Hopey, but McGahn is on a totally different level... He was clearly the #1 witness to several of the most blatant items in the Mueller report...

 

He just has to refuse to comply or if he does comply he can refuse to answer anything that pertains to executive privilege. He can still tell them to go pound sand. This doesn't mean anything.

 

He can certainly attempt to claim Executive Privilege on a question-by-question basis once he's sworn in... But doubtful much is going to be allowed if it's questions based on what he already told Mueller..

All I really ask is that the D's let actual lawyers like Eisen and Berke question him.... Pretty Pretty please...

None of it really matters... The US legal system is irretrievably broken..... If the D's had any balls, they would make McGahn appearing as a prerequisite of the stimulus negotiations...

 

The SCOTUS has LONG recognized a constitutional executive privilege and separation of powers between the coequal branches. I expect it will here too.

 

So you think they should put partisan politics over Covid relief and economic stimulus..................yes I hope they do just that.

 

They didn't need to.... Mnuchin walked...

But certainly getting McGahn is more important than new curtains for the White House.... and a helluva lot cheaper...

 

So you want to make the stimulus more of a political football than a solution since McGahn has absolutely NOTHING to do with stimulus. Kinda right down Pelosi's alley. Good idea. Trump can use the votes. At this point it's about messaging and Pelosi has already started to screw up. She's about as coherent as Biden right now.

 

Please to explain how a new FBI building and White House renovations have anything to do with the "stimulus"??

 

Diversion is all you got? That's lame dude but we are used to it.

 

None.

 

Sorry, couldn't resist that last post.

You're right that its not a major setback. It will be appealed to SCOTUS more than likely.

You're also right that McGahn will end up testifying eventually. But 1: Enough time has passed that he could probably say "I don't remember" quite often. Ala Lois Lerner type thing. 2: Even if he shows up he doesn't have to answer all questions. He'll have his lawyers there and they'll tell him to claim executive privilege as a reason that he can't answer a question, that or "national security".

In the end it will be a worthless endeavor that will get the Dems no where.

 

Glad you support covering up witnesses... explains a lot...

John Dean had the McGahn role in the Nixon WH.... As I've read, he showed up and answered all questions put to him... because even though he was a lawyer, he saw the "cancer on the presidency". There's always the hope McGahn did too...

All of these rules will be tightened up completely after this next election... No more running to the courts every time there's a chance your Executive Branch illegality might come out.

 

Good to know you support putting words in peoples mouths that they never said or implied.

And those "rules" will not be tightened up. Gotta leave them for when Dems and Repubs need them. You know it, I know it. The Elite will never get rid of things that benefit them.

 

Just explaining that the D's need to add some pork to their version of the bill, like the GOP did... In this case, McGahn should be the pork...

If you cannot follow simple comparisons, I'm not sure what you are doing on here...

 

OK... Do you support Don McGahn appearing to the subpoena he was given by Congress?

Simple Y/N question.

Not talking about what he'll be allowed to answer, but must he appear?

Again, it's a Y/N question

Yes or No?

 

Your 2nd diversion to rationalize lame 1st diversion is noted.

 

Yes.

What? You expected a different answer? I just know it won't do a bit of good for what the Dems are wanting.

 

Mueller testified that he was not impeded by Trump. Why do you suppose Nadler wants McGahn to testify about Trump's actions to impede Mueller? Hint: it ain't rocket science

It might (or might not...) turn out that he has to accept the subpoena and appear as a witness at a congressional hearing. But he does not have to, and won't, -- private citizen or not -- say anything that falls under executive privilege which is likely to be 99% of his wished for testimony.

If the Dems keep the House, there will certainly be impeachment #2, with or without any McGahn testimony.

 

Mueller was a criminal investigation and before a secret grand jury not a partisan congress.

Try again
So the President of the United States can no longer have private confidential conversations with his legal counsel and that anyone in Congress can demand copies and or testimony about? Does the President get the same with the Speaker of the House and the Senate leaders and their private confidential conversations with their legal counsels and advisers?

 

What is it you expect him to testitfy to about a report which brought no criminal charges or wrongdoing on Trumps part?

 

The Dems refuse to negotiate once again. They once again put their partisan politicians above the country. So now the President will take matters into his own hands.