Trump tells ex-White House counsel McGahn not to appear before Congress

[webfact]

Trump tells ex-White House counsel McGahn not to appear before Congress

By Sarah N. Lynch, David Morgan and Steve Holland

 

FILE PHOTO: White House counsel Don Mcgahn listens to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testify before a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., September 27, 2018. REUTERS/Jim Bourg

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday told former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a subpoena to testify before Congress about the Russia investigation, deepening his fight with Democratic lawmakers.

 

McGahn would "respect the President's instruction" and not testify, his lawyer said later, in a letter sent to the head of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

 

The committee is investigating whether Trump illegally obstructed the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. It wants to quiz McGahn after he figured prominently in a report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller about the Russia probe and whether Trump committed obstruction of justice.

 

But in a letter to the committee, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said McGahn should not appear due to both "constitutional immunity" and "in order to protect the prerogatives of the Office of the Presidency."

 

The committee's Democratic chairman, Jerrold Nadler, responded by saying Trump was trying to block damaging testimony about his obstruction of justice.

 

"The President acted again and again - perhaps criminally - to protect himself from federal law enforcement. Don McGahn personally witnessed the most egregious of these acts. President Trumpknows this. He clearly does not want the American people to hear firsthand about his alleged misconduct," Nadler said in a statement.

 

He said his committee would meet on Tuesday morning and expected McGahn to show up and testify.

 

Another Democrat on the committee, David Cicilline, warned that if McGahn stays away on Tuesday, lawmakers might need to push ahead with an impeachment inquiry against Trump in order to compel his administration to produce witnesses and documents.

 

"There are a number of colleagues who have suggested that if Mr. McGahn doesn't appear tomorrow and answer questions that it's an appropriate time to open an impeachment inquiry," Cicilline told reporters.

 

He said an inquiry would begin the process to determine whether or not articles of impeachment should be voted on.

 

In his report, Mueller cited McGahn as saying that Trump called him several times in June 2017 to tell him to direct the Justice Department to remove Mueller because of conflicts of interest.

 

McGahn did not carry out Trump's order. Later, when news articles about the incident surfaced, McGahn told Mueller's investigators that Trump tried to get him to dispute the accuracy of the reports. McGahn again refused.

 

OBSTRUCTION?

Many Democratic lawmakers, as well as many former prosecutors not involved in the investigation, have said the alleged order by the president to fire Mueller and attempt to coerce McGahn to lie about it could amount to committing the crime of obstruction.

 

Trump has denied any wrongdoing and said he did not ask McGahn to have Mueller removed.

 

Mueller's report described numerous links between Trump's 2016 campaign and various Russians but did not find sufficient evidence to establish there was a criminal conspiracy with Moscow.

 

Mueller also described numerous attempts by Trump to impede the investigation, but stopped short of declaring the president had committed a crime.

 

Attorney General William Barr determined after reviewing Mueller's findings that there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal obstruction charges against the president.

 

Nadler's committee has been locked in multiple battles with the Trump administration over access to information contained in the Mueller report.

 

Trump said following the release of the report in March that it showed he was exonerated of colluding with Russia and obstruction of justice.

 

He has hardened his administration's position of defying the legal demands of Democrats in Congress, who want more information on the Russia investigation and Trump's taxes and business dealings.

 

Earlier this month, the committee voted to hold Barr in contempt after he defied a subpoena seeking an unredacted copy of the Mueller report and its underlying investigative materials.

 

Nadler also issued a subpoena last month compelling McGahn to testify on Tuesday, and he has previously said he would hold the attorney in contempt if he did not show up.

 

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion on Monday that gave legal cover to the decision to block McGahn from testifying.

 

"Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to testify about their official duties," Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel wrote.

 

(Reporting by Steve Holland, Sarah N. Lynch, David Morgan and Tim Ahmann; writing by Mohammad Zargham; editing by Cynthia Osterman and Rosalba O'Brien)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-05-21

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[attrayant]

McGahn is a private citizen and I believe a partner at a prestigious law firm.  How is that going to be viewed by the ABA and the firm's clients if he refuses a subpoena?  Not too good, I'm guessing.

 

8 minutes ago, webfact said:

But in a letter to the committee, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said McGahn should not appear due to both "constitutional immunity" and "in order to protect the prerogatives of the Office of the Presidency."

 

This is the same reasoning used by Nixon to block the release of the Watergate tapes.  In Trump's own words:

 

 

In other words, "But what about future crooked presidents?  Who will protect them?"

 

[Aj Mick]

The claimed most open and transparent US president ever, is the by far biggest liar to hold the office, with the most to hide.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Aj Mick

[quandow]

THIS is the kind of behavior that brought Nixon down.

 

One more time - Honest men have nothing to hide.

[ThreeEyedRaven]

23 minutes ago, webfact said:

the alleged order by the president to fire Mueller and attempt to coerce McGahn to lie about it could amount to committing the crime of obstruction.

Whatever may or may not be in the Mueller report the obstruction continues. Ordering someone not to testify to congress, is in itself obstructing their investigation. Trump has got away with it for so long, he must think he is bullet proof. I wonder how many more peoples careers he will ruin trying to avoid the truth, a subject which of course he has very little association with.

[attrayant]

After having looked over the brand-new policy that the Office of Legal Counsel is relying on for this decision, I can't find one single supporting court decision that supports it.  You'd think if there were any they'd surely have cited them in the memo.

 

[Edit] I just found one court decision mentioned on page 9:

 

 

"...presidential advisers were not entitled to absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony..."

 

Well that's not good.  The only relevant court decision OLC could find, and it makes the case against the OLC!

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by attrayant

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, quandow said:

THIS is the kind of behavior that brought Nixon down.

 

One more time - Honest men have nothing to hide.

 

Nor do Honest Women!

[Baerboxer]

OK - There was no collusion with Russia.

 

So, let's try and get him for obstruction.

 

If that fails, we've always got his tax records and financial records to try and find something.

 

If all else fails we could just declare him a bad person; or maybe check the color of his socks?

 

Desperate Democrats - spiteful, vengeful but will squeal like stuck pigs when one of theirs is put under the spot light. And surely, that time is coming!

[helpisgood]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

After having looked over the brand-new policy that the Office of Legal Counsel is relying on for this decision, I can't find one single supporting court decision that supports it.  You'd think if there were any they'd surely have cited them in the memo.

 

[Edit] I just found one court decision mentioned on page 9:

 

 

"...presidential advisers were not entitled to absolute immunity from compelled congressional testimony..."

 

Well that's not good.  The only relevant court decision OLC could find, and it makes the case against the OLC!

 

 

 

 

Great research, Counsel!

 

I found the text of that recent OLC opinion on their website.  To be honest, I lack your time and/or energy to read the entire text.  I relied on the intro paragraphs and the conclusion.  So, I admire your stamina!

 

Just FYI, they have your cited quote on page twelve on their site, but maybe you were using a different website than me.  No big deal, but just in case someone else wants to check it out, here's the link I have used:

 

https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1164186/download

 

I agree with everything you have written.  Great work in pointing out that case! 

 

I'd like to add something extra that risks making me appear cynical.  As you know, the Office of Legal Counsel falls within Barr's Dept. of Justice.  As you may also know, law students are taught to argue "both sides of the law," i.e., effectively argue both for and against an issue.

 

I have a funny feeling that the attorneys involved in drafting and editing this more recent OLC opinion like their jobs and would like to get a favorable job review when that time arrives.  Thus, it does not surprise me that this new OLC opinion just happens to be argued in a way that makes the boss(es) happy.  

 

Yes, Mueller followed that older OLC opinion in his report about not being able to criminally indict a sitting president.  However, Mueller was a Dept. of Justice employee.  A court may give the OLC opinions some "persuasive" value.  However, neither the older nor the newer OLC opinions have to be followed by a court.  The courts can simply say that counsel's opinion is interesting; but, we are the courts, we make the rulings and we do not have to follow your opinions.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by helpisgood

[rudi49jr]

To paraphrase the title of a Supertramp album from the 70’s: ‘Obstruction? What Obstruction?’

[mtls2005]

Not seeing why he can't show up?

 

Then take the fifth, or decline to answer on some vague grounds, or answer, on a question by question basis.

 

He already sat with the Special Counsel for 30 hours.

 

His name is all over Volume 2 of the Mueller Report. Seems like Congress has the right, authority and obligation to question McGahn. I mean if trump has nothing to hide what's the problem here? Ah yes, they're worried about "protecting future Presidents"

 

Other than bad optics, think John Dean June 1973, what's the dealio with shucking a subpoena?

 

Maybe he's worried about being arrested by the Sergeant at Arms?

 

This seems like Obstruction of Justice, in super slo mo.

 

Don Jr. can't testify because? He's tired.

 

Obviously, Jared, Ivanka and Stephen M can invoke the same privilege.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by mtls2005

[legend49]

Why have rule of law? Trump cant follow it.

[toenail]

Watch out “Thaivisa” forum readers- many American cult-Trump members will comment on this forum how “great”  their narcissistic, ignorant, racist savior is. 

 

[Pedrogaz]

Isn't telling someone to refuse a subpoena obstruction of justice?

Not only that, Trump is putting McGahn in legal jeopardy, essentially telling him to ignore the subpoena therefore potentially incurring a contempt charge.

It doesn't;t sound legal on the surface.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Been down this road before.... over Congressional subpoenas, redacted transcripts, obstruction of justice and notions of an imperial presidency.

 

One difference in the Nixon case that he lost before the U.S. Supreme Court was that the subpoena in that case was from a court in connection with a Watergate criminal prosecution, not from Congress. Hence the murkier grounds when the obstructed subpoena is coming from Congress.

 

Quote

Following a subpoena from the Judiciary Committee, in April 1974 edited transcripts of many Watergate-related conversations from the Nixon White House tapes were made public by Nixon, but the committee pressed for full tapes and additional conversations. Nixon refused, but on July 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered him to comply.

On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon, for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress, and reported those articles to the House of Representatives. Two other articles of impeachment were debated but not approved.

Before the House could vote on the impeachment resolutions, Nixon made public one of the additional conversations, known as the "Smoking Gun Tape", which made clear his complicity in the cover-up. With his political support completely eroded, Nixon resigned from office on August 9, 1974. It is widely believed that had Nixon not resigned, his impeachment by the House and removal from office by a trial before the United States Senate would have occurred.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[helpisgood]

33 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Isn't telling someone to refuse a subpoena obstruction of justice?

Not only that, Trump is putting McGahn in legal jeopardy, essentially telling him to ignore the subpoena therefore potentially incurring a contempt charge.

It doesn't;t sound legal on the surface.

Great question! 

 

For federal courts, there is Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It provides, among other things, how a subpoena may be quashed (not "squashed," but basically the same idea, viz., render it ineffective.)  If you want, here's a link to that courtesy of Cornell Law School, but I warn you that it is dry as heck and long:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45

 

However, I think you are implying that the people involved appear to be acting in bad faith regarding the subpoena.  I do not know how that works, and how difficult it may be to prove such an intent.  They can just say that they were recommending a motion to quash any such subpoenas.

 

As a practical matter, and speaking personally, I sympathize with your feelings about it.  I think normally it is just better not to "f" around with it and just comply, unless the subpoena does reasonably appear flawed or there's some very compelling reasons not to comply, say, just for example, exposing one's self to one or more charges of obstruction of justice.

Edited May 21, 2019 by helpisgood

[kamahele]

In the end, it is McGahan's decision to testify or not and he will have to live with that decision for the rest of his professional life.

[Emdog]

1 hour ago, legend49 said:

Why have rule of law? Trump cant follow it.

Trump won't even follow the rules of golf....

[Sir Swagman]

It would seem the dems are, or up until now have been, playing politics with this. The risk that trump can, and undoubtedly will, play the ‘victim’ card if impeachment proceedings are launched would seem to be the only staying of their hand. However, if this investigation is as neccesary as claimed and part of the duty of oversight as the constitution describes (even more so now, with the complete blocking of access to evidence being attempted by the WH) there is no choice but to go down that path and have it all laid bare. With Nixon there was a gradual coming aboard of his party faithful with the impeachment. The evidence gave little option but for them to acknowledge the abuse of powers demonstrated. I doubt this would prove different in that regard.

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

OK - There was no collusion with Russia.

 

So, let's try and get him for obstruction.

 

If that fails, we've always got his tax records and financial records to try and find something.

 

If all else fails we could just declare him a bad person; or maybe check the color of his socks?

 

Desperate Democrats - spiteful, vengeful but will squeal like stuck pigs when one of theirs is put under the spot light. And surely, that time is coming!

Must be an eye opener for you, there is apparently so much they could get him for. No need to check if he is a bad person he proves it every time he tweets or opens his big mouth, your favourat president, oh dear.

[Thingamabob]

Come on Dems, get off this and come up with some policies we can vote for next year.

[Jingthing]

Come on Dems, get off this and come up with some policies we can vote for next year.

Cheap repetitive diversion from the topic.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Waterloo]

Talking as an outsider I don't see the Democrats have a choice anymore, win or lose the impeachment process the level of obstruction is staggering and history is watching.

If they don't impeach they will be found wanting. 

[allen303]

Looks like some of you will have to claim TDS as a preexisting condition based on the article below. I would keep that in mind if you have to apply for insurance here in Thailand! I am sure some med company will come up with something for this and make a little money!

 

 

Trump derangement syndrome, or TDS, is the anger, confusion, and mania exhibited by some in the left over the fact that Donald Trump is president. Even the esteemed mental health journal Psychology Today weighed in on the syndrome.

While the author, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Canada’s McGill University, acknowledged that the syndrome isn’t officially recognized, he did point out that it has been widely observed:

“Many have argued that some people have been seriously disturbed and distressed by the policies, speech, behavior and tweets of President Trump, so much so that it has affected their cognitive, affective and behavioral functioning. Such people may need mental health support.”

 

Edited May 21, 2019 by allen303

[spidermike007]

It is becoming increasingly obvious, by this historic level of obstruction of the will of the duly elected American congress, that Trump has alot to hide. He has more skeletons in his closet, than a Papuan Highlander cannibal. He is as guilty as they come. He is a criminal, a liar, and a thief. More than likely he is a felon (simply not a convicted one) and had stolen billions from hard working American contractors, buyers of his properties that were never built, and his creditors. Personally, I would not trust him with a $10 loan. No doubt he would default. That is just what he does.  

[toenail]

Must be an eye opener for you, there is apparently so much they could get him for. No need to check if he is a bad person he proves it every time he tweets or opens his big mouth, your favourat president, oh dear.

The only reason for devote Trump supporters is because deep inside their souls they are racists and bullies just like their leader. Not true patriots or believe USA is a melting pot for all nationalities, colors, & people of different faiths. (Certainly they cannot support Trump’s intelligence.)


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing]

Talking as an outsider I don't see the Democrats have a choice anymore, win or lose the impeachment process the level of obstruction is staggering and history is watching.
If they don't impeach they will be found wanting. 

That's how I see it too. If this so deserving of impeachment current president isn't impeached may as well take the impeachment power away from congress.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Chomper Higgot]

A President telling people not to

obey Congressional subpoenas, no way can that be permitted to stand.

 

Either win a fight over the subpoena in court or obey the subpoena.

 

Trump is not only setting himself above the Constitutional checks and balances, he’s setting up every President that comes after him to ignore Congress.

 

This must be stopped.

Edited May 21, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Tug]

1 hour ago, allen303 said:

Looks like some of you will have to claim TDS as a preexisting condition based on the article below. I would keep that in mind if you have to apply for insurance here in Thailand! I am sure some med company will come up with something for this and make a little money!

 

 

Trump derangement syndrome, or TDS, is the anger, confusion, and mania exhibited by some in the left over the fact that Donald Trump is president. Even the esteemed mental health journal Psychology Today weighed in on the syndrome.

While the author, an assistant professor in the department of psychiatry at Canada’s McGill University, acknowledged that the syndrome isn’t officially recognized, he did point out that it has been widely observed:

“Many have argued that some people have been seriously disturbed and distressed by the policies, speech, behavior and tweets of President Trump, so much so that it has affected their cognitive, affective and behavioral functioning. Such people may need mental health support.”

 

TDS trump delusion syndrome.     Believing anything he says total denial when the facts stare them in the face in the future will be used to define a mark the house needs to jail a view of thease scofflaws then they will make some headway 

[Yellowtail]

54 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's how I see it too. If this so deserving of impeachment current president isn't impeached may as well take the impeachment power away from congress.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

So why do the dems not impeach him?