White House plans to fight House subpoena of former counsel Donald McGahn for testimony

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: Washington Post



The White House plans to fight a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee for former White House counsel Donald McGahn to testify, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up another showdown in the aftermath of the special counsel report.

The Trump administration also plans to oppose other requests from House committees for the testimony of current and former aides about actions in the White House described in special counsel Robert S. Mueller III's report, according to two people familiar with internal thinking.

White House lawyers plan to tell attorneys for administration witnesses called by the House that they will be asserting executive privilege over their testimony, officials said. Such a move will intensify an ongoing power struggle between the Trump administration and congressional Democrats, potentially setting up a protracted court battle.

McGahn was mentioned more than 150 times in Mueller's report and provided damaging accounts to investigators about how the president pressured him to oust the special counsel and then pushed him to publicly deny the episode. McGahn's lawyer, William Burck, began discussions with the House Judiciary Committee about his potential testimony after the panel issued a subpoena Monday, according to people familiar with the matter. Securing McGahn's testimony would be a boon for the Judiciary Committee, which hopes to focus on potential obstruction of justice by Trump in a series of public hearings this spring while exploring other "abuses of power," Democratic aides said.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/white-house-plans-to-fight-house-subpoena-of-former-counsel-donald-mcgahn-for-testimony-on-mueller-report/2019/04/23/2d48732a-65f1-11e9-83df-04f4d124151f_story.html

---

Full title: White House plans to fight House subpoena of former counsel Donald McGahn for testimony on Mueller report

[oldsoftie]

1. I'm no lawyer, but i dont think executive privilege covers illegal acts

So while McGahn may assert it about conversations with trump about maybe doing a prison commutation, it wouldnt cover discussions about illegally firing someone. But what do i know!!

[BumRushDaShow]

2. It may end up in the courts

because I think Nixon had that issue of "executive privilege" regarding the infamous tapes and the rest is history.

This year will be the 45th anniversary of United States vs Nixon - (article from last year) https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/anniversary-of-united-states-v-nixon

[dem4decades]

3. I thought McGahn had already waved executive privilege. If he had it anyway.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. I think it is only the President that has such

and one of the arguments that Cummings made early on was that when the initial requests went out for testimony, no one contacted the Committee to assert Executive Privilege.

Apparently someone has been talking to *ahem* a certain someone about what the "process" is and thus the about face.

[Arazi]

8. He's provided public testimony on his convos w #Traitor to Mueller

Hard to now say it's privileged. Pretty sure the courts will also think this isn't privileged either

[machoneman]

11. But, if McGahn wants to testify, I don't think EP can PREVENT him from appearing and testifying.

He may want to keep his name clear by wanting to testify.

[forgotmylogin]

18. This is exactly how someone who was "completely exonerated" behaves!

[Mc Mike]

4. They're the law and order party.

[Firestorm49]

6. Staggering paranoia! "I've got nothing to hide." - my ass!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. tRump fighting scorched earth rearguard actions that won't win the war even if win battle or two.

They only hope they can push enough stuff past Nov 2020 to win the election w Russian help.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212041731

From Mueller report: infiltration of state boards of elections, secretaries of state, county gov'ts
Mueller Concedes Special Counsel Never Analyzed 2016 Vote Computers or Results for Manipulation: 'BradCast' 4/22/2019
Finds Russians implanted malware, but didn't check if results affected

http://bradblog.com/?p=12965

SNIP
As the Special Counsel's report reveals (Vol. 1, pages 51-52, in the section entitled "Intrusions Targeting the Administration of U.S. Elections" ) , Russian intelligence operatives at the GRU targeted and infiltrated "individuals and entities involved in the administration of the [2016] elections. U.S. state and local entities, such as state boards of elections, secretaries of state, and county governments, as well as individuals who worked for those entities. The GRU also targeted private technology firms responsible for manufacturing and administering election-related software and hardware, such as voter registration software and electronic polling stations."

In other words, voter registration databases AND voting systems, such as voting machines and tabulators. Mueller's report goes on to concede that though the GRU was successful in implanting malware on a number of the targeted computers, "the [Special Counsel's] Office did not investigate further [and] did not, for instance, obtain or examine servers or other relevant items belonging to these victims." Instead, as Mueller writes, "The Office understands that the FBI, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the states have separately investigated that activity".

Only problem with that? As we have reported repeatedly over the past two years, Jeanette Manfra, the top DHS official in charge of overseeing cyber-intrusions of critical infrastructure such as voting and tabulation systems, conceded during a June 2017 Senate Intelligence Committee hearing to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) that her department had not, in fact, conducted any forensic analyses of computer voting and tabulation systems or servers following the 2016 Presidential election. We play a clip from her Senate testimony to that end.
SNIP

Can listen to whole Bradblog podcast here: http://bradblog.com/audio/BradCast_BradFriedman_EarthDayAOCFuture_MuellerNeverCheckedVotingSystems_Callers_042219.mp3

[bluestarone]

9. STALL STALL STALL

We see their tactics loud and clear!

[PeeJ52]

10. This is why I hate giving them weeks to comply with the subpoena. They may as well make it...

for the next day or two knowing the White House is going to fight it. Now they will wait until May 21 to issue their denial, then it will take another month. Next thing you know it will be Labor Day recess, then Thanksgiving and Christmas.

[machoneman]

12. Yes! Exactly! No reason to delay! Let those subpeonas fly!

Better now than later, I say!

[Turbineguy]

13. They will delay and obfuscate at every turn.

Every day he stays in power is a small victory.

[Ford_Prefect]

14. Burning bridges every day. Nixon attempted the same rear guard action. He lost.

This is classic denial the same as if it were a lawsuit against a corporation. You deny and delay to gain legal wiggle room for a deal. That ain't happening this time.

[atreides1]

15. Nixon tried...

But he tried it with a judiciary that still believed in the rule of law...the current crew of judges, especially Gorsuch and the Raper, don't have the integrity of a pimp...and do not believe in the rule of law, unless a Democrat is the target!!!

[Ford_Prefect]

16. If it is a case that there is no previous testimony by the witness then privilege might apply. But

If I recall correctly the testimony was given and has been conveyed. The privilege no longer applies. Yes, It may take time. The longer it takes the closer the election gets. at some point Congressional Republicans will have to consider if they want to be caught out defending Trump when he does lose in court or when the really damaging info hits the fan. Some of them are not going to want to ride that one. as it is there are at least 3 Republicans who have said they plan to enter the primary. 2 of them have meaningful standing in the party, executive experience, and a very different view of the law than Trump. While they may not beat the party machinery they can argue that Trump is an awful choice to continue with by pointing out the damage he has done to the economy and international relations among other topics.

It was rather difficult when Nixon was there and it was the cover-up evidence that did for him, rather than the crimes under his watch. It took 15 months and the repeated exposure of executive malfeasance to drag Congress to the point of preparing to refer Impeachment articles to the Senate. Public opinion was widely divided and wildly manipulated. In the end the evidence was persuasive and Republicans did not want to defend Nixon in the face of it.

We have a very different set of forces today. However that doesn't mean it will not succeed. Nor does it mean he cannot be Impeached. The process could be long and ugly. The Ugly may work against the defendant in the long run. To some extent the law is clear and the Duty to Impeach is not something to ignore without consequence IMHO.

[Nitram]

17. Good luck with that! At some point the courts will have made all the decisions they can make and

they'll just refuse to take any more cases for the Trump administration.