Back-to-back court hearings could set tone for impeachment inquiry
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by JudyM (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: CNN
Washington (CNN)Two federal judges in a Washington courthouse that stands between the US Capitol and the White House will consider on Thursday afternoon whether they can force witnesses close to President Donald Trump to testify in the House's impeachment inquiry. As the House votes on its rules for the impeachment effort, the back-to-back hearings could be the deciding factor in how much evidence Democrats are able to gather.
The first, about former White House counsel Don McGahn's refusal to testify this spring, will be a meaty, legally complicated argument about executive privilege that could last hours.
The second hearing, about former National Security official Charles Kupperman not appearing for his subpoenaed testimony on Monday, could set the tone for how fast the court system may move on major impeachment-related questions. Both are central to the House's impeachment efforts and are part of the most significant clashes between the branches of government in years.
The White House has sought to limit the ability of witnesses to testify, citing executive privilege. Should that defense be shattered, it could open the floodgates to Trump officials and associates forced to appear before lawmakers. And the ability -- or desire -- of judges to act swiftly may determine whether the courts play a significant role as referee in the impeachment fight, or, if they dally, have little influence at all.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/impeachment-court-hearings-mcgahn-kupperman/index.html
Per the OP article, the case with McGahn will be at 2 pm in front of a judge appointed by Obama (Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson). The Kupperman case will be at 4 pm in front of a judge appointed by Shrub (Judge Richard Leon).
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)federal court is going to block their power, and if they do, we are in real trouble as a country
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)The issue would revolve around the "executive privilege" thing.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)The House defines the crime under impeachment process and does not have to be criminal or civil to be impeached
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)but that won't stop the other side form arguing that kind of nonsense and hope they can prevail with the roll-of-the-dice whim of Roberts.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)some people don;t care about legacy, I don't think Roberts is one of those.
Besides, the SC doesn't have to take this up, they can just say its already been decided
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)And technically they should refuse it. But then we saw what was done with the Voting Rights Act from him too, so some things are roll-of-the-dice where he will pick his battles it seems.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)Please post analysis OPs in GD, to follow LBN posting rules:
Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.
Please note: this includes OPs about anticipated impeachment testimony. News isnt news for LBN posting purposes until it actually happens, per the admins. Thanks.