Vindication! Historic ruling on Don McGahn testimony BLOWS UP impeachment obstruction claim

 Vindication! Historic ruling on Don McGahn testimony BLOWS UP impeachment obstruction claim
(File photo: YouTube screenshot)

President Trump was handed a legal victory as a federal appeals court ruled that former White House counsel Don McGahn does not have to comply with a congressional subpoena.

The 2-1 ruling has legal experts on the left up in arms as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dealt a blow to House Democrats on Friday, deciding to dismiss the case amid concerns about the “role of judges.”

The court overturned a lower court decision in the US House of Representatives’ lawsuit that sought to force McGahn to testify in the Democrats’ probe into Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation. The majority opinion’s focus on the balance of power between branches of government effectively invalidated future  congressional subpoenas to the White House as Judge Thomas Griffith warned of the precedent that could be set.

“If we order McGahn to testify, what happens next? McGahn, compelled to appear, asserts executive privilege in response to the Committee’s questions,” the appointee of President George W. Bush wrote in the majority opinion.

“The Committee finds those assertions baseless,” Griffith continued. “In that case, the Committee assures us, it would come right back to court to make McGahn talk. The walk from the Capitol to our courthouse is a short one, and if we resolve this case today, we can expect Congress’s lawyers to make the trip often.”

The opinion noted that involving the courts in disputes such as this would discourage negotiation and politicize the process.

“Adjudicating these disputes would displace this flexible system of negotiation, accommodation, and (sometimes) political retaliation with a zero-sum game decided by judicial diktat,” Griffith wrote.

Democrats in the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn last April as part of their obstruction probe, but the White House, under Trump’s orders, would not allow him to release documents or testify before the panel. The House lawsuit against McGahn coincided with the ongoing process of the Democrats’ attempt to impeach the president and amid arguments from the Department of Justice that  presidential advisers had “absolute immunity” from testifying before Congress.

Judge Karen Henderson did not agree with that claim, though she did concur with the majority ruling.

“McGahn’s assertion of absolute testimonial immunity against compelled congressional process is, in my opinion, a step too far, again, under Supreme Court precedent,” Henderson, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, wrote.

Judge Judith Rogers, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, was the dissenting vote in Friday’s ruling.

“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.

But Griffith, in the majority opinion, asserted the federal court’s stand that it could not police the dispute between the House Judiciary Committee and the White House.

“If federal courts were to swoop in to rescue Congress whenever its constitutional tools failed, it would not just supplement the political process; it would replace that process with one in which unelected judges become the perpetual ‘overseer[s]’ of our elected officials. That is not the role of judges in our democracy, and that is why Article III compels us to dismiss this case,” Griffith wrote in the opinion.

The Justice Department issued a statement Friday expressing praise for the “historic ruling.”

“We are extremely pleased with today’s historic ruling from the D.C. Circuit recognizing that the House of Representatives cannot invoke the power of the courts in its political disputes with the Executive Branch,” DOJ spokeswoman Brianna Herlihy said. “Suits like this one are without precedent in our nation’s history and are inconsistent with the Constitution’s design. The D.C. Circuit’s cogent opinion affirms this fundamental principle.”

Democrats will be moving ahead with an appeal, looking at a March 9 deadline, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other House lawmakers.

Critics of the White House expressed their disapproval of the decision.

“I found the court’s opinion wholly unconvincing, the concurring opinion transparently forced, and the dissent at least initially persuasive,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe told Law & Crime. “The net effect of this circuit court decision, if upheld by SCOTUS, would be to destroy the vital impeachment power altogether whenever a president digs in and essentially dares the country to ‘come and get me while I hold all the evidence that proves my guilt of the highest crimes imaginable.’”

NBC legal analyst Glenn Kirschner called the court’s ruling “even deadlier to our nation than the Coronavirus” in a tweet.

“Richard Nixon’s lawyers infamously once told the courts that, in their client’s view, he was effectively King Louis XIV, albeit with term limits and subject to impeachment,” national security attorney Bradley Moss told Law&Crime. “With this ruling today, Donald Trump has taken yet another step to make that dream closer to a reality for the Office of the Presidency and provided further legal shielding for the Executive Branch from any outside scrutiny.”

But Republicans and Trump’s supporters who have consistently raised the alarm over the Democrats’ sham investigative efforts against the president and his administration praised the federal court decision.

Frieda Powers

Senior Staff Writer
[email protected]

Originally from New York, Powers graduated from New York University and eventually made her way to sunny South Florida where she has been writing for the BizPacReview team since 2015.

Frieda Powers

Latest posts by Frieda Powers (see all)

Related post