Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Tue 04/30/2024 View Mon 04/29/2024 View Sun 04/28/2024 View Sat 04/27/2024 View Fri 04/26/2024 View Thu 04/25/2024 View Wed 04/24/2024
2020-02-29 Home Front: Politix
Pres. Trump Vindicated Again: Appeals Court Rules House Can't Enforce Subpoena To Don McGahn
[LI] Article of Impeachment II against Donald Trump was "obstruction of Congress." One of the bases for the Article was the Trump administration’s position that it did not have to comply with House Committee subpoenas to senior administration officials.

Donald McGahn, Trump’s former White House Counsel was not named in Article II, but he was among the people who refused to comply. The House Judiciary Committee went to court to enforce the subpoena to McGahn, and a district court judge, in a much ballyhoed opinion, ordered McGahn to appear.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just ruled that subpoena was unenforceable in court, and reversed. The full opinion (pdf.) is embedded at the bottom of the post.

The Court noted the background of impeachment for non-compliance with House subpoenas:
The House of Representatives has since passed two articles of impeachment against the President. H.R. Res. 755, 116th Cong. (2019). The first article charges the President with "abuse of power"; the second with "obstruction of Congress." Although the second article does not mention McGahn expressly, it alleges that the President unlawfully directed officials "not to comply with" congressional subpoenas and asserts that these directives "were consistent with President Trump’s previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections." Id. at 6-8. The Senate voted to acquit the President on February 5. See 166 CONG. REC. S936-39 (daily ed. February 5, 2020).

The Committee also issued a report detailing the President’s alleged wrongdoing, see H.R. REP. NO. 116-346 (2019), that explains the Committee’s continued interest in McGahn’s testimony. Specifically, the Committee explained that it intended to use McGahn’s testimony "in a Senate trial on these articles of impeachment" and to continue investigating "President Trump’s obstruction of the Special Counsel." Id. at 159 n.928; see also Committee Suppl. Br. 5-8. If the Committee obtains McGahn’s testimony, it may "consider[] whether to recommend new articles of impeachment." Id. at 7. The Committee also claims that it needs McGahn’s testimony "for pressing legislative and oversight purposes," including the consideration of certain legislation. Id. at 8-9.

The Court held, 2-1, that the subpoena was not enforceable in court:

Posted by Besoeker 2020-02-29 00:55|| || Front Page|| [8 views ]  Top

#1 Oh, jeeze. Laws that mean what they say. How can you run a country on that?
Posted by M. Murcek 2020-02-29 08:48||   2020-02-29 08:48|| Front Page Top

18:36 Skidmark
18:35 Frank G
18:34 Frank G
18:34 Skidmark
17:49 Procopius2k
17:40 Deacon+Blues
17:31 Deacon+Blues
16:54 Raj
16:49 Punky and Tenille2358
16:47 swksvolFF
16:45 NN2N1
16:34 Grom the Reflective
16:32 Grom the Reflective
15:47 M. Murcek
15:43 Silentbrick
15:30 ed in texas
15:25 M. Murcek
15:23 M. Murcek
15:20 M. Murcek
15:15 swksvolFF
14:43 Skidmark
14:37 Skidmark
14:30 Skidmark
14:29 Skidmark









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com