SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
don mcgahn
Noting That 'Presidents Are Not Kings,' Federal Judge Rules Don McGahn Must Submit to Congressional Subpoena
"This ruling means not only that McGahn must provide testimony, but so must a raft of administration officials who have been stonewalling Congress in attempts to protect this president."
Nov 24, 2019
A federal judge ruled Monday afternoon that Don McGahn, former White House Counsel for President Donald Trump, must submit to a congressional subpoena and testify before members of the U.S. House of Representatives--a legal defeat for Trump who has tried to prevent the testimony.
In the ruling (pdf), U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, said "the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings."
As such, Jackson continued, "This means that they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control. Rather, in this land of liberty, it is indisputable that current and former employees of the White House work for the People of the United States, and that they take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, as citizens of the United States, current and former senior-level presidential aides have constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, and they retain these rights even after they have transitioned back into private life."
According to the Associated Press:
McGahn was a star witness in special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, and Democrats wanted to question McGahn about possible obstruction of justice by Trump. That was months before the House started an impeachment inquiry into Trump's effort to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden.
In May of this year, as Common Dreams reported at the time, Trump ordered McGahn not to appear after he was subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee.
While ordering that McGahn must appear, Jackson said this does not prevent him from claiming certain legal privileges. However, the judge pushed back against repeated claims by Trump that his administration is immune from congressional oversight or prosecution for alleged misconduct.
"To make the point as plain as possible, it is clear to this Court," Jackson stated, "that, with respect to senior-level presidential aides, absolute immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not exist."
While the White House immediately said it would appeal the ruling, Marge Baker, executive vice president for Policy and Program at the People for the American Way, applauded the court's decision.
"This ruling comes as a timely reinforcement of our constitutional principles of separation of powers and checks and balances, which have been under relentless assault by the Trump administration," Baker said.
"It affirms the common-sense principle that Congress's power to subpoena the executive branch is essential to fulfill its duty of oversight," she added. "This ruling means not only that McGahn must provide testimony, but so must a raft of administration officials who have been stonewalling Congress in attempts to protect this president. Their failure to comply leaves congressional investigators no option but to assume that their testimony, if delivered, would incriminate the president who is ordering them not to testify."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Are Democrats So Scared of Impeachment?
All things considered, the real issue is not whether Trump should be impeached, but when and how impeachment should unfold
May 21, 2019
TD Editor's Note: This is the second installment of a two-part series examining the relationship between President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr, and the challenges their assertions of extreme executive authority pose to Congress. Read the first part here.
Why haven't congressional Democrats moved to impeach Donald Trump? Is their failure to act due to an inexcusable lack of courage and political will, or is the inaction attributable to an understandable fear of failure?
The answer, unfortunately, is a bit of both. Given the president's thoroughgoing corruption and reckless disregard for the rule of law, impeachment is imperative.
But impeachment is a two-step process, and that's where the fear sets in. Even if the current Democratic majority in the House votes to impeach Trump, there is little prospect that the Senate will convict the president and remove him from office following an impeachment trial conducted in the upper chamber.
Sooner rather than later, Democrats will have to find the fortitude to set aside their fears. The president and his new attorney general, William Barr, are daring them to initiate impeachment proceedings, refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas and document requests seeking, among other items, Trump's tax returns, and the full, unredacted report by special counsel Robert Mueller.
As New York Times reporters Peter Baker, Maggie Haberman and Michael Schmidt recently noted, "As the White House and Congress escalate their constitutional showdown, President Trump and his team are essentially trying to call what they see as the Democrats' bluff. The message: Put up or shut up. Impeach or move on."
On May 15, White House counsel Pat Cipollone upped the ante in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., in response to the committee's request for additional information related to the Mueller probe. Cipollone threatened to invoke executive privilege to block the committee's demands for documents. He also threatened to block the committee's efforts to summon testimony from current and past administration officials.
Contending that the committee's demands violate "the separation of powers and the constitutional prerogatives of the President," and alleging that Trump had fully cooperated with the special counsel, Cipollone wrote:
"Congressional investigations are intended to obtain information to aid in evaluating potential legislation, not to harass political opponents. ... The Committee's requests repeatedly run afoul of the Constitution by encroaching upon authorities that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the Executive Branch. These requests have no legitimate legislative purpose and exceed Congress's limited authority."
If any of this sounds familiar, it's because it has happened before. On May 22, 1974, President Richard Nixon, faced with House subpoenas seeking the infamous secret Watergate tape recordings, penned a similar letter to then-House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, D-N.Y., protesting:
"Thus it is clear that the continued succession of demands for additional Presidential conversations has become a never-ending process, and that to continue providing these conversations in response to the constantly escalating requests would constitute such a massive invasion into the confidentiality of Presidential conversations that the institution of the Presidency itself would be fatally compromised."
Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, not only to the House, but also to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski, sparking a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court (United States v. Nixon), which Nixon lost. Shortly thereafter, he resigned.
The current Democratic leadership, guided by Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, fears that a Trump impeachment will more closely resemble the failed campaign to remove President Bill Clinton from office than the successful effort against Nixon. After his impeachment by the House in 1998, Clinton's public approval rating spiked 10 points, to an astounding 73%. Clinton was subsequently acquitted by the Senate and served out the remainder of his second term.
Pelosi's impeachment trepidations are not unfounded. Although Trump's overall approval rating remains mired in the 42% range, she and other top Democrats believe that even a modest post-impeachment boost for Trump could prove decisive in the 2020 election.
The truth, of course, is that no one actually knows how impeachment would affect Trump's popularity or the next election. Given the scope of his malfeasance, impeachment proceedings may well cause his approval ratings to plummet, replicating Nixon's demise. Nixon began his second term with a lofty approval rating of 68%. But by August 1974--following Senate and House hearings, respectively, on Watergate and impeachment, and the Supreme Court's ruling on the White House tapes--57% of Americans thought Nixon should be removed from office.
In the end, the decision to impeach Trump shouldn't be based on predictions about poll numbers, however worrying they may be. It should be rooted in principle.
Like all of his predecessors, Trump took an oath on Inauguration Day pursuant to Article I, Clause 3 of the Constitution to "take care" that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed.
Trump has violated that oath in myriad ways, by:
* Defying the oversight authority of Congress.
* Attempting to obstruct the Mueller investigation.
* Using the presidency to enrich himself, his family and the Trump Organization in violation of the Constitution's "emoluments clause."
* Refusing to defend the Affordable Care Act, imperiling the health insurance available to millions of Americans.
* Undermining environmental protections and pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement, endangering the health and safety of generations.
* Reneging on the Iran nuclear deal, bringing the nation to the brink of another war in the Middle East.
* Refusing to enforce the Voting Rights Act, promoting voter suppression and sowing racial hatred and resentments.
* Promising tax relief for middle-class and working families, but sponsoring a massive giveaway to the superrich.
* Incarcerating undocumented children in cages, and declaring a national emergency to fund his border wall.
Through it all, he has lied incessantly about these and other misdeeds, much as Nixon lied about Watergate. Nixon was cited for deceiving the public in the Articles of Impeachment ratified by the House Judiciary Committee in 1974. Trump should be as well.
All things considered, the real issue is not whether Trump should be impeached, but when and how impeachment should unfold.
As for when, there is no better time than the present. Trump and Barr show no signs of relenting in their crusade to expand presidential power. The sooner they are put on the defensive, the better.
As for how, the gravity and breadth of Trump's derelictions warrant lengthy and public hearings before the House Judiciary Committee. Congress' authority to subpoena documents and witnesses is at its greatest in impeachment proceedings. In those proceedings, we should hear from constitutional scholars, and such key witnesses as Robert Mueller and former White House counsel Don McGahn. We should also hear from scores of ordinary Americans who have been victimized by Trump's misconduct.
In the Senate, the House would be represented by a team of managers who would present the case against Trump. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would preside.
Among other demands, the managers should request a trial in open session in the well of the Senate--something that hasn't happened since the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868. This would expose Trump's "high crimes and misdemeanors" for all the world to see, even if House managers do not ultimately prevail in the Senate. If the trial is properly handled, Trump's reelection prospects should tumble.
As Alexander Hamilton postulated in Federalist Paper No. 65, impeachment is the constitutional remedy for the removal of federal officials for behavior that violates the "public trust." Our 45th president has long exceeded that critical threshold.
All that's left is for the Democrats to take a shot of courage, stop wringing their hands and start wielding their gavels.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Revolting Against Speaker's Inaction, Pelosi's Own Leadership Team Demands Trump Impeachment Proceedings
"If Pelosi won't do the job she was hired to do, then Dems should find someone who will."
May 21, 2019
After the Trump administration instructed former White House counsel Don McGahn to refuse to comply with a Judiciary Committee subpoena to testify, several members of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's leadership team privately confronted the Democratic leader late Monday and demanded impeachment proceedings against the president immediately in response to the latest attempt to stonewall congressional oversight.
According to the Washington Post, at least "five members of Pelosi's leadership team--four of whom also sit on the House Judiciary Committee, with jurisdiction over impeachment--pressed Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a closed-door leadership meeting to allow the panel to start an [impeachment] inquiry, which they argued would help investigators attain documents and testimony that Trump has blocked."
"There's no doubt that opening an inquiry strengthens the hand of Congress in forcing compliance with subpoenas, whether it's for documents or individuals."
--Rep. David Cicilline
One of the lawmakers who reportedly pressed Pelosi to approve impeachment proceedings on Monday was House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who has faced calls to act as his repeated attempts to investigate President Donald Trump and administration officials have been brazenly denied by the White House.
"The meeting marks the first time a chairman and top rank-and-file lawmakers--including members of Pelosi's leadership team--have lobbied her to change her long-held position on impeachment," the Post reported.
If McGahn doesn't show up for his scheduled testimony before the Judiciary Committee at 10:00am ET Tuesday, "a core group of Judiciary Democrats plans" to begin publicly calling for impeachment proceedings against Trump, according to the Post.
"That inquiry is also what happened during Watergate," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) told the Post in an interview following the Democrats' private meeting. "It's not like the House Judiciary Committee just dropped articles of impeachment. There was an investigation that preceded it. This inquiry could lead to impeachment, or it could lead to nothing. But I think if McGahn doesn't show, we have to at least start it."
Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.), Joe Neguse (Colo.), and David Cicilline (R.I.)--all of whom are members of the House Judiciary Committee--reportedly joined Lieu in pressuring the House Speaker to support an impeachment inquiry.
"There's no doubt that opening an inquiry strengthens the hand of Congress in forcing compliance with subpoenas, whether it's for documents or individuals," Cicilline told the Post.
Raskin reportedly made a similar case during the meeting, arguing that impeachment hearings "would allow leadership to streamline and centralize all of the investigations into one--and let everyone else focus on the Democratic agenda items that won them the majority in 2018," the Post reported.
Pelosi, however, refused to budge despite backlash from her own leadership team.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), DCCC chair Rep. Cheri Bustos (D-Ill.), and Democratic caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) all reportedly sided with Pelosi in the face of pressure from their colleagues as well as grassroots demands for Democrats to act on their grave warnings that the U.S. is in the midst of a "constitutional crisis."
"This isn't about politics at all. It's about patriotism. It's about the strength we need to have to see things through," Pelosi reportedly said of her refusal to sign off on impeachment hearings, a remark that provoked bafflement among progressives on social media.
The internal Democratic rebellion against Pelosi on impeachment comes just days after Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) became the first congressional Republican to break with his party and call for impeachment proceedings against Trump after carefully examining Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings.
"Plenty of liberals are asking why there aren't more Republican members of Congress with the guts, eloquence, or honesty to say what Amash has said," The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan wrote in a column on Monday. "It's a good question. But a better, more relevant question is this: Why aren't there more Democrats willing to say the same?"
During a live event in Washington, D.C., Monday night, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)--a member of the House Judiciary Committee--made the case for launching impeachment proceedings against the president right away.
"I really believe we are now at the point where we have to start an impeachment inquiry. I don't say that lightly, I mean I think we have taken every possible step we can," said Jayapal. "We've issued subpoenas, we've called for witnesses, the president has issued blanket executive privilege over the Mueller report."
"If you have a president who thinks he's king, and isn't accountable to anybody, and is above the law," Jayapal said, "that is absolutely not acceptable."
Watch:
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular