White House orders former lawyer Don McGahn not to testify before jury

by



[ad_1]

The White House says that as a former senior adviser to the president, he is exempt from appearing before Congress. The Office of the Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice concluded that the former McGahn was not legally required to appear before the Judiciary Committee of the House and to testify on matters related to his official duties as a & dquo; President's lawyer, according to a memo issued Monday and obtained by CNN.

"The Department of Justice has informed me that Mr. McGahn was absolutely immune from any compelling Congressional testimony regarding events that occurred during his tenure as the president's senior adviser," said Pat Cipollone. , advisor to the White House, in a letter to the Speaker of the Judiciary, Jerry Nadler.

The White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, said in a statement that McGahn "can not be compelled to testify in this way, and that he was ordered to Mr. McGahn from. Act in consequence".

"These measures have been taken so that future presidents can effectively fulfill the responsibilities of the office of the Presidency," she said.

Key House Democrat plans to take coercive measures & # 39; against the Ministry of Justice
The White House's decision to keep McGahn away from Capitol Hill is the latest in a series of former and former Trump administration officials challenging the subpoenas to Appear Democrats in the House, who are currently looking for the best way to respond to the widespread resistance of the Trump administration to their investigations of the President.
This is the second time that McGahn has not complied with the subpoena of the Judiciary Committee. He also referred to the White House by refusing to provide the documents that the committee had summoned regarding preparations for the interview of McGahn's special advocate, who, according to the White House, were covered by the privilege of the executive.
Nadler, a New York Democrat, did not decide to scorn McGahn after he did not provide these documents, but said he would probably do so if McGahn did not appear on Tuesday. The committee is expected to hold the hearing without him, as he did earlier this month for Attorney General William Barr when he did not testify about the case. a dispute over the format of the audience.

"We have assigned McGahn.We expect him to show up on the 21st, and if he does not, he will be in contempt, unless he 's not there. a court order telling him that he can not, what I do not know. " think he'd get it, "Nadler said earlier this month.

McGahn's testimony is of interest to congressional Democrats because of the role he played in the investigation of special advocate Robert Mueller on whether the president was obstructing justice. The special council cited in the investigation, which did not exonerate Trump, was one of the key episodes when the president ordered McGahn to fire Mueller and McGahn did not do it.

McGahn is now one of many officials who could be held in contempt of Congress.

Earlier this month, Nadler's committee voted to condemn Barr in defiance of the refusal to provide the unedited Mueller report and the underlying evidence to Congress. The President of the Intelligence Chamber, Adam Schiff, announced that he would take an unspecified "enforcement action" against the Department of Justice for failing to comply with the committee's subpoena. regarding Mueller counterintelligence information. And the Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, challenged the subpoena made by the House Ways and Means Committee of President Donald Trump's Tax Accounts last week.
The House is still thinking about how to deal with contempt issues. One option considered is to group all the contempt quotes into one vote to highlight the Trump administration's stone wall. Another is to invoke the so-called "inherent contempt" of the House to fine or imprison public servants convicted of contempt of court without recourse to the judicial system, although such an action does not involve been taken for nearly a century.

In its Monday memo, the Justice Department argued that Congress could not use its inherent contempt powers to punish McGahn for invoking immunity, which appears to be a preventative challenge for Democrats in the House. when they consider their next steps.

"The constitutional separation of powers prevents the Congress from exercising its inherent power of disregard for the assertion of the president's privilege of the executive," the memo says. "Attempt to exercise the powers inherent in contempt of court in such a situation would be unprecedented and would weigh immensely on the ability of the President to assert this privilege and to discharge his constitutional functions. ".

The White House's decision to block McGahn has similarities to President George W. Bush's efforts to prevent the testimony of his former White House lawyer, Harriet Miers. In 2008, a federal judge ruled against the Bush administration.
But this judicial decision did not prevent the Obama administration from presenting similar arguments. In 2014, the office of the Obama administration's legal advisor wrote a note stating that a senior White House advisor assigned to appear before the House's oversight committee had not to testify, asserting that the president's immediate advisers had "the absolute immunity of Congress to testify on facts occurred during the course of the exercise of their official duties".

Democrats argue that the situation with McGahn is different from this case because he has already testified before the special advocate, thus waiving the privilege of the executive.

But the White House argued that testifying before Mueller was different because it was a criminal investigation. And on Monday, the Department of Justice said that privilege is a separate issue of immunity, arguing that the precedent for immunity claims goes back several decades.

"We are bringing the same answer that the Justice Department has repeatedly made for almost five decades: Congress can not constitutionally compel senior presidential advisers to testify about their official duties," the MJ says in a statement. his memo. "This testimonial immunity is rooted in the constitutional separation of powers and stems from the president's independence from Congress."

If Nadler goes to court to try to force McGahn's testimony, it will probably be one of the many legal battles between the congressional Democrats and the Trump government.

Democrats' efforts to obtain the full and unedited Mueller report as well as Trump's tax returns should also be brought to court. Trump and the Trump organization have already filed a lawsuit to block the subpoena of Deutsche Bank, Capital One and an accounting firm preparing the president's financial statements. statements.

This story has been updated to include additional developments on Monday.

Kara Scannell and Jim Acosta of CNN contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link