Court decision undermines blockade of Trump congress

And typically, his response indicated that he did not intend to back down and that he would lead every fight in his battle against Congress as far as possible, potentially in the Supreme Court.

But Monday put a point of honor in the power-struggle quarrel between Congress and the White House and could allude to how other legal battles between Democrats and Trump could unfold.

"It's a good opinion." She sets a very good framework for how all of these skirmishes between the House committees and the White House will unfold, "said Preet Bharara, a former lawyer for the South District. New York in the United States, on CNN. "Anderson Cooper 360."

Depending on the White House's reaction to possible court orders that run counter to the president's wishes, Monday's tragedy may also have brought a constitutional crisis closer together.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker told CNN's Wolf Blitzer Monday that Congress had not always exercised the powers inherent in the Mazars case and that it had surrendered power over the years to the Presidency.

"I think it's a recognition of the fact that Congress has a lot of power under the Constitution – that's exactly the case," Baker said in "The Crisis Room." "They are the ones who recover some of that by trying to enforce this summons, so the court's decision does not surprise me."

Trump 's legal team had claimed that Congress was crusading to overthrow elements that Democrats could use to embarrass it now and in the 2020 presidential election.

But House Speaker Elijah Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, described the decision as "a brilliant victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system of checks and balances."

Empty chair

The Democrats did not get all that way on Monday.

And McGahn confirmed that he would not show up on Tuesday at the House Judiciary Committee for an audition – which is now certain to turn into a theatrical scene in front of an empty witness president.

His lawyer, William A. Burck, argued that because Mr. McGahn faced contradictory instructions from two equal branches of government, he was forced to take sides with his former client.

But the Speaker of the Judiciary in the House, Jerry Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters, "We are having an audience tomorrow and we are waiting for Mr. McGahn to appear in accordance with the subpoena ".

The blocking maneuver means that another dispute between Congress and the White House will probably head to the judiciary, as the presidency is devoured by a forest of disputes.

This may be appropriate for Trump, as he will delay the upcoming political account and may delay disclosure of documents he wishes to keep secret, such as his tax returns.

The White House seems to have much stronger arguments in the obscure and largely non-confidential domain of executive privilege than the President did in his personal pursuit against his financial statements.

If Trump succeeds in thwarting McGahn's testimony, it would potentially set a precedent that Congress could never cross-examine a senior staff member of one of the presidents.

Democrats want to question McGahn on a pile of evidence that Mueller has accumulated suggesting a possible obstruction of justice by the president, including the revelation that he had ordered the White House lawyer to sack him – even the special advocate.

The president received a potentially disturbing news with Monday's release of the closed-door testimony in Congress by his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

Sekulow's lawyers said that Cohen was trying to blame others and argued that it was illogical to ask lawmakers to speak from a man currently in prison, in part for lying to Congress.

Trump tries a familiar defense

According to Justice Mehta, Mazars, Trump's accounting firm, does not need to comply with the subpoena of its financial statements before seven additional days.

But to stop the transfer, another court will have to intervene, possibly as part of the appeal process.

The president reacted to the decision by politicizing it – rendering it invalid because Mehta had been appointed by his predecessor.

"It's obviously the wrong decision made, of course, by a judge appointed by Obama," the president told reporters.

The argument of Trump, well known, suggests that he believes that justice can only be done by a judge who shares his policy, contrary to basic democratic principles.

The president has also resorted to partisan arguments that help him navigate Washington's political wars and appeal to his base.

"The Democrats were very unhappy with the Mueller report, as maybe they should be, but I mean, the country is very happy because there has never been anything like it."

One of the lessons to be learned from Monday's decision is that Trump's personal political arguments and escapes, while useful for surviving a news cycle, tend to be much less effective in court.