Democrats turn to the courts to denounce White House subpoenas

Lawmakers and legal experts say that the judiciary is the best chance of success for Democrats, even if it will take time to win in court.

"The real problem with a potential dispute over subpoenas before Congress is not the substance, but the timing," said Steve Vladeck, CNN's legal badyst and professor at the law faculty of the CNN. University of Texas. "Even if the courts end up on the congressional side in all, if not all, of these disputes, it could take some time – and the Congress has nothing in the meantime."

The dispute between the White House and congressional Democrats has been escalating for months, but it came to light this week as the Trump government openly monitored Congressional citations and encouraged current and former contributors to do not comply, no matter the price. Just this week, the White House has criticized the Democrats on many issues:

Asked about the subpoenas on Wednesday, Trump said the resistance would continue in all areas.

"We are fighting against all subpoenas," said Trump, saying the control exercised by Democrats is entirely political.

In order to impose a subpoena of executive officials, House Democrats can judge individuals with contempt, a process that Cummings has threatened to carry out with Kline. But this could be the first step in a legal battle that could last months or even years.

"The only way to make Mr. Kline testify is to go to court and summon him to appear," said representative Jackie Speier, a member of the House of Representatives oversight and oversight committees, on Tuesday. from CNN, to Wolf Blitzer. When asked directly whether she baderted that the House's summons power was not strong, she replied, "I think the only badignment to provide the necessary power is that who goes through the courts. "

When asked if the contempt quote was simply a token gesture, Speier replied, "I'm afraid of that."

Representative Joaquin Castro, who also sits on the intelligence committee, said the next steps for Democrats should be court-based. "Go to court to enforce the subpoena," Castro told CNN.

Prioritize fighting to appear

A contempt quote can take many forms, from symbolic vote in the House to long-held contempt, in which an individual or official is held against his or her will until he or she complies. Congress may also vote to dismiss someone before the American lawyer in Washington, who will present it before the grand jury for possible prosecution, but this option is limited if the president has claimed the privilege of the law. 39; executive.

"There is no clear, simple and easy enforcement mechanism because it has depended on institutional relationships for so long," said John Bies, chief counsel at American Oversight and former counsel for the Ministry of Finance. Justice. "The system has never really been tested this way."

It has been decades since Congress attempts to invoke historic options like jailing anyone.

"Previously, the defiant risked being arrested by the Sergeant-at-Arms and driven to Capitol Prison," said Vladeck. "Because we do not do it anymore, the inconvenience is simply political, not legal."

The next option for the House is to take legal action to have the subpoena executed in court, a process that can take months or even years. This can be done with a contempt quote, but this should not be done in tandem. As a result, congressional Democrats will have to make decisions about priorities in an environment where the administration has everything to gain by spending time not to obey their demands.

"At the end of the day, the House will have to decide on its commitment and will," said Andy Wright, a former deputy legal advisor to President Barack Obama at the White House Law Office.

For the White House, a strategy of delay is favorable to them.

"The administrations of both sides (…) are always interested in discussions, negotiations and further delays.The time is favorable," said the person. "No matter the political party, they are always willing to sit down and talk, because they could talk forever."

Trials are rare

Congressional advisers say that in the end, it's up to McGahn, not the White House, to decide whether to testify or not. But if McGahn listens to the White House and refuses, they think it's a good test for the enforcement of their subpoena, as McGahn waived his privilege when he testified for 30 hours at Mueller.

A source close to McGahn's thinking said that the former White House lawyer would do what the law requires, but no decision has yet been made.

Although some high-profile cases exist, congressional legal experts say that there are relatively few recent examples in which the Congress has gone to court to force the executive power to surrender information or testimonials.

In another example, in June 2007, the House Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena to compel Harriet Miers, former counsel for President George W. Bush, to testify before the committee about the dismissal of nine former US lawyers. . Bush ordered him to not comply. It was not until July 2008 that a judge decided that Miers had to comply with the summons to appear before the Congress, and Miers did not testify until June 2009.

Congress could be more successful when badigning badignments to private institutions. In addition to the summons to appear at Mazars – Trump and the Trump Organization filed suit this week against the committee and the accounting firm – the House's intelligence and financial services committees have summoned nine banks to appear in court. their investigations on Trump's finances and trade relations. Russia.

Joshua Levy, a Fusion lawyer who pleaded the case, said Trump would face a tough battle to block Mazars' summons.

"The courts are relying on Congressional representation of what is in the legitimate legislative sphere and are reluctant to interfere in a congressional investigation," Levy said.