Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #mcgahn
Most recents (10)
Trump’s Former White House Counsel Will Testify Before Congress. What Now?
It is valuable for Congress to vindicate the principle that a subpoena to a White House official has to be honored.
#MOG
lawfareblog.com/trumps-former-…
It is valuable for Congress to vindicate the principle that a subpoena to a White House official has to be honored.
#MOG
lawfareblog.com/trumps-former-…
GOOD NEWS
Appeals Court RESURRECTS House's #BorderWall Lawsuit
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. unanimously disagreed, citing to the court’s recent en banc decision in the case of former White House counsel #ezhel McGahn.
#MOG
lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/that-t…
Appeals Court RESURRECTS House's #BorderWall Lawsuit
A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. unanimously disagreed, citing to the court’s recent en banc decision in the case of former White House counsel #ezhel McGahn.
#MOG
lawandcrime.com/lawsuit/that-t…
The #McGahn court clearly held that a single house of Congress could have standing to pursue litigation against the Executive for injury to its legislative rights,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge #DavidSentelle, a Reagan appointee... Judges #PatriciaMillet and #RobertWilkins agreed
The Court also took the Trump administration to task for claiming that the Executive Branch has broad autonomy to spend federal funds without CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL—an argument the court said “turns the constitutional order upside down.”
#MOG
#MOG
D.C. Circuit gets it right! In #McGahn @realDonaldTrump argued blanket immunity for advisors. But D.C. Circuit ruling says no. The executive branch cannot just ignore checks & balances, including legitimate congressional oversight. #NoOneIsAboveTheLaw #NobodyIsAboveTheLaw
Read our brief, signed by 96 former members of Congress & executive branch officials, explaining why.
documentcloud.org/documents/6808…
documentcloud.org/documents/6808…
"No president is a king. Congress and the courts have vital, co-equal roles to play in our democracy. The en banc rehearing of the McGahn subpoena case offers a new chance to get it right."
🚨Republican legal experts & former members of Congress explain in a new brief why @realDonaldTrump and his aides are *not* immune from congressional oversight. 🚨 #McGahn
(Short answer: because the Founders said so.) protectdemocracy.org/project/presid…
(Short answer: because the Founders said so.) protectdemocracy.org/project/presid…
.@realDonaldTrump keeps trying to argue that he & his advisors can’t be forced to testify or produce documents, even in an impeachment proceeding. #McGahn
🗣️The Founders would disagree. protectdemocracy.org/project/presid…
🗣️The Founders would disagree. protectdemocracy.org/project/presid…
The president is *not* a king—the Founders made sure of that. Only a king is above the law and immune from oversight. Our brief makes this crystal clear: politico.com/news/2019/12/1…
1. #McGahn case now makes three cases #SCOTUS can tee up to rule on by the time we hold the impeachment trial:
1. McGahn on the total immunity claim;
2. Vance grand jury on power of states over sitting president;
3. House Mazars case on Congress' power to get tax returns.
1. McGahn on the total immunity claim;
2. Vance grand jury on power of states over sitting president;
3. House Mazars case on Congress' power to get tax returns.
2. That pretty much covers the issues.
I went back to US v Nixon case where #SCOTUS ruled against Nixon on the White House tapes. I was curious how long it took.
The case was an appeal from Judge Sirica's district court order on a subpoena. He entered it on May 20, 1974.
I went back to US v Nixon case where #SCOTUS ruled against Nixon on the White House tapes. I was curious how long it took.
The case was an appeal from Judge Sirica's district court order on a subpoena. He entered it on May 20, 1974.
3. Cert was granted on June 15, 1974. SCOTUS ruled on the case on July 24, 1974. Sixteen days later, Nixon resigned August 9, 1974.
If Roberts drags this out he will own all of Trump's crimes. His name will be infamous. I think he'l rule fast.
If Roberts drags this out he will own all of Trump's crimes. His name will be infamous. I think he'l rule fast.
Here’s the full #McGahn opinion on a witness claiming total presidential immunity. First document is the Conclusion that I invite all Americans to read. @Maddow @lawrence timinhonolulu.com/2019/11/25/her…
Calling on Don #McGahn's and John Bolton's conscience:
Federal district court writes that absolute immunity from testifying...
"simply does not exist"
"simply has no basis in the law"
"a fiction"
"The official’s defiance ... substantially harms the national interest."
Federal district court writes that absolute immunity from testifying...
"simply does not exist"
"simply has no basis in the law"
"a fiction"
"The official’s defiance ... substantially harms the national interest."
"Blatant defiance of Congress’ centuries-old power...is an affront to the mechanism for curbing abuses of power that the Framers carefully crafted for our protection, and, thereby, recalcitrant witnesses actually undermine the broader interests of the People of the United States"
"It is hard to imagine a more significant wound than such alleged interference with Congress’ ability to detect and deter abuses of power within the Executive branch for the protection of the People of the United States."
Le #breaking de la nuit US. 1ère défaite judiciaire de #Trump face à la Chambre démocrate: 1 juge fédéral de district ordonne à son commissaire aux comptes Mazars de fournir les documents financiers assignés. washingtonpost.com/local/legal-is…
2) Politiquement, #Trump est furieux, mettant en cause la partialité de la justice puisque le juge Mehta a été nommé par le président #Obama et promettant implicitement un appel… #àvoir RT+
3) Juridiquement, le juge Mehta a tranché dans son arrêt: si la chambre démocrate a constitutionnellement le pouvoir d'enquêter sur le président en vue d'1 impeachment, pourquoi ne pourrait-elle pas aussi investiguer s'il y a eu malversation de #Trump? games-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/def…
I'm late to the party but have four thoughts on how this statement affects a number of the ongoing battles between #Trump and the #House -- including those relating to investigations, subpoenas, and obstruction of justice.
First, to the extent Trump disputes the accuracy of key facts in the #Mueller report, that massively enhances Congress's case for seeing the unredacted report, having #Mueller testify, having #McGahn testify, and having its subpoenas honored. So Trump shot himself in the foot.
Second, McGahn is a potentially dangerous witness for Trump, so Trump's pattern of attacking him (manifested yet again here) is very risky. Indeed, Trump's penchant for publicly blasting current and former officials may well cause him many more headaches going forward.
🚨Trump sues Congress to keep his finances hidden from House Oversight. Complaint sounds like it was written by Sarah Sanders: “The Democrat Party…has declared all-out political war against President Donald J. Trump. Subpoenas are their weapon of choice.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5973… 
Trump's hiding his national security abuses, ordering Carl Kline to defy a Congressional subpoena. This will lead to a contempt order. Where their stonewall strategy must lead. As w/ financial info, it's a delay tactic. But in the end it will result in more impeachable offenses.
🚨There you have it ➡️ White House plans to fight House subpoena of former counsel Donald #McGahn for testimony on #MuellerReport. Trump & his Roy Cohn gang stonewalled Mueller, now they’ll stonewall Congress. How much contempt can democracy bear from this contemptible POTUS?
