I'm not getting too worked up about tonight's decision because:
1. It'll be appealed.
2. It was expected ("absolute immunity" doesn't exist).
3. Witnesses can still show up and assert privilege.
The *real* question is if a witness can assert privilege *without* a WH assertion.
1. It'll be appealed.
2. It was expected ("absolute immunity" doesn't exist).
3. Witnesses can still show up and assert privilege.
The *real* question is if a witness can assert privilege *without* a WH assertion.
1/ From Day 1, what I and other lawyers objected to was federal witnesses showing up and asserting executive privilege *without a prior White House assertion*. That's outrageous. But when Trump started blocking *all* testimony? Well, we *all* knew that wouldn't hold up in court.
2/ The real matter of import in tonight's federal district court decision is the timing: is it *possible* that it happened quickly enough that a SCOTUS appeal could be heard by mid- to late January? Hmm. Realistically? If McGahn wants to run out the clock, he probably still can.
3/ I think this ruling will be stayed by a higher court (appeals or, failing that, SCOTUS). So it's still hard, at the *moment*, to see how this leads to McGahn testifying in the short term. More likely would be Democrats asking Roberts to rule on this *during* the Senate trial.
