After a protracted legal fight, former WH counsel Don McGahn finally testified by the House Judiciary Committee re: the Mueller probe, and the committee has just released the transcript: judiciary.house.gov/uploadedfiles/…
As Chair Nadler notes, the agreement reached for McGahn to testify incl. that he could only be asked about publicly avail. info in Mueller report:
At least at the start, McGahn is careful to avoid answers that stray from the literal text of the Mueller report.
Asked about a section saying Trump told Sessions to resign after learning about Mueller's appointment, McGahn replies: "I don't quibble with the syntax."
"You rarely leave conversations with President Trump. There's never really a good beginning, middle, and end. It's just -- especially when you're the counsel. You're always kind of around."
"You don't recall your reaction ... to learning that the press had reported that the President of the United States was under personal investigation by the special counsel?"
"I don't recall my subjective impression on the evening of June 14th about a news report. No, I don't"
On Trump's request to involve Rosenstein:
Q "McGahn said he told the President that he would see what he could do."
A I did say that, yeah. Yeah.
Q Did you intend to see what you could do?
A No.
Q Then why did you say that to the president?
A I was trying to get off the phone.
More on Trump's call to McGahn asking him to get Rosenstein to oust Mueller:
Q After you hung up with the President on that second phone call, how did you feel?
A After I got off the phone with the President, how did I feel? Oof. Frustrated, perturbed, trapped. Many emotions.
Baby is asleep, back to McGahn. Asked why he didn't take it seriously when Rob Porter said Trump would fire him if he didn't contest Jan. 2018 reports saying he'd considered resigning: "Because I was doing a great job at so many other things"
Consider the landscape for McGahn in Jan. 2018 — he'd come off a literally record-breaking first year of getting federal appeals judges confirmed, not to mention getting one SCOTUS justice seated. Republicans (and specifically Senate leadership) were extremely happy with that
(I know everyone screenshotted this but here it is anyway)
Q Why isn't it true?
A Because I'm not a lying bastard.
Q What was your understanding of why the President said that?
A You'd have to ask him. I don't know. I mean, the report kind of speaks for itself on this point.
Oh! I swear I did not know when I hit publish on this earlier tweet that McGahn would actually bring up judicial nominations as a reason he didn't think Trump would fire him
Perhaps unsurprisingly (see previous tweet re: "lying bastard") McGahn says he hasn't spoken with Trump since he left the White House, which was in October 2018
In conclusion:
Q What ultimately led to your resignation on October 17th, 2018?
A What ultimately led to what?
Q Your resignation on October 17th, 2018.
A It was time to leave.
The word of the day is "crisp," which McGahn uses 17 times to refer to his lack of clear memories on a particular subject
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A DC judge said today he’ll likely order the Trump admin's government efficiency office to preserve its records; no immediate ruling on whether DOGE is subject to FOIA buff.ly/mycbsPj
The judge told the DOJ lawyer appearing today in the DOGE FOIA case to "advise your clients" ASAP about the likelihood of a preservation order. Trump admin contends the records law doesn't apply to DOGE bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
The judge told the DOJ lawyer appearing today in the DOGE FOIA case to "advise your clients" ASAP about the likelihood of a preservation order. Trump admin contends the records law doesn't apply to DOGE bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
ICYMI: Trump announced a new policy requiring DOJ to demand in court that challengers suing the admin should have to post money bonds if they win orders blocking his actions. Several judges have already rejected such requests buff.ly/11JLZfZ
DC judge denied motion to restrict DOGE access at Treasury. NY judge's injunction remains in place for now.
DC judge said plaintiffs couldn't show irreparable harm re: personal data becoming public -- but they could come back if the situation changed assets.bwbx.io/documents/user…
Overnight: Washington state AG filed a contempt motion accusing the Trump administration of defying an injunction that blocked cutting off federal funds to institutions that provide gender-affirming care in the states that sued assets.bwbx.io/documents/user…
We've got ourselves an old fashioned Friday news dump. What's happened over the past few hours:
- SCOTUS declined, for now, to let Trump oust the head of a federal whistleblower protection agency, letting the official stay in the job until at least Wednesday. From Greg Stohr: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
- DOJ took the unusual step of confirming that it had filed a misconduct complaint against a DC fed judge over her handling of recent hearings in litigation over Trump's effort to bar trans troops from serving in the US military. With Erik Larson: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
A Mass. federal judge set a hearing for tomorrow on whether to immediately halt the Elon Musk-affiliated "Fork in the Road" deferred resignation offer for federal workers from the Trump admin. Prev: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Meanwhile, a DC federal judge is holding a hearing now on whether to intervene re: Treasury Dept. giving info to Musk's DOGE team. Prev: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Some more court action later in the day:
- Re: Trump's bar on transgender troops, judge isn't ruling on the motion for an immediate TRO after US basically said status quo will remain pending a fight over a longer-term prelim injunction, but judge says govt must immediately alert her + plaintiffs if that'll change
- DC federal judge set a Friday hearing to consider whether to grant a TRO blocking DOGE from getting access to Dept. of Labor systems and information. See earlier from @swillmer: bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Interesting hearing this evening in Missouri’s lawsuit seeking to block DOJ from sending two election observers to monitor a St. Louis polling site on Election Day. No ruling from the bench (recap below)
Complaint: assets.bwbx.io/documents/user…
DOJ oppo: assets.bwbx.io/documents/user…
Missouri argues state law spells out who can enter a polling place to observe and DOJ monitors aren’t covered. DOJ says there’s a 2021 settlement with the St. Louis board of elections for ADA violations re: disability access that allows this
But Missouri AG says it appeared it was news to state officials that this agreement was in effect, and more broadly, that the board lacked authority to enter into the monitoring term in the first place. Which raises some Qs for the judge...
Hello on this stunning September morning from the DC federal courthouse, where Judge Tanya Chutkan is holding the first hearing in the Trump case since SCOTUS kicked it back to her. Trump won't be here. Waiting to see what kind of schedule Chutkan will set for the next round of fights over the future of the indictment bloomberg.com/news/articles/…
Trump's lawyers all just entered the courtroom, and also thrilled to report that courthouse security dog Legend is here and continues to be a Very Good Dog (no pics allowed I'm afraid)