BREAKING: Congress can't compel former WH McGahn to testify on Mueller report, says Justice Dept...

[riversedge]

BREAKING: Congress can't compel former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify on Mueller report, Justice Dept. says in legal opinion.

Link to tweet

Trump directs former White House counsel McGahn to defy subpoena, not appear before Congress
President Donald Trump said last month that his administration is "fighting all the subpoenas" issued by House Democrats seeking testimony related to Mueller's report.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/congress-can-t-compel-don-mcgahn-testify-about-mueller-report-n1007851?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

May 20, 2019, 2:34 PM CDT / Updated May 20, 2019, 2:57 PM CDT
By Dartunorro Clark

President Donald Trump has directed former White House counsel Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena and not testify Tuesday, current White House counsel Pat Cipollone said Monday.

In a letter to House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., Cipollone wrote that the Justice Department "has advised me that Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony with respect to matters occurring during his service as a senior adviser to the President."

He added, "the President has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee's scheduled hearing" on Tuesday.

McGahn had been subpoenaed by Nadler's committee to answer questions about Mueller's investigation of President Donald Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Justice Department, in a legal opinion made public Monday, said McGahn could not legally be compelled to testify, citing the principle of the separation of powers.

Sources close to McGahn say they have received the Justice Department's legal opinion and a letter from the White House instructing McGahn not to testify, which are being reviewed.

[dalton99a]

1. Sure enough

[Freethinker65]

2. But as I understand stand it, McGahn could still testify if he wanted to

Will McGahn obey Trump or does McGahn have a conscience?

[Andy823]

13. Good question

Since he no longer works at the WH, he could ignore trump also and do he right thing. He really needs to think about what will happen in the future. He should know trump is not going to protect him, and has already thrown him under the bus. If trump is cornered he will blame everything on the people around him in order to cover is now ass.

The only one trump cares about is himself.

[Igel]

24. Depends.

When I had a security clearance, it was made clear that it was the information that was protected, not me under a constraint. I doubt anybody much cares what I worked on for DARPA as a summer intern back in '80, but officially, unless the information's been declassified, I'm not authorized to discuss it.

I mean, I packed up the stuff into boxes, was formally discharged, and wasn't allowed to carry the boxes I'd packed an hour earlier to the store room. Yet I'm still bound by the confidentiality agreement.

I'm bound to not disclose certain details for kids who were in my classroom last in 2011. They're 25 and 26 now, I wouldn't recognize them if they showed up in my classroom today, but FERPA doesn't say, "Student records are only protected for so long as a person is your student." I have student records from 2011; they're confidential. Again, it's the records that are covered, not me.


Think about it for lawyers or doctors. When my parents had their various difficulties and I felt a need to get access to information, I had to prove that I was my mother's guardian. My father was deceased, but unless somebody coughed up a death certificate, they wouldn't consider my request. It didn't matter that they were no longer my parents' physicians. While privacy ends at death, they were cautious; it certainly doesn't end at termination of services.

If you fire a lawyer who's defending you, it would still be a violation of ethics if you fired the lawyer and in return he went and testified against you for things covered by the confidentiality agreement. If you were on trial for murder, and along the way the lawyer developed suspicions, there are things he's bound to do. But if he discovered you were cheating on your wife as well, he'd stil not be allowed to testify during divorce proceedings. If he sued because you didn't pay him, that's a different matter--one unrelated to anything between him and a third party.

[qazplm135]

27. so...it was aliens then

clearly.

[in2herbs]

32. But he already talked to Mueller without WH interference, so where's the executive privilege?? nt

[Iliyah]

3. Uh huh . . .

[procon]

4. That was a very convenient "opinion". nt

[Bayard]

5. Once again

tRump orders one of his minions to break the law.

Its the most idiotic thing in the world anyway, since McGahn already testified to Mueller.

[edhopper]

6. Of course they did.

Last edited Mon May 20, 2019, 07:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Fuck them, they don't decide this, the Courts will.

[tosh]

9. Ditto that.

[rurallib]

23. And that is why they have worked so hard to stack the courts in their favor

[maxsolomon]

36. Add 1 to 2 months. Now it's late July.

The stalling tactics are working.

[Tech]

7. Who took justice out of the department of justice?

[FirstLight]

12. right? TOTAL Bullshit!!!

[tymorial]

15. When Barr decided that the DOJ was Trump's personal legal counsel

[Chin music]

8. Focus on release of the unredacted report.

Who's supposed to testify next week? Let's wrap this shit show up.

[gldstwmn]

10. Why won't they let McGahn

Testify about how The Mueller Report exonerates Trump? Why? It's not fair.

[Volaris]

40. Lol Congress can't handle that much Exoneration...

[angrychair]

11. As I understand it

The WH counsel is does not work for trump per se and a WH counsel being referred to as a "senior advisor" is disingenuous at best or outright obstruction at worse.

[rurallib]

26. yeah - my antenna went up when I saw that "senior advisor"

My understanding is that the WH counsel should not be involved in "advising" the president on policy.

[angrychair]

30. Well, as I understand it

They have absolutely nothing to do with policy or advising. Their role is legal counsel to the office of the president, not the president. They are not their personal attorney. I was of the understanding that nothing told to them is covered under attorney-client privilege nor executive privilege. So bizarre.

[Cattledog]

14. Mr. McGahn is absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony...

WOW!

[gldstwmn]

16. People are losing their patience

And interest with this. If nothing is done I fear people will stay home on election day thinking there's no point. They're not going to respond to subpoenas and how many more court cases are we going to create? We need to do something different.

[PSPS]

18. Yes, many have now realized the system is broken and won't work anymore.

[Andy823]

20. Only a complete idiot

would let anything stop them from voting trump out of office. The more trump tries to cover his ass for what he has done, the MORE people will get pissed off, and they won't sit home!

[gldstwmn]

28. The problem is a lot of Americans

Dont understand obstruction or the gravity of what he's doing. A lot of them also think he's not so bad.

[Andy823]

31. If they think he is not bad

then the are his cult followers, not normal people who can see what he really is. People who see through his BS will NOT stay home. Democrats will NOT stay home.

[gldstwmn]

34. If people think Russia interfered

In our elections and were allowed to get away with it do you think that's going to motivate them to go to the polls? Not everyone is as dialed in to this as we here on this site are. I do think some of the people who voted for him last time will not vote for him again. The Russians will interfere again. If he loses what happens if he refuses to leave? Who drags him out of the Oval?

[Iliyah]

22. Disagree . .

It is more going on in the USA than this. As important as this matter is, so are other issues that are being targeted while GOPers are trying to destroy them, and the USA citizens are fed up with it as well, i.e. healthcare, abortions, civil rights, taxes, raising cost of living, etc.

[gldstwmn]

25. I hope you are correct.

[PSPS]

17. LOL. "says Justice Dept." Should be "says trump's personal attorney masquerading as Justice Dept."

[FirstLight]

19. SO if this was Impeachment, would the JD still have authority to say this?

WTF? I need someone to talk me down....

[msongs]

21. since nobody is being held accountable by congress why not refuse to testify nt

[kacekwl]

29. Trump and Barr can take their opinion

and shove it. That's my opinion.

[Nevilledog]

33. I wanna see the letter from DOJ saying he's immune from compulsion.

See it referenced, but not produced. If it's a "legal opinion" I wanna see their reasoning and basis. Sounds like they're not arguing executive privilege but some other bullshit basis. I'll bet the opinion is uncluttered by authority.

[Gothmog]

35. From Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

37. Here is a great letter from Chairman Nadler

Link to tweet

[pecosbob]

38. Why do the names John Mitchell and John Dean seem to be on the tip of my tongue?

anyone want to take odds on who goes to jail and who will testify before Congress? I would like to see Barr and Sessions as cellies at FCI Petersburg.

[duforsure]

39. This is what a corrupt illegitimate president

And AG looks like. They both will lose and regret this and be claiming they are the victims of corrupt Democrats while they are covering up their illegal criminal activities.

[spanone]

41. This will go down in the courts.

[BSdetect]

42. If we had the full Mueller report would we still need McGahn to testify?