Appeals court rules McGahn must testify

[In It to Win It]

A federal appeals court has upheld a House subpoena for testimony from President Donald Trump’s former White House counsel Don McGahn.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled Friday, 7-2, that McGahn must appear and testify, but the court left open the question of what questions the former close adviser to Trump will be required to answer from House Judiciary Committee lawmakers.

The Trump administration could ask the Supreme Court to step in to put the ruling on hold, which would head off the political spectacle of McGahn being called before a Democrat-led congressional panel before the November election.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/07/appeals-court-rules-mcgahn-must-testify-392562

[spanone]

1. What do all these GOPers have to hide?

[AllaN01Bear]

12. i agree.

[spanone]

18. None of them can go and tell the truth? WTF?

[malaise]

2. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees!

Rec

[MFGsunny]

3. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! n/t

[UTUSN]

4. K&R

[leftieNanner]

5. That would be great!

But you know IT will kick it upstairs to Beer Boy and Co.

Let's get McGahn in the hot seat!

[SheltieLover]

16. Oh, I'm sure they will appeal to boof boy & co.

I'm not an attorney, but it has always been my understanding one cannot appeal just because you don't like the verdict. There must be a procedural error.

Yet they do this all the time. 🤬

[Wednesdays]

23. For the SCOTUS to consider it,

there has to be a Constitutional issue, IIRC.

[SheltieLover]

24. Ty!)

That is what I thought. But they could file & wait forever for SCOTUS to reject. 🤬

[iluvtennis]

6. K & R. nt

[scarletwoman]

7. "The Trump administration could ask the Supreme Court to step in to put the ruling on hold"

Well, that right there is a distinct possibility - if not a probability.

I'm going to put off celebrating until McGahn is actually in front of the House Judiciary Committee.

[NewJeffCT]

8. If he testifies

he would just take the 5th. However, Dems should make him do that on TV

[Harker]

14. Juxtapose that with Trumpsky bleating

"The Mob takes the 5th!"

[NewJeffCT]

22. and, it would also give Dems the chance

to read the Mueller report into the record and the HUGE amount of McGahn testimony in there.

[SheltieLover]

25. Great idea!

[Pepsidog]

9. In courts all across the country, expedited hearings are held on emergent matters. Why did it take a

year to decide this case. More troublesome is the fact that 2 judges apparently had a different view. The DOJ was in court arguing that a congressional subpoena of an executive branch official should not be enforced is a disgrace. DOJ needs a good cleaning out.

[crickets]

10. +1

[mjvpi]

15. "DOJ needs a good cleaning out".

Normally I’d recommend a probiotic, but with Baby Face Barr in charge, I’d say we start with a wire brush. I won’t accept sweeping the past under the rug for the sake of healing the country. There is so much that needs to be reconstructed. Not vindictive but, in no uncertain terms, accountable.

[SheltieLover]

17. Inconvenient

Same with tax case. Took forever! 🤬

[Lonestarblue]

11. This is why I keep saying that our federal court system needs a review.

Justice is not served when it takes more than a year to get a simple response that should have taken no more than six weeks. And the two judges that dissented should be asked what Constitutional principle they were upholding when the Constitution specifically designates the House to serve as a check and balance. How exactly are they to do this if their subpoenas can just be ignored?

If this goes to the SC, they will just put it off until after the election. I do not think we will see any McGahn testimony anytime soon.

[dchill]

13. "...head off the political spectacle..."

Talk about a ship that has already sailed!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

19. Good

[bluestarone]

20. Just seems like our court system today is more about

POSTPONING rather than deciding anything!

[abqtommy]

21. The jokes just keep coming today. Back in 2015 who woulda thought that anything connected

to tRUMP could result in a "political spectacle"?