Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 06:59 PM Nov 2019

McGahn must appear - can invoke executive privilege where appropriate [View all]

Sounds right.

Edit to add:

[As] far as the duty to appear is concerned, this Court holds that Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process—no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years—even if the President expressly directs such officials’ non-compliance. Today, this Court adds that this conclusion is inescapable precisely because compulsory appearance by dint of a subpoena is a legal construct, not a political one, and per the Constitution, no one is above the law. That is to say, however busy or essential a presidential aide might be, and whatever their proximity to sensitive domestic and national-security projects, the President does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. Fifty years of say so within the Executive branch does not change that fundamental truth.

Nor is the power of the Executive unfairly or improperly diminished when the Judiciary mandates adherence to the law and thus refuses to recognize a veto-like discretionary power of the President to cancel his subordinates’ legal obligations. To the contrary, when a duly authorized committee of Congress issues a valid subpoena to a current or former Executive branch official, and thereafter, a federal court determines that the subpoenaed official does, as a matter of law, have a duty to respond notwithstanding any contrary order of the President, the venerated constitutional principles that animate the structure of our government and undergird our most vital democratic institutions are preserved.


This is HUGE

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
They are going to appeal that immediately to the CA DC and then to SCOTUS jberryhill Nov 2019 #1
True StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #2
Complete text jberryhill Nov 2019 #3
thanks -- lost that tab before I finished reading Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2019 #13
And if he does appear everything will be executive privilege. blueinredohio Nov 2019 #4
He may try, but they can go back to court to rule on EP. And the courts clearly aren't having it StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #7
Former White House counsel Donald McGahn must comply with House subpoena, Gothmog Nov 2019 #5
I hope to hell they make him say "Executive Privilege". CincyDem Nov 2019 #6
Even if appeatled, this is probably enough cover DeminPennswoods Nov 2019 #8
Neal Katyal-Ruling is a win for Nancy Pelosi and a major loss for trump Gothmog Nov 2019 #9
He must be so tired of winning StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #10
Here is a link to the opinion Gothmog Nov 2019 #11
Judge denied DOJ stay while case is appealed Gothmog Dec 2019 #12
This isn't uncommon. The appellate court will probably grant the stay StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #14
This is interesting Gothmog Dec 2019 #15
It is, indeed StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #17
We both know that as a good lawyer, you were going to read the entire opinion when you got a chance Gothmog Dec 2019 #18
:-) StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #19
Understand that I am corporate lawyer who has tried some securities related cases Gothmog Dec 2019 #20
You were trained to analyze and discern StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #21
Neal Katyal agrees with our analysis Gothmog Dec 2019 #22
Well, if he agrees with us, we know he's right StarfishSaver Dec 2019 #23
Judge flays DOJ, calling its arguments 'disingenuous' & 'unacceptable mischaracterization Gothmog Dec 2019 #16
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»McGahn must appear - can ...