Judge rules that former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify before House

House Democrats will stop at nothing in order to remove President Donald Trump from the White House and have gone so far as enlisting liberal judiciary in the cause.

To this point, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has just ordered former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before Congress as part of the impeachment inquiry. 

More than just executive privilege

As most people know, the Trump administration is claiming Executive Privilege for all current and former staffers of the administration.

This was done to block Rep. Adam Schiff’s (D-CA) impeachment circus from becoming more of a debacle that it already is. We know Schiff cannot stay on track, so who knows what path he would take these people on to try to dig up something on Trump to impeach him.

Above and beyond that, though, every attorney has the attorney-client privilege to fall back on. Don McGahn was the White House counsel before leaving the position, but every communication he had with President Trump should be considered privileged information.

House Democrats have been after McGahn to testify about special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on the Russia collusion investigation and went so far as to sue McGahn in August to force him to speak out about possible obstruction of justice found in Mueller’s report.

Must testify

According to Judge Jackson, McGahn must comply with the subpoena and appear before Congress to testify.

In her 120-page opinion, she stated, “This Court holds that individuals who have been subpoenaed for testimony by an authorized committee of Congress must appear for testimony in response to that subpoena — i.e., they cannot ignore or defy congressional compulsory process, by order of the President or otherwise.”

While the Justice Department has already stated that it will appeal the decision, McGahn’s attorney said that unless a stay is placed on Judge Jackson’s decision, McGahn will appear before Congress to testify.

The Department of Justice countered the federal judge’s decision, maintaining that “there is no constitutional or statutory basis for a Committee of the House of Representatives to take on the role of enforcing its subpoenas in the federal courts.”

Judge Jackson is an Obama appointee who was placed on the bench in March 2013. Clearly, her decision is politically charged, because there simply is no precedent for an attorney to be required to testify against his or her client.

It is a fundamental rule of the law that a judge just ordered to be violated.

Share on facebook
Share to Facebook
[ci-popup]

Latest News