Don McGahn Must Comply with House Subpoena – “Presidents Are Not Kings”

Don McGahn, former White House counsel, must testify before House impeachment investigators, ruled a federal judge in Washington on November 25. Previously, the Trump administration had ordered McGahn and other White House senior officials to defy a subpoena to appear before Congress to provide testimony in the Trump impeachment inquiry.

The White House had said that McGahn and a group of other current and former senior White House officials were protected from testifying before Congress by “absolute immunity,” given their positions in the administration.

But in response to a lawsuit filed by the House Judiciary Committee, U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled that the president does not have the power to excuse McGahn from testifying.

“Stated simply,” wrote Jackson, “The primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.

“…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.”

Though McGahn must testify, he does retain the right to invoke executive privilege “where appropriate.”

“If McGahn wants to refuse to testify, such as by invoking executive privilege, he must do so in person and question by question,” said Jackson.

Don McGahn was a key witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Consequently, he is at the center of one of the strongest charges against Trump in the impeachment inquiry: criminal obstruction of justice by Trump in the Mueller probe.

During Mueller’s investigation, McGahn told Mueller’s team that Trump had ordered him to fire Mueller. When news of this became public, according to McGahn, Trump told McGahn to deny, in writing, that Trump had wanted to have Mueller fired.

At the time, McGahn stated that he would rather resign than fire Robert Mueller. In October, 2018, McGahn did step down as White House Counsel.

Though the Trump administration is expected to appeal, Brown’s ruling could have implications for other key witnesses such as John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, who have ignored subpoenas, or who have filed suits challenging the lawfulness of the subpoenas.

“Don McGahn will comply with Judge Jackson’s decision unless it is stayed pending appeal (by the DOJ),” said McGahn’s attorney, William A. Burck.

Judge rules Don McGahn must comply with House subpoena | Fox News [2019-11-25]

News Wrap: Judge rules former White House lawyer McGahn must testify to Congress | PBS NewsHour [2019-11-25]

The Difference Between What Donald Trump Did and What Joe Biden Did

Ever since a whistleblower came forward with the allegation of a quid pro quo between Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump’s supporters have scrambled. According to the whistleblower’s account, Trump pressured Zelenskiy to investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, as a condition for releasing needed military aid funds that had already been allocated to Ukraine. 

At first, Trump’s supporters quickly denied that there was a quid pro quo. Then, when it became apparent that denial was a lie, they tried to rationalize Trump’s actions with the idea that quid pro quo situations happen “all the time” between the U.S. and foreign governments. Now that the whistleblower’s story has been widely corroborated by a number of credible witnesses who found Trump’s actions “troubling,” Trump’s supporters are desperately trying to divert attention away from possible wrongdoing by equating Trump’s actions with those of Joe Biden when Biden had worked to help remove a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor.

On the November 10, 2019 broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), echoed the current GOP talking points when he said, “I think, really, what’s going to happen is people are going to say, ‘Oh, they’re impeaching President Trump for exactly the same thing that Joe Biden did.’

“He threatened the aid, if they didn’t fire someone. And supposedly, the president did, if they didn’t investigate someone. So it sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did. And if they weren’t going to impeach Joe Biden, they look like, you know, hypocrites, in a way, for going only after President Trump and having not a word to say about what Joe Biden did…It’s exactly the same scenario.”

But it isn’t.

Rand Paul was referring to the idea that (then vice president) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a paid board member of the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, during the time that then Vice President Joe Biden was working to have a Ukrainian prosecutor removed in order to, as Paul, and other Trump supporters put it, stop the prosecutor from investigating Hunter Biden’s company. This is, at best, a stretching of certain facts. 

Later in the show, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), said, “…That has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the United States president in extorting Ukraine in a way that damaged our national security.”

Joe Biden was not trying to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor to keep him from investigating his son’s company. He was trying to follow through, with the support of U.S. allies, on removing a prosecutor who was failing to investigate Ukrainian corruption, and who many agreed was himself corrupt. Contrary to damaging national security, Biden’s efforts were to strengthen security for Ukraine, as well as its allies. 

At the same time that some of Trump’s supporters have conceded that there may have been a quid pro quo, they’re also quick to try to say that Trump’s first interest was to fight corruption in Ukraine. With a president who, according to the Washington Post, has made more than 14,500 false or misleading claims during his presidency as of October 14, 2019, this is hard to imagine. What’s more, at the time Trump had decided to conditionally withhold military aid from Ukraine, the U.S. Departments of Defense and State had both certified that Ukraine had made great progress in decreasing corruption, and recommended the U.S. proceed with the aid to Ukraine. 

In resorting to “what-aboutism” as a defense against the whistleblower’s complaint and all of the testimony that backs it up, Trump’s supporters appear to be aware that they have little else to present as an argument. 

Full Himes: ‘We’ve Got To Get Off This Quid Pro Quo Thing’ | Meet The Press | NBC News [2019-11-10]

Biden defends son’s dealings in Ukraine while attacking Trump | Fox News
[2019-10-28]