Obstruction Got Nixon and Clinton: It Will Get Trump and Serve Justice Properly

Trump creating Constitutional crisis right in our face

(Showtime: Make no mistake about it)

Big News: Trump orders Don McGahn not to testify before Congress. This is clearly a blatant and obvious obstruction of justice move by Trump – there is no doubt about that.

My view: The House must commence impeachment now – see historical examples below:

WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) — Trump today (Monday, May 20, 2019) directed his former White House counsel, Don McGahn to defy a congressional subpoena and skip a hearing scheduled for Tuesday (May 21, 2019) thus denying House Democrats testimony from one of the most important eyewitnesses to Trump’s attempts to obstruct the Russia investigation.

The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed McGahn to appear. The White House presented McGahn and the committee with a 15-page legal opinion from the DOJ stating: “Congress may not constitutionally compel the president’s senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

Pat Cipollone, current White House counsel, wrote the letter to the Judiciary Committee and added: “Because of this constitutional immunity, and in order to protect the prerogatives of the office of the presidency, the president has directed Mr. McGahn not to appear at the Committee’s scheduled hearing on Tuesday.”

McGahn now technically faces a choice over whether to show up to the hearing and parry questions from Democrats or skip the session altogether. 

McGahn has maintained throughout that he will follow the White House’s guidance, according to a person close to him.

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were livid, if not entirely surprised by the White House’s intervention. The committee’s chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said last week that he was prepared to have his panel vote to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress if he does not show up on Tuesday.

Though a black mark on a witness’s record, a contempt citation would most likely result in the House turning to a federal court to try to enforce its subpoena. 

At the same time, if he defies the White House, McGahn could not only damage his own career in Republican politics but also put his law firm, Jones Day, at risk of having the president urge his allies to withhold their business. 

The firm’s Washington practice is closely affiliated with the Republican Party. A lawyer for Mr. McGahn declined to comment on Monday.

Note: History is Not on Trump’s Side in this Case. Two examples illustrate this point:

Richard M. NIXON: He refused to release W/H tapes, but on July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ordered him to comply. On July 27, 29, and 30, 1974, the House Committee approved three articles of impeachment: (1) obstruction of justice, (2) abuse of power, and (3) contempt of Congress. Facing that, Nixon resigned a few days later.

William J. “BILL” CLINTON: He was impeached in December 1998 by the House of Representatives and led to a trial in the Senate on two charges: (1) obstruction of justice, and (2) perjury. He was not removed from office.

Related from Business Insider – this key part:

W/H press secretary Sarah Sanders pointed to a new memo from the DOJ’s OLC: “Stating that, based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent. The former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony, and Mr. McGahn has been directed to act accordingly.” 

Indeed, the OLC memo said: “Congress may not constitutionally compel the President's senior advisers to testify about their official duties.”

But as legal experts were quick to point out, the opinion doesn't account for one important possibility: McGahn choosing to testify before lawmakers.

From Steve Vladeck, Law Professor at the University of Texas wrote on Twitter: “McGahn does NOT have to comply with Trump's instruction: The key here is what the OLC opinion does not say - that McGahn can be barred from voluntarily testifying before Congress. All it says on that front is that he can't be punished for refusing to testify (Part IV), not that the President has any means of stopping him from doing so. Whether or not the OLC opinion is correct that McGahn can't be punished for refusing to testify (which is the weakest part of the analysis, in my view), there's nothing in these 15 pages that remotely supports the idea that McGahn can somehow be 'blocked from testifying.”

Eric Columbus, who served as senior counsel to the deputy attorney general under former President Barack Obama, echoed that view, tweeting: “McGahn does NOT have to comply with Trump's instruction.”

The OLC memo said in part: “Coercing senior presidential advisers into situations where they must repeatedly decline to provide answers, citing executive privilege, would be inefficient and contrary to good-faith governance.”

Eric Columbus then tweeted: “Executive privilege has no force against a former employee who wants to testify.”

My 2 cents: As I said above, history on this subject is against Trump.

We shall see – probably will go to the USSC – we shall see. Stay tuned.

Thanks for stopping by.