WH to instruct former counsel Don McGahn not to comply with congressional subpoena [ Video ]

The White House will instruct former White House counsel Donald McGahn not to comply with a subpoena from House Democrats for documents related to the special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, according to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.
“I don’t anticipate that that takes place,” Sanders said on ABC News' “The Investigation” podcast Tuesday, when asked whether the White House will allow McGahn to comply with Democrats’ request. “We consider this to be a case closed and we're moving forward to do the work of the American people.”
McGahn was a central figure in the Mueller report who cooperated extensively with the special counsel’s probe, meeting with his team at least three times and questioned more extensively than any other member of the White House staff who went in for an interview.
"Mr. McGahn is a critical witness to many of the alleged instances of obstruction of justice and other misconduct described in the Mueller report,” House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., wrote last month in a press release accompanying his subpoena request. “His testimony will help shed further light on the President's attacks on the rule of law, and his attempts to cover up those actions by lying to the American people and requesting others do the same."
The deadline for McGahn to produce documents to the committee is Tuesday and Democrats have requested McGahn testify before the committee later this month.
Mueller had requested to speak with McGahn about the circumstances surrounding former FBI Director James Comey’s firing and his reported involvement in the event surrounding Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusing himself from the Russia investigation, the sources said.
ABC News previously reported that McGahn was among the White House staffers who were against any notion of President Trump’s firing of special counsel Mueller last June when the president wanted to do just that, a source said.
After news broke that Trump ordered McGahn to fire the special counsel, Trump pressured McGahn to deny that he had been directed to do so, even suggesting to aides that he would fire him unless he complied. Mueller concludes that there is evidence to suggest Trump acted this way to impede his investigation, according to the special counsel's report.
Mueller concluded that "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated, the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."
Democrats could move to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress in response to their subpoena for information and his testimony. They are already preparing to hold Attorney General Barr in contempt of Congress over refusing to provide lawmakers greater access to an unredacted version of the Mueller report.
Don McGahn wearing a suit and tie smiling at the camera: White House counsel Donald McGahn at Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing on Sept. 27, 2018.
Pool/Getty Images, FILE White House counsel Donald McGahn at Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearing on Sept. 27, 2018.

WH to instruct former counsel Don McGahn not to comply with congressional subpoena

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What did Trump’s 2nd impeachment accomplish?

  That’s happening Former President Donald Trump was  acquitted  by the Senate on Saturday of the charge that he incited the insurrection on Jan. 6. The impeachment trial ended with 57 senators, including  seven Republicans , finding Trump guilty — well short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict. Over the course of a  week of testimony , House impeachment managers laid out the case that Trump was directly responsible for the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol carried out by a mob of his supporters. Trump’s attorneys countered by arguing that his baseless claims of election fraud were protected by the First Amendment and that the Senate lacked the constitutional authority to convict a president who was no longer in office. Several GOP senators cited the latter argument in explaining their decision to acquit. Senate Minority Leader  Mitch McConnell  said Trump was “practically and morally responsible” for the violence at the Capitol in a scathing speech following the final vote,
Read more

Mildred Loving, Who Battled Ban on Mixed-Race Marriage, Dies at 68

Mildred Loving, a black woman whose anger over being banished from Virginia for marrying a white man led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling overturning state miscegenation laws, died on May 2 at her home in Central Point, Va. She was 68. Peggy Fortune, her daughter, said the cause was pneumonia. The Supreme Court ruling, in 1967, struck down the last group of segregation laws to remain on the books — those requiring separation of the races in marriage. The ruling was unanimous, its opinion written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, who in 1954 wrote the court’s opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, declaring segregated public schools unconstitutional. In Loving v. Virginia, Warren wrote that miscegenation laws violated the Constitution’s equal protection clause. “We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race,” he said. By their own widely reported accounts, Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, were in bed in their m
Read more

31 states have heightened religious freedom protections

Image
The recent flurry of state bills giving religious exemptions from certain laws -- including the Arizona law that Gov. Jan Brewer (R) just vetoed -- raises a question: How many states already provide heightened protection for the exercise of religion? The answer? Thirty-one, 18 of which passed state laws based on the 1993 federal  Religious Freedom Restoration Act . The protections in an additional 13 states came through court rulings. Here's a map of which states have added protections and which do not: "These state RFRAs were enacted in response to Supreme Court decisions that had nothing to do with gay rights or same-sex marriage," explained University of Virginia law professor Douglas Laycock in an e-mail. "And the state court decisions interpreting their state constitutions arose in all sorts of contexts, mostly far removed from  gay rights or same-sex marriage. There were cases about Amish buggies, hunting moose for native Alaskan funeral rituals, an atte
Read more