Donald Trump plans to tell former White House counsel Don McGahn to no-show for congressional testimony at a hearing planned for Tuesday, according to the New York Times. The move would follow suit on the White House’s posture of denying congressional Democrats access to anything and everything they are trying to investigate regarding Trump's corruption and abuse of power.
McGahn got more mentions than any other witness in the obstruction section of the redacted Russia report penned by special counsel Robert Mueller. McGahn and his chief of staff, Annie Donaldson, documented several instances in which Trump made a forceful effort to either remove Mueller from his post or redirect his investigation to exclude any wrongdoing by Trump's campaign and administration.
Trump's top attorney at that Justice Department, Attorney General William Barr, plans to pen a legal rationale that McGahn can wield as an excuse for not cooperating with congressional investigators. Though McGahn is a private citizen and Trump can't necessarily prevent him from cooperating with Congress, he currently works at Jones Day in Washington, where the firm has strong ties to the Republican party.
House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler has already indicated that a no-show might prompt his panel to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress. But the fight will likely proceed to court, which will eat up some time even though most legal observers believe Trump's position is a total loser on the legal front.
Politically, people such as former Majority Leader Harry Reid think that blocking people like McGahn and Mueller from giving testimony should be grounds for initiating impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Monday, May 20, 2019 · 7:44:33 PM +00:00
·
Kerry Eleveld
UPDATE: The White House Press Secretary has issued a statement saying DOJ sent a legal opinion to House Judiciary stating that, “based on long-standing, bipartisan, and Constitutional precedent, the former Counsel to the President cannot be forced to give such testimony.” No word exactly what precedents that legal opinion cites, but good luck in court, Trump.