The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Conclusions of a busy day in court on the investigation of political trial

2019-11-26T09:05:04.482Z


Two important judicial actions on Monday night added firewood to the fire in the political trial investigation of the House of Representatives Democrats and the ongoing fight for the…


  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
  • Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
  • Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

Washington (CNN) - Two important judicial actions in Washington DC on Monday night added firewood to the fire in the political trial investigation of House of Representatives Democrats and the ongoing struggle for the White House’s attempt to shield the advisors and financial documents of President Donald Trump.

A federal judge said former White House lawyer Don McGahn must testify before Congress, a great victory for House Democrats and their investigations into Trump.

Minutes later, the Supreme Court prevented the Democrats from obtaining the president's financial records for now.

These are the key conclusions of a busy day in court:

Bad news for anyone in the White House who doesn't want to talk

McGahn is a former official who says the White House could still prevent him from talking to Congress. But US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made clear his opinion on Monday that even current White House officials should not be blocked from a call from Congress.

If more judges agree with her (and McGahn also plans to appeal), White House officials like the chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, might be forced to testify.

Much of the strength of Jackson's extensive opinion is based on past decisions of another judge at the trial level and the Supreme Court regarding the citations of Congress and the scope of executive immunity.

Jackson reiterates a judicial decision of the era of George W. Bush that led the then White House lawyer, Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove to agree to testify to the House on the dismissal of prosecutors by the president.

"As a matter of law, current and former high-level presidential assistants, including White House counselors, must appear before Congress if the legislative process forces them to do so," Jackson wrote Monday.

Bolton's former assistant, Charles Kupperman, now has a parallel fight in court, where he has asked a judge to decide whether the immunity of the White House is stronger than the citation of the House.

MIRA : Most important moments of the political trial hearings against President Donald Trump

Congress now has support if it wants to challenge for obstruction

Democrats are considering challenging Trump for obstructing Congress by blocking his citations. They now have 120 pages written by a federal judge to support that.

Jackson's words could not be clearer or more useful for the House at this stage.

First, Jackson ends the White House's reasoning that judges should not rule on cases like these and that former officials like McGahn cannot be blocked. She can pronounce herself and McGahn must appear if quoted, she says.

Jackson then turns his anger to the legal reasoning of the Department of Justice that administration officials are immune to congressional subpoenas.

"Unfortunately for the Department of Justice, its simple retraction of these aspirational claims does not make the proposal more persuasive," Jackson writes, refuting the policy established by the Office of Legal Counsel.

“Because there are few well-formulated justifications, if any, to categorically excuse current and former high-level presidential assistants from responding to the mandatory process of Congress, it would be difficult to do so in accordance with existing jurisprudence, traditional norms. of practice under our constitutional system of government and common sense, ”he added.

In summary, the legal reasoning of the executive branch is discredited, Jackson concluded.

Democrats could embolden themselves to quote Trump

Jackson's ruling is so broad and so fierce that it sometimes seems to encourage Democrats to call Trump himself to testify. At least twice in his written reasoning, Jackson points out that the courts would find that a president himself is not immune to the testimony of Congress.

She cites the ruling on Miers and the Supreme Court arguing that a president would not have a "right" to immunity in civil or criminal matters. She returns to the idea in a footnote, mentioning court fights over citations that presidents Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon lost.

"When the law has not provided absolute immunity for presidents facing trials for significant civil damages or who have criminal exposure, it seems unlikely that a president will be declared totally immune to the mandatory process in Congress," writes Jackson.

It is also a tacit reminder that special prosecutor Robert Mueller never cited Trump for a live testimony in Russia's investigation, leaving Congress decisions on whether he should be held accountable for the obstruction of justice.

"Simply put, the main conclusion of the last 250 years of recorded American history is that presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote.

The Supreme Court stood between Trump and the Democrats regarding the documents

Monday’s Supreme Court action marked its first step toward a major battle of separation of powers in the context of the political trial investigation.

In a brief order, the court prevented the House of Representatives from obtaining Trump's financial records for the time being.

In doing so, the court became the first court to block a subpoena for Trump's financial documents, which lower court judges had ruled valid under the rules of the House and the United States Constitution.

The nine judges now sit between the president and the Democrats of the House of Representatives in the fight for documents held by Mazars USA, the former Trump accountant. The House has argued that it needs the financial records to get to the bottom of Trump's claims about his finances, as he considers amending federal ethics laws.

READ : The 11 key moments of the third day of hearings in the process of political trial against Trump

Resolving the case of financial documents could take months

Now that the judges have intervened, any resolution could take months. The only date the court order was established was the December 5 deadline for a petition from Trump's lawyers. The lawyers of the House of Representatives will probably respond shortly thereafter and will urge the judges to stand firm the decisions of the lower court.

But the judges did not indicate when they would announce whether they would accept the petition and schedule oral arguments, or alternatively, reject the petition.

Only if the judges flatly deny Trump's appeal, the House can enforce its citation for the documents. If the judges accept Trump's request and agree to argue, an information calendar would take weeks. The eventual decision may not come until June, when judges traditionally resume their annual session. Regardless of how they decide the dispute, the Chamber's effort that began with a citation of April 2019 would have extended beyond a year.

But the political trial is moving at full speed

The House of Representatives Intelligence Commission is preparing a report to summarize its case of political trial investigation related to Trump and Ukraine, which the president of the House of Representatives, Adam Schiff, said would be sent to the Judicial Commission shortly after Thanksgiving Day.

The federal court ruling that McGahn must testify is intriguing to the Democrats, particularly those who want the House to include the episodes of obstruction of justice detailed by Mueller in the articles of political judgment.

McGahn was a key witness for Mueller, and his testimony could reinforce that case for the House.

But the Justice Department already said on Monday that it was appealing the case, which means it will be tied for weeks, if not more months. And Schiff said the political trial investigation does not stop while waiting for the courts.

"While we will continue with our investigative work and not exclude the possibility of new statements or hearings, we will not allow the president or others to extend it for months in court," Schiff said.

Schiff's comments are another reminder that the political calendar is a very different animal from the judicial one. The Democrats held seven political trial hearings with 12 witnesses, including several hearings in one day, to get the testimony in the register they needed to write political trial articles and vote in plenary before Christmas.

That will give the Senate the opportunity to hold a trial before the political world focuses all its attention on the presidential elections next year.

Political judgment

Source: cnnespanol

All news articles on 2019-11-26

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.