HJC -vs- White House – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Predictably Rules White House Counsel Don McGahn Must Testify….

This decision (full pdf below) was easily predicted for the past several weeks.  The HJC -vs- White House case for McGahn testimony will be appealed and join the HJC -vs- White House case surrounding grand jury information in the DC appellate court.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled late Monday that former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey a subpoena for his testimony issued by the House Judiciary Committee.

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson [pictured right] said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Nancy Pelosi and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler need a full House impeachment authorization vote to try and overcome the current obstacles they are facing.  The authority for the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) to penetrate the constitutional firewall that protects the separation of power in the main issue; but there are other structural/legal issues that also exist.

Here’s the McGahn ruling that will most certainly go to the appeals court next:

.

Any loss in three currently pending cases will undermine the validity of the prior impeachment inquiry…. that’s obviously an issue.   There are three cases, each of them appears heading to the Supreme Court; one is already there.

♦The first case is the House Oversight Committee effort to gain President Trumps’ tax returns as part of their impeachment ‘inquiry’ and oversight.  That case is currently on-hold (10-day stay) in the Supreme Court.  Written briefs soon, arguments perhaps in early December? Outcome pending.  There is a very strong probability Pelosi will lose this case because Oversight doesn’t have jurisdiction and the case began back in February.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. granted the administration’s request to stay the federal appeals court ruling against Mr. Trump until “further order” — for now — as the high court decides whether or not to hear the president’s challenge.

[…] Douglas Letter, general counsel for the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, had sent a letter to the court, agreeing to a brief 10-day stay while the parties filed their court papers debating the need for an injunction while the case is being considered.  (link)

Probability of loss to Pelosi 90%.

♦The second case is the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) effort to gain the grand jury information from the Mueller investigation.  The decision by DC Judge Beryl Howell was  stayed by a three member DC Appellate court.  Oral arguments were November 12th, the decision is pending. [Depending on outcome, the case could will also go to SCOTUS]

[…] the appeals court in a brief order said it would not immediately release the documents “pending further order of the court.” The court also asked the House and the Justice Department for more briefings and set a Jan. 3 date for another hearing.  (link)

Probability of SCOTUS 100%

♦The third case is the HJC effort to force the testimony of former White House legal counsel Don McGahn.  Issue: subpoena validity.  The HJC asked for an expedited ruling. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered her ruling November 25th.:

Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. The judge did not put her own ruling on hold, but the Trump administration will likely seek one to put the effect of her ruling on hold while it pursues an appeal. (link)

Probability Appeal 100% – Probability SCOTUS 90%

Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Lawfare are hoping a full House vote to authorize impeachment will help them retroactively in any judicial decision (court, appeals or SCOTUS).  The only case where that seems possible is the last one; and that has a long way to reach SCOTUS.

Remember, the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on any ancillary case that touches upon the validity of the unilaterally declared House impeachment process.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on any case that touches the impeachment “inquiry”.

The issue at stake is whether the legislative branch can penetrate the constitutional firewall which exists within the separation of powers.

If the House loses the Tax case in SCOTUS (likely), and/or either HJC case in appeals or SCOTUS it will mean there was no constitutional foundation for the “impeachment inquiry” upon which they have built their legal arguments.

Without the constitutional recognition of the judicial branch Pelosi and Schiff’s HPSCI status as a constitutional impeachment process would be fatally flawed. The product from all of that effort could be considered invalid; and possibly the Senate could ignore any House impeachment vote that uses invalid evidence gathered in the fatally flawed process.

Pelosi and Schiff are racing the SCOTUS for their legal foundation; and simultaneously facing the IG FISA report release which will likely challenge the foundation of their narrative.

 

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Donald Trump, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Supreme Court, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to HJC -vs- White House – Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson Predictably Rules White House Counsel Don McGahn Must Testify….

  1. FofBW says:

    This ruling is like trying to resuscitate a dead person.

    Liked by 14 people

    • JohnCasper says:

      So this “judge” is a lot like Ginsberg’s doctors.

      Liked by 7 people

    • oodeluph says:

      These vile clowns are running the world’s longest, criminal “Hail Mary” play; they will never call for impeachment (it would automatically withdraw the top jackass Senators from the Democrat scrum for the Presidential bid) so they are trying to keep the word “impeachment” front and center as long as they can in order to wrest some of President Trump’s base away from him prior to the election.
      Instead, he’s gaining support from previously untapped areas in addition to making established support so angry that it seems this might be the last time peaceful means might be employed to rid ourselves of the lying vermin.

      Like

  2. jeans2nd says:

    Brett Baeir just announced Justice has appealed.

    Liked by 11 people

    • Skippy says:

      Separately on Monday, the Supreme Court put a hold on a lower court decision ordering Mazars to turn over Trump tax return records, for now. The high court said it would entertain a writ for certiorari, which is essentially a formal appeal to the Supreme Court to hear the case on the merits, from the president by noon on Dec 5. If that writ is denied, the stay will be lifted.

      Otherwise, the stay will remain in place until the Supreme Court hears and decides the case.

      FOX NEWS:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-orders-ex-white-house-counsel-mcgahn-to-testify-in-impeachment-probe

      Liked by 4 people

    • Baier reported the ruling as “Breaking Tonight” four times on his show; never mentioned it was an Obama appointed judge; Said Don McGahn “must comply” with ruling; never mentioned that it was subject to appeal until the end of the show when he reported that the White House “will appeal the ruling”. Fox News “News” division becoming more Never-Trump biased than ever.

      Liked by 3 people

      • beachbum31 says:

        oh boy! big bad bert bare was hyperventilating like a big bushy blowfish!
        geez I sure hope he regains consciousness in time for dinner Thursday!
        Oh boy bert!

        Liked by 1 person

      • glissmeister says:

        I saw Baier’s report. He really blew it. Seems like Baier and Chris Wallace are in a race to the bottom professionally. Simply terrible television. Their inept, cliche delivery is just the beginning of what’s wrong with their bent, insipid performances.

        Liked by 1 person

      • shirley49 says:

        I heard a report this morning that even if he is forced to go before the Dem reprobates he can answer just answer questions claiming Executive privilege or he can do what Hitlery did and say “I cannot recall to every question”

        Like

  3. MDNA I says:

    2 Miscellaneous Remarks

    1. Some of the Judge’s remarks in her reasoning sound like she’s in a debate w/ AG Barr’s view of the Executive as expressed in his recent speech. Fact she goes out of her way to defy or contest the DOJ OLC’s “long-standing” opinion seems a little more than incidental. What it could be is simply an index that there are foundational questions & problems at stake

    2. I may be an idiot, but I’m wondering why executive privilege wasn’t properly invoked sooner

    Liked by 3 people

  4. SR says:

    Left can do anything and they are running free. We are just happy by few promising words by DOJ/FBI, IG or Barr. Now there is fake impeachment and 2020 election so PTrump can not even pardon anyone. Conservative senators are looking for job at Fox News by giving lip service but no subpoena. PTrump can save himself but left will crush all folks around hi m one by one. Fox is already 70% neverTrumper.

    Liked by 3 people

    • GB Bari says:

      Oh good grief.
      😏
      RolCon much?

      Liked by 15 people

    • aarmad says:

      Exactly! No matter what happens this will not be the end as long as Trump is in the White House. Even after he is impeached and wins the 2020 election by a landslide, it will NOT end. It is just a matter of when and what! Another fake impeachment?? Another collusion with Russia?? Another obstruction out of thin air. It will continue and could very well continue after he is out of office! It is a disgrace and a bad thing for the country, the republic, the Presidency, and we the people!!

      Like

  5. Magabear says:

    Even a liberal judge (as opposed to a leftist judge who cares less what the law is) will reverse this decision. Setting a precedent that allows attorney/client privilege to be violated is not something most judges care to set.

    This Obozo clown judge should be reprimanded by the appeals court for this obvious political ruling from the bench.

    Liked by 21 people

    • MDNA I says:

      Raises a relevant point: McGhan was WH Counsel, not the President’s personal attorney

      Liked by 1 person

    • Not only that, but the real issue at hand is the validity of the subpoena. When Lawfare realized their error in issuing phony subpoenas their only fall back was strongly worded letters that made them sound like subpoenas. This was widely discussed at the time.

      Liked by 2 people

    • G. Alistar says:

      Tonight on TV, Alan Dershowitz was asked who is the winner in this decision. His answer, “ the winner was Uber as the WH attorneys and others will have to take an Uber over to Capitol Hill, so they can then claim “executive privilege.” Complete waste of time!

      Like

  6. sundance says:

    Liked by 28 people

    • IGiveUp says:

      for now

      Liked by 3 people

    • The Demon Slick says:

      The left can get propaganda wins in the lower courts but then real judges step in. They get the lower court ruling, they feed their media acolytes, it’s front page news. But it’s not really going anywhere. By the time the courts are finished the weaselblower will be in jail and President Trump will be starting his second term. People aren’t interested in Ukraine policy. It’s boring and tedious. But real scandals, real corruption, spies and plots and scheming usurped, that’s like tele novella stuff. You don’t even have to jazz it up. That stuff sells.

      Like

  7. I remember th couckoo Hawaiin Judge and his rulings on the travel bans , he thought the longer the opinions the more validity it would have ( wrong and overruled each time) but we’re over 100s of pages , same here , quantity doesn’t mean anything – BS is BS and she could have issued her opinion in one sentence “ I hate Trump “ , the rest is window dressing .

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Somebody's Gramma says:

    An Obama appointee, a Hahhhvahd graduate, an activist Judge, ironically related to Paul Ryan via marriage. She’s been blocking Trump at every turn.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Justin Green says:

    So Congress thinks that they can violate the separation of powers, and this degenerate says, “no, but the judicial branch can violate the separation of powers”.

    Let’s expand FOIA laws to the Legislative and Judicial Branch and read all her emails.

    Liked by 11 people

  10. IGiveUp says:

    ” BS is BS and she could have issued her opinion in one sentence “ I hate Trump “ , the rest is window dressing .”

    But that’s what you pay an Obama judge for!

    Same with impeachment witnesses. Endless hours of bs masquerading as facts. Same exact tactic.

    Liked by 9 people

  11. deplorable says:

    Social justice has been served. White (orange) man bad.

    Like

  12. A2 says:

    A good thread dissecting the judge’s ruling.

    Andy Grewal
    @AndyGrewal
    ·
    1h
    The court uses rather loaded language to attack the DOJ’s claim that it lacks jurisdiction to resolve an interbranch subpoena dispute. I suspect the D.C. Circuit or SCOTUS will be far more measured:

    Read the rest at the link.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyGrewal/status/1199110534966235136

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Jenevive says:

    The panel on fox basically said that the judge ruling means
    McGann has to show up but he can claim executive priviledge
    once there. All it says is that he has to show up..

    Liked by 1 person

    • IGiveUp says:

      perhaps so but the larger point of having the court essentially rule that impeachment as conducted was valid would be a bad thing.

      Liked by 2 people

    • joeknuckles says:

      Yes, but that would provide the spectacle the Dems want. McGhan would have to sit there while Dem politicians and lawyers lie their asses off, then claim executive privilege when they ask him to confirm their lies.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      OK….but a “panel on Fox” is probably way down the list of people whose opinion of a just-released legal ruling I would trust. Time will tell. I will let it “bake” for 24 hours then we’ll see who is saying what about it.

      Liked by 3 people

    • linda4298 says:

      Remember Lois Lerner, she just showed up and took the 5th, walked away with a golden parachute.

      Liked by 1 person

    • GB Bari says:

      Possibly they based that opinion on page 23, where the judge writes:

      Importantly, the issue of whether McGahn must answer any particular question that the Judiciary Committee  poses and/or whether executive privilege applies to the answers McGahn might be compelled to give with respect to questions about the Mueller Report or otherwise (i.e., the third prong of the Committee’s request for relief) is not currently before this Court.” [bold emphasis mine]

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Cheese says:

    Judge Jackson cut the baby in half

    Liked by 2 people

  15. youme says:

    Just show up….

    Money quote:
    “Notably, however, in the
    context of that appearance, such individuals are free to assert any legally applicable
    privilege in response to the questions asked of them, where appropriate.”

    Page 116

    Liked by 2 people

  16. youme says:

    Footnote 11 Page 39:

    11 For a similar vantagepoint, see the circumstances described by George Orwell in the acclaimed book Animal Farm. See George Orwell, Animal Farm 141 (Otbe Book Publishing 2018) (“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”) (capitalization altered).

    My ” Animal Farm ” quote to Judge Jackson:

    “The distinguishing mark of man is the hand, the instrument with which he does all his mischief.”
    ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

    Liked by 1 person

  17. these leftists in the judiciary are destroying the country.

    Liked by 4 people

  18. inspectorudy says:

    According to this idiot judge and many on the left, anytime they want to try and dig up something on POTUS they can just subpoena any of his staff or executive members and query them about anything they can come up with. That’s not the way it works. The House is supposed to find a real crime and then vote to hold an impeachment of the president. Then subpoenas are issued relating to a SPECIFIC crime. Not a fishing expedition like Schiff is doing. This judge is an example of affirmative gone wrong in a big way! Her opinion is embarrassing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • IGiveUp says:

      “This judge is an example of affirmative gone wrong in a big way! Her opinion is embarrassing.”

      I think Ketanji Brown completely understands that she’s supporting House impeachment by ruling this way. I assume that’s her only motive. Yes she may get shut down in SCOTUS but she did her job. She may be corrupt but she’s no dummy.

      Like

  19. Ken Maritch says:

    Her name is what?

    Like

  20. Boots says:

    “Ketanji Brown”. Not only the name, but its spelling proves stereotyping exists for good reason

    Like

  21. emeraldcoaster says:

    I understand McGahn was the WH Counsel, and not a personnel attorney, but the issue parallels client relations with military attorneys. POTUS got advice from McGahn, service members consult military attorneys for advice. I believe client-attorney privilege exists in both examples.

    Liked by 2 people

    • youme says:

      It worked for Hillary Clinton and Cheryl Mills, Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton during her whole tenure as United States Secretary of State

      Mills’ asserted lawyer-client privilege when being questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in connection with the investigation of Clinton’s private email server.

      Like

  22. LouisianaTeaRose says:

    Seems that she missed the day they taught Executive Privilege in law school. After she skipped class on Attorney-Client privilege. The. she flunked the test on Articles of Impeachment….but her professor told her not to worry, cuz Judicial Authority could be “…anything you want it to be, whenever you want…”

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Les Standard says:

    My mental model for affirmative action remains intact

    Like

  24. Redzone says:

    Somebody needs to quickly find the horse that the Judge stole those teeth from, so they can be returned.

    Like

  25. littleanniefannie says:

    Liked by 3 people

  26. The very text of the Constitution is obviously something that at least one of these Judges has never read: impeachment is not, and cannot be, “a judicial proceeding.” The Legislative Branch was purposely assigned no judicial powers: it can create law, but it cannot rule that someone has broken the law. Furthermore, in order to impeach, there must be “high crimes and misdemeanors,” but the Congress has no power to declare these. It has power of oversight, but cannot pursue judicial proceedings.

    Our Founders well knew that, if they granted the Legislature these powers, the situation would quickly devolve into Writs of Attainder, in which the Legislature (e.g. Parliament) found a party (e.g. Anne Boleyn) guilty of some crime, and punished her for it (beheading), without benefit of trial. The situation in the House is identical except for the axe. And it is expressly outlawed by our Constitution on both a Federal and a State level.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mom4Trump2020 says:

      Well, if they have no power to decide what is high crimes and misdemeanors, who then decides this as it seems that Schiif is deciding it as we speak, if he can ever quit flip flopping on bribery and quid pro quo.

      Like

  27. WES says:

    It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes up this case, and if they do what grounds they will use to pass judgement.

    The only thing I know for sure is they will take their sweet time about it!

    Like

  28. Han Solo says:

    Key Question: Is the Supreme Court compromised?

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Former lurker says:

    DC Courts have swamp swilling, activist progressives constantly legislating from the bench. Who knew, this is shocking.

    This is just a headline ruling that means little until USSC has to decide if keeping a lid on what the weasels at CIA and FBI have dug up on ’em is more important than little things like the Constitution and the rule of law.

    Perhaps that’s the real split on the court, those who either have said “publish and be damned” or have led unimpeachable lives and those who are playing ball. When ballplayer RBG goes the blackmailers can no longer count on a majority.

    I put nothing past the deep state at this point.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. hoghead says:

    Recall that Chief Justice Roberts chastised POTUS, saying that there are “…no sotero judges, no bush judges…”

    What do you call this critter?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. mazziflol says:

    Answers should consist of “I don’t recal” and “that wasn’t in my purview”.

    Like

  32. hawkins6 says:

    I like sundance’s odds in the higher courts. I hope they are accurate and I would never bet against SD with his record of accuracy.

    The bias and activism of many Obama judges is a blight on the nation and even McConnell knows it which is why his top priority is the appointment of judges that will actually interpret the law and the Constitution. Judge Jackson’s decision could have been worse but compelling McGahn to appear is a betrayal of her office. However, she noted that McGahn would “retain the ability to “invoke executive privilege where appropriate” during his appearance. What a boring series of constant interruptions and waste of time that appearance would have been.

    Like

  33. charles daniels says:

    Your rules, your laws. It’s tough when the “rule of law” weighs against your core beliefs.

    Like

  34. Julian says:

    I could tell when I read her name on the page this would happen. I must be psychic or something because I’ve never heard of her before this.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Peoria Jones says:

    How in the hell did this stupid, corrupt woman wind up on the bench? Wait…don’t answer that.

    Like

  36. InTheCongo! says:

    My, what big…. teeth you have. I wouldn’t want to be stranded on a deserted island with that wo.man.

    Like

  37. Cam Heck says:

    Alan Dershowitz just explained on L Ingraham’ s show that this ruling literally means McGahn has to show up, but can still refuse to answer questions, citing privilege. ( Of course it will be appeased regardless)

    Liked by 1 person

    • Han Solo says:

      Actually, McGahn doesn’t need to do a thing until the appeal…no one does

      That’s what marks everyone that testified

      We are talking about Constitutional issues…hence, SC needs to take this case…hence the odds…hence Nancy saying I don’t want to wait…hence the partisanship…hence..

      _____ fill in the blank

      Like

    • joebkonobi says:

      Maybe so, but the point is he should not have to show up for a fake impeachment fishing expedition looking for a crime.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. appraisher says:

    The Feds broke through the Trump/Cohen attorney-client privilege, so all of Trump’s privileges are now fair game to the left…and there’s a coterie of Obama appointed federal judges that are just salivating for more bites of that apple.

    Now that the once solemn privilege/fiduciary firewall has been breached, the power of once “local boundary” federal judges has been expanded and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has been compromised…there is nobody left to stop them.

    Death by a million illegal, unconstitutional cuts, that’s the leftist idea of “justiice”.

    Like

  39. Evileye says:

    McGhan needs only speak the magic words “I invoke my immunity” after being sworn in and this too shall come to a screeching halt. And then quietly fade away as yet another piss in the wind effort by the Dems.

    Like

  40. MustangBlues says:

    Will it be anarchy or totalitarianism::: ?? No rule of law, no reason to follow law by all, and law used as weapon against the people for control, lasts not long, and people seek justice for the wrongs the elite and their toadies inflicted.

    Example: The French Revolution; Robespierre and the Guillotine, just a few short generations ago the mob elitists ruled.

    Liked by 1 person

    • czarowniczy says:

      Ahhhh…but Robespierre did have law…his. The lawlessness is the chaos the revolutionaries release to stun the public, warn them of things to come if they don’t roll over and bite the pillow. It’s law as it’s recognized terror released to control the actions of others. Russia immediately after the Revolution, China after Mao takes over…on a few occasions, any number of African nations where populations are massacred immediately after the latest dicktator in a clown suit takes over. The US after Obama’s 3rd inauguration…oh wait, that didn’t happen. Phew.

      Like

  41. czarowniczy says:

    Ahh yesssss, one of those pro-gressive judges that mos’ likely believes personal beliefs Trumps law. Sorta like the one we had who let an AK-armed thug hunting other thugs loose on bailas ‘we have too many young black men in jail’. Yeah, we don’t have enough of those feral young white men who walk the streets with AKs, hosing down parties and parades, in jail. Wonder why?

    Like

  42. jello333 says:

    Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said McGahn must appear before Congress but retains the ability to invoke executive privilege where appropriate during his appearance.

    Considering McGahn’s position, wouldn’t just about EVERYTHING he had info on involve “executive privilege”? So even assuming he’s eventually required to testify (not at all likely IMO), he might not wind up answering ANY questions. Right?

    Like

  43. sarasotosfan says:

    When a judge tosses in language like “no one is above the law” and ” the president is not a king”, you know that opinion is on less than solid ground and is the product of a politicized bench.

    Liked by 1 person

  44. Padric says:

    If for some ridiculous, unknown reason this opinion is allowed to stand, I’m quite certain the Dems will be happy with it even if it means McGahn showing up and invoking Executive Privilege every time. They’ll simply use that as a “Well, he must be hiding something” as a rational for them to vote to impeach. It’s all about getting to the vote.They couldn’t care less what happens after the vote. If the Senate votes to not remove the president from office, that’s just another talking point for them, a mere cherry on top and all of that is IF they even decide to continue pursuing impeachment (which is looking to be less and less likely these days).

    Like

  45. Note: Kentanji Brown-Jackson was on Obama’s SCOTUS Short List when Antonin Scalia passed.

    ALSO

    She is related (by marriage) to former SoH Paul Ryan.

    Like

  46. CountryClassVulgarian says:

    An female “judge” with dred locks appointed by his unworthiness rules against POTUS. I’m shocked!!! SHOCKED, I tell you. Just doggone SHOCKED…

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s