HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The judge has denied the ...

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:09 PM

The judge has denied the motion for a stay pending appeal on the McGahn subpoena motion

and has lifted the existing administrative stay. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210013/gov.uscourts.dcd.210013.53.0_1.pdf

23 replies, 1083 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply The judge has denied the motion for a stay pending appeal on the McGahn subpoena motion (Original post)
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2 OP
sheshe2 Dec 2 #1
leftieNanner Dec 2 #2
triron Dec 2 #3
Gothmog Dec 2 #4
triron Dec 2 #6
malaise Dec 2 #7
crickets Dec 2 #21
malaise Dec 2 #5
Brother Buzz Dec 2 #11
malaise Dec 2 #12
Brother Buzz Dec 2 #13
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2 #8
triron Dec 2 #9
Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2 #10
Volaris Dec 2 #14
Gothmog Dec 2 #15
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2 #16
Gothmog Dec 2 #18
The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2 #20
ffr Dec 2 #19
ffr Dec 2 #17
triron Dec 2 #22
Gothmog Dec 2 #23

Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:14 PM

1. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:15 PM

2. YESSSSSSS!!!

So what will Don McGahn's next move be? Is this truly the end of the road? Will he be forced to testify for the Judiciary Committee? Trump has lost EVERY TIME he goes to court!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:19 PM

3. Far out!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:25 PM

4. This is from the opinion

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210013/gov.uscourts.dcd.210013.53.0_1.pdf


This Court has no doubt that further delay of the Judiciary Committee’s
enforcement of its valid subpoena causes grave harm to both the Committee’s
investigation and the interests of the public more broadly. This is because, as the Court
explained in its Memorandum Opinion, “when a committee of Congress seeks testimony
and records by issuing a valid subpoena in the context of a duly authorized
investigation, it has the Constitution’s blessing, and ultimately, it is acting not in its
own interest, but for the benefit of the People of the United States.” (Mem. Op. at 74.)
Interference with a House committee’s ability to perform its constitutionally assigned
function of gathering relevant and important information concerning potential abuses of
power in a timely fashion injures both the House and the People whose interests the
Congress’s power of inquiry is being deployed to protect. Thus, far from DOJ’s “no
additional harm, no foul” attitude, it is clear that the Judiciary Committee’s ongoing
investigation will be further hampered if the Committee loses its ability to question
McGahn altogether (effectively or not) during the current impeachment inquiry.

DOJ’s insistence that the Judiciary Committee is really most interested in the
Ukraine affair, and thus will not be harmed by any delay with respect to key testimony
concerning certain circumstances revealed in the Mueller Report, fares no better. For
one thing, it is the Judiciary Committee, and not DOJ, that gets to establish the scope of
its own Article I investigation, and the Committee has repeatedly represented that it is,
in fact, reviewing the Mueller Report as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry. (See
Mem. Op. at 10; see also Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 44, at 9:10–11:17.) DOJ’s related
suggestion that the Committee already has what it needs from McGahn for the purpose
of its investigation (see Def.’s Mot. at 8 (asserting that “[t]o the extent that the
Committee remains interested in the events described in the Mueller Report, that report
has been made available to the public with minimal redactions” and “the Committee’s
Chairman and Ranking Member were given access to the unredacted report, other than
grand jury information”)) likewise evidences DOJ’s manifest refusal to accept that the
Judiciary Committee is constitutionally authorized to subpoena witnesses almost
without exception, and that, as a result, the Committee is not limited to calling only
those persons whose testimony is unknown. (See Mem. Op. at 35–39.) DOJ also does
not, and cannot, deny that whatever additional information that the Committee (and the
public) might glean from McGahn’s live testimony will be lost if the Judiciary
Committee does not have an opportunity to question him prior to any House vote on
impeachment. (See Pl.’s Opp’n at 7.)

Finally, although the public does have an interest in appellate review of this
matter, it is not at all clear that the D.C. Circuit would actually lose the ability to decide
“the weighty issues presented in this lawsuit” if the stay is denied, as noted above.
(Def.’s Mot. at 9); see also Miers Stay Opinion, 575 F. Supp. 2d at 205. By contrast,
the Judiciary Committee would almost certainly lose the chance to question McGahn as
part of the present impeachment inquiry if a stay order issues, which would
unquestionably harm the ongoing investigation that the Judiciary Committee is
conducting, and by extension, would also injure the public’s interest in thorough and
well-informed impeachment proceedings. DOJ does not dispute that McGahn is a key
witness to events that the Judiciary Committee seeks to review, or that “Congress could
be seriously handicapped in its efforts to exercise its constitutional function wisely and
effectively” if the Committee is not able to compel timely testimony related to the
current impeachment inquiry. Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155, 160–61 (1955)
(citations omitted). Therefore, any additional delay in McGahn’s compliance with the
Committee’s valid subpoena causes real and certain harm to the Judiciary Committee
and to the broader interests of the public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:32 PM

6. Excellent additional information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:32 PM

7. Beautiful

This is huge

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #4)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:38 PM

21. Wonderful! K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:28 PM

5. How dare the judge do this while he's representing

at NATO?
He has humiliated the Holey Moran Emperor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:41 PM

11. Quick, get McGahn in to testify then into the witness protection program before the orange anus....

returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brother Buzz (Reply #11)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:43 PM

12. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

The problem here is that McGahn is an ambitious ReTHUG who views party contracts over country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #12)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:59 PM

13. Doesn't matter....

He knows the jig is up and he can't afford the consequences of lying to congress; he isn't going to fall on no sword. The orange anus isn't going to be happy, and he's BIG with those 'Rs', revenge and retaliation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:34 PM

8. yeahbut, when's the hanging?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:35 PM

9. For whom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to triron (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 05:41 PM

10. the orange menace that ordered all these witnesses to ignore subpoenas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hermit-The-Prog (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:13 PM

14. Any of that after today is another blatant obstruction of justice charge

He wont care, but still...

'Please proceed, Governor.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:26 PM

15. Judge flays DOJ, calling its arguments 'disingenuous' & 'unacceptable mischaracterization

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:27 PM

16. I especially loved that part!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:34 PM

18. I figured that you and the other members of the bar on this board would like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:37 PM

20. And this:

"Thus, DOJ’s argument here that any further delay will not be harmful to the Judiciary Committee because, in essence, DOJ has already harmed the Committee’s interests by successfully delaying its access to other materials strikes this Court as an unacceptable mischaracterization of the injury at issue."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #15)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:35 PM

19. Should only strengthen the case for impeachment and investigations and compelling witnesses

Boing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 07:33 PM

17. Kicking!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 10:57 PM

22. knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2019, 11:53 PM

23. Here are some great comments from Neal Katyal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread