Washington (Reuters)-United States Court of Appeals Magistrate judge on Friday a cynical appearance on broad legal arguments was made by President Donald Trump’s administration in seeking to prevent former White House attorney Don McGahn from Testiting to a congress committee as part of the thesis attempt against Trump.
Photo: White House Attorney Don McGahn listened to the Supreme Court nominated Brett Kavanaugh as he testified before the United States Senate Justice Commission on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., USA, Jan. 27, 9 2018. Saul Loeb/Pool via REUTERS/Photo file
This case was heard by three judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In the initial exchange, two of the three judges had questioned the government’s arguments that the House committee had no legal standing to enforce its subpoena and that there was widespread presidential immunity applied to efforts to seek testimony from close advisers. Arguments have been continued.
The argument came in the appeal of the administration of a ruling Nov. 25 by United States District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson that McGahn must adhere to a April subpoena from the leadership Democratic Party of the Legal Committee of Representatives.
Judge Thomas Griffith, a Republican appointed, and Judge Judith Rogers, a appointed democratic, both asked to probe the question of Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan. The other judge, Republican Party was appointed Karen Henderson, said little in the first part of the argument.