McGahn Now Must Face Judge After Rebuffing Democrats' Subpoena
The now-Jones Day partner in Washington was a key witness in the Mueller investigation.
August 07, 2019 at 04:25 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
In the ever-escalating skirmish between U.S. House Democrats and the Trump administration, there’s now a new defendant: Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel and key witness in the special counsel’s investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.
House Democrats on Wednesday sued McGahn in Washington’s federal trial court to force him to comply with a subpoena seeking testimony about his time leading the White House counsel’s office and interaction with President Trump.
“The Judiciary Committee is now determining whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president based on the obstructive conduct described by the special counsel. But it cannot fulfill this most solemn constitutional responsibility without hearing testimony from a crucial witness to these events: former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II,” House general counsel Douglas Letter said in the complaint. “McGahn, however, has defied a Congressional subpoena to appear before the Judiciary Committee, at the direction of President Trump, who claims McGahn is “absolutely immune” from testifying, a claim with no basis in law.”
Annie Owens and Joshua Geltzer of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown University Law Center appeared on the complaint with a team of lawyers from the House’s general counsel’s office.
The lawsuit, which was assigned to Chief Judge Beryl Howell, will test the scope of the Trump administration’s oft-used assertions of executive privilege to stymie the release of information tied to the Russia probe. McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, said in May that McGahn was refusing to appear to testify at the wishes of the White House.
The White House had instructed McGahn, who’s now back at Jones Day as a partner in Washington, to defy a subpoena from the House Judiciary Committee. The committee is demanding McGahn testify about former special counsel Robert Mueller III’s investigation into Russian interference in the presidential elections. McGahn was a key witness, one who interacted daily with the president and who reportedly rebuffed his efforts to interfere in the investigation.
The lawsuit confronts Trump’s efforts to stop McGahn from appearing before the House, and includes public statements from the president saying, “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and “I don’t want people testifying.”
“Consistent with that approach, the president has sought to prevent McGahn—now a private citizen—from testifying before the Judiciary Committee,” the lawsuit said. “The day before McGahn’s required appearance before the Judiciary Committee pursuant to the subpoena at issue in this litigation, the president purported to direct McGahn not to appear, claiming that McGahn is ‘absolutely immune’ from compelled testimony. The next day, without offering any accommodation, McGahn failed to appear based on the president’s directive.”
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel argued in a 15-page legal opinion, published this year, that the president could stop McGahn from testifying. The opinion pointed to a 1999 opinion that said a congressional subpoena requiring a senior presidential adviser to testify would be “akin to” requiring the president himself to appear.
Mueller testified for more than five hours on Wednesday about his 448-page report showing Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 election and incidents in which Trump allegedly tried to derail the special counsel’s investigation. Trump has denied any move to obstruct the investigation.
McGahn cooperated extensively with Mueller’s team, speaking for more than 30 hours about his interactions with Trump. The report showed among other things that Trump pushed McGahn to find a way to fire Mueller based on the president’s contention that the special counsel had conflicts of interests. Mueller told House lawmakers on Wednesday he had no such conflict.
McGahn said he refused to engage with then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein over firing Mueller, saying that any move might make it seem the president was trying to “meddle in the investigation.”
The lawsuit against McGahn comes as House Democrats are waging a series of court fights that seek financial records and other information Trump has long sought to shield from the public. Trump told voters in 2016 he would release his tax returns, as presidents in modern times have done, but the president has since refused any disclosure.
The House last month sued the Treasury Department and the IRS for copies of Trump’s tax returns, and Trump has sued the House Ways and Means Committee from requesting or obtaining copies of his state tax returns from New York agencies. This week, Trump filed suit in California court to stop a new state law that requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to appear on the ballot.
Meanwhile, two federal judges have upheld congressional committee subpoenas that command Trump’s accounting firm and his longtime lender, Deutsche Bank, to turn over financial records. A federal appeals panel recently appeared inclined to rule against Trump in the case involving his accountant Mazars USA, and the Deutsche Bank case will be heard next month in New York.
Several other lawsuits contend that Trump’s continued profiting from his business ventures while in office is violating the constitutional check against presidents receiving foreign and domestic “emoluments.” One appeals court ruled in his favor, dismissing a suit, while another case, brought by congressional Democrats, is pending in Washington’s federal trial court.
The House suit against McGahn is posted below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 2For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
- 3Southern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
- 4AI: An Enhancement, Not a Replacement for Attorneys
- 5Fowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250