On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee dangled “additional articles of impeachment” in the event that former White House counsel Don McGahn testifies. In fact, they want him to testify because they believe he will reveal more reason to remove the president from office.
At this point it is just a game for Democrats. They keep coming up with lies and bogus accusations. They know that the moment they send the articles to the Senate for trial, it will be shot down with facts and reason. Trump will be acquitted by the Senate.
In a brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the panel’s counsel Doug Letter argued its subpoena of McGahn, who departed the White House last year, is not moot despite the House’s approval of two impeachment articles — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — in a partisan vote on Wednesday evening.
The brief said, “If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”
Underscoring this point, House lawyers say if McGahn's testimony yields more evidence of obstruction it could lead to "new articles of impeachment." pic.twitter.com/DXiEl0KXwL
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) December 23, 2019
The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), subpoenaed McGahn in March for its investigation into whether President Trump or senior White House officials obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into now-debunked collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
The Trump White House requested McGahn refuse to comply with the subpoena, citing “absolute immunity” that has long shielded top advisers from testifying before Congress.
Late last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of previous ruling directing McGahn to testify. The court said it would consider granting a longer stay and scheduled a hearing for oral arguments on January 3.
The Department of Justice wrote a ten-page filing that argued against McGahn needing to answer congressional questioning. The DOJ lawyer said that the House’s vote to impeach the president “eliminate[d] the need” for him to testify.
“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ lawyer continued, “That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial.”