Trump’s ex-counsel ducks House hearing
WASHINGTON — Former White House counsel Donald McGahn was a noshow Tuesday at a House committee hearing, angering Democrats who are ramping up calls to start impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump despite continued resistance from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.
During an opening statement, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., vowed that his panel would eventually hear McGahn’s testimony on allegations of obstruction of justice by Trump “even if we have to go to court to secure it.”
“We will not allow the president to block congressional subpoenas, putting himself and his allies above the law,” Nadler said. “We will not allow the president to stop this investigation, and nothing in these unjustified and unjustifiable legal attacks will stop us from pressing
forward with our work on behalf of the American people. We will hold this president accountable, one way or the other.”
Nadler’s remarks came three weeks after Attorney General William Barr declined to appear before the Judiciary Committee.
Tuesday’s hearing lasted 23 minutes, as Democrats moved to adjourn after Nadler and Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s top Republican member, had delivered opening statements.
Collins accused Democrats of being more interested in creating theater than conducting oversight of the Trump administration.
“Cameras love a spectacle, and Democrats covet the chance to rant against this administration,” Collins said.
Democrats declined to press for a vote to hold McGahn in contempt of Congress, but Nadler suggested the move could be taken soon if “he does not immediately correct his mistake” of declining to appear.
The Judiciary Committee has already voted to recommend that the full House hold Barr in contempt for his defiance of a subpoena asking for special counsel Robert Mueller’s full report and underlying evidence.
Democratic leaders had been stalling on lodging the contempt citation to the floor of the full House but have not indicated they will accelerate a vote when they return in June from the Memorial Day recess.
The White House announced Monday that it would block McGahn from testifying.
Democrats hoped McGahn would become a star witness in their investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice, given that the former White House counsel delivered critical testimony in several instances of potential obstruction by Trump detailed in Mueller’s report.
A 15-page legal opinion written by Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel argued that McGahn could not be compelled to testify before the Judiciary Committee, based on past Justice Department legal opinions regarding the president’s close advisers.
The memo said McGahn’s immunity from congressional testimony was separate and broader than a claim of executive privilege.
During his remarks, Nadler asserted that case law is on the committee’s side and accused Trump of seeking to intimidate McGahn from appearing, calling that “not remotely acceptable.”
“When this committee issues a subpoena — even to a senior presidential adviser — the witness must show up,” Nadler said. “Our subpoenas are not optional.”
Hours after the hearing, Nadler issued subpoenas for documents and testimony from Hope Hicks, the former White House communications director, and Annie Donaldson, McGahn’s chief of staff. There was no guarantee, though, that they would appear before Congress.
The committee, which voted to authorize the subpoenas weeks ago, is particularly interested in Donaldson, who took detailed notes of McGahn’s exchanges with the president.
The panel also believes that Hicks, a longtime confidant of Trump, likely knows details on several topics they are investigating.
Separately, a federal judge on Monday rejected arguments from the president’s lawyers that the House Oversight Committee’s demands for the records from Trump’s accounting firm were overly broad and served no legitimate legislative function.
Trump’s lawyers on Tuesday appealed the ruling.
DEMOCRATS MEETING
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has scheduled a Democratic caucus meeting for today to discuss updates on oversight and investigations, according to two Democrats briefed on her plans who requested anonymity to discuss a meeting that has not been publicly announced. Members expect the meeting will include a discussion of whether to open an impeachment inquiry against Trump.
Pelosi has long been an impeachment skeptic and tried to tamp down impeachment talk in her ranks as recently as last week by encouraging members to focus on their legislative agenda.
On Tuesday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Trump was “conducting one of the biggest cover-ups of any administration in the history of the United States,” but he stopped short of calling for an immediate impeachment inquiry.
“I don’t think we’re there at this point in time,” Hoyer said.
“I don’t … think there’s any Democrat who probably wouldn’t in their gut say, ‘You know he’s done some things that probably justify impeachment,’” Hoyer continued. “Having said that, and this is the important point, I think the majority of Democrats continue to believe that we need to continue to pursue the avenue that we’ve been on in trying to elicit information, testimony, review the Mueller report, review other items that have gone on. And if the facts lead us to a broader action, so be it.”
But calls for an impeachment inquiry have escalated since the White House’s announcement Monday that McGahn would not testify.
Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said she agrees that the court victory Monday was an encouraging sign. But she told reporters that “winding your way through the courts could take a lot of time.”
“We also know that this is something that the president has relied upon in his business dealings, that he can win in the courts because he can outlast those who are bringing lawsuits against him,” Waters said in explaining her support for opening an impeachment inquiry. “So while I have a great appreciation for that ruling … I still think we should move forward.”
During a television appearance Tuesday morning, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said that he and “a lot” of other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee were eager for an impeachment inquiry because they had seen ample evidence of “high crimes” committed by Trump.
One Republican congressman, Justin Amash of Michigan, has also called for impeachment proceedings. He said Tuesday that he thinks other GOP lawmakers should join him — but only after reading Mueller’s report carefully.
Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy dismissed Amash as out of step with House Republicans and “out of step with America.” And Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said of Amash’s position, “I don’t think it’s going to be a trend-setting move.”
Some Democrats cautioned that beginning the impeachment process would overshadow work on legislation important to their constituents.
“I believe in checks and balances and the constitutional
division of powers,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. “But I also know that I get stopped in the grocery store constantly and what people are asking about is the price of health care and the price of prescription drugs … I think the perception is that Washington is more focused on the checks and balances than they are on actually helping people’s pocketbooks and their kids. And that’s a real problem.”
During private meetings Monday night, several members of Pelosi’s leadership team pressed her to begin an impeachment inquiry, according to multiple officials in the rooms — an effort the speaker rebuffed each time.
Several hours later, Nadler met with Pelosi and made the case to start the inquiry, he later told his panel members on a call.
Pelosi declined to endorse the idea both times, according to the officials, who were either in the meetings or familiar with what happened in them.
She and Hoyer argued that such an inquiry would undercut other House investigations — or that the idea was not supported by most other members in the caucus.
Information for this article was contributed by John Wagner, Rachael Bade, Mike DeBonis, Spencer Hsu, Josh Dawsey, Devlin Barrett and Carol D. Leonnig of The Washington Post; by Nicholas Fandos of
The New York Times; and by Mary Clare Jalonick, Lisa Mascaro, Laurie Kellman, Matthew Daly, Michael Balsamo, Jonathan Lemire, Eric Tucker and Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.
Some Democrats cautioned that beginning the impeachment process would overshadow work on legislation important to their constituents.