Latest in Presidential immunity
Though the circuit court granted an administrative stay, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has denied a motion by the Department of Justice to stay a Nov. 25 ruling that held that McGahn does not have absolute testimonial immunity and must comply with a congressional subpoena for his testimony. The denial of the stay can be found here and below.
A judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the President's former White House Counsel Don McGahn must testify before impeachment investigators pursuant to a subpoena issued by the House Judiciary Committee. McGahn served as Trump's White House counsel from inauguration until October 2018. McGahn can appeal the ruling and request a stay pending appeal. The ruling can be found here and below.
The press reports that the White House has suffered from “mass hysteria” over the Special Counsel investigation and the president’s responses to it. Our most senior government officials, including our vice president, are hiring lawyers.
It’s time to think hard about Nixon v. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald isn’t really part of the national security law canon; it’s a 1982 Supreme Court decision that is often cited for the proposition that the President has “absolute immunity” (meaning he cannot be sued in his personal capacity) for any acts he undertakes while he is President.
We’re about to experience a flood of litigation testing what the case really means.
Last night, at a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania convened to celebrate the hundredth day of his presidency, Trump was interrupted by protesters. In response, he declared, “Get him out of here”—and the protester in question was ejected.
This incident is notable for exactly one reason: President Donald Trump is currently being sued in federal court for incitement over events at a campaign rally in March 2016 in which he did literally the same thing—that is, spoke almost verbatim the same words.