May 20, 2019 · A Justice Department legal opinion says the House Judiciary Committee can't compel McGahn to testify.
McGahn’s imbroglio began when Democrats who control the House Judiciary Committee sought his testimony in spring 2019 as they investigated elements of the Russia probe by former special counsel Robert Mueller. After the White House repeatedly claimed McGhan was immune, the committee filed suit.
They say interviewing McGahn would help them craft policy on election security, campaign finance, use of electronic data, and other conduct described in the Mueller Report. The Justice Department has consistently said courts must back off from territory strictly reserved for the White House and Congress.
In another closely watched case, House Democrats sought testimony from Charles Kupperman, the president’s former deputy national security adviser, in the impeachment inquiry. Kupperman asked a court to declare whether he had immunity, but a judge dismissed his case as moot in December after Democrats withdrew their subpoena.
At least for now, the decision against House Democrats shuts down attempts to obtain fresh evidence in its investigations of the president and make McGahn, who was the White House general counsel, discuss what he knew about the Russia probe. It was not immediately clear if the House Judiciary Committee would appeal the decision.
Justice Department spokesperson Brianna Herlihy praised the Friday ruling, saying in a statement that it shows Congress "cannot invoke the power of the courts in its political disputes with the Executive Branch.
But Trump’s Justice Department has claimed to possess an exceptionally broad shield, saying top aides like McGahn are “absolutely immune from compelled congressional testimony.”. Justice Department lawyers representing McGahn argued in a Jan. 3 hearing that courts should stay out of the current “political food fight.”.
But many believe the McGahn case is destined for the Supreme Court. McGahn had departed the White House in October 2018, well before Trump’s conversations with Ukraine that led to the impeachment inquiry, but as the case rolled ahead, House Democrats insisted his knowledge was relevant to removing the president from office as well.