On the judiciary of the United States house of representatives versus Donald F Mcgahn 2nd appellate. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. The House Judiciary Committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. Mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white House Counsel over the objection of the president of the United States. This interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be controversies under article 3 and moreover, while congress has purported to authorize senate commutes to enforce certain subpoenas against nonfederal officials, congress itself has expressly carved out the authority of the senate to enforce subpoenas against federal executive officials asserting executive prerogative objections and what gives the senate statute. How does that help us think about the constitutional issue and stability issue. I think it does in two ways, your honor, first, we have a straightup subject matter juri
Sitting. Be seated, please. Case number 195331 committee on the judiciary of the United States house of representatives versus Donald F Mcgahn 2nd appellate. And at the appellate. Good morning. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. The House Judiciary Committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. Mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white House Counsel over the objection of the president of the United States. This interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be controversies under article 3 and moreover, while congress has purported to authorize senate commutes to enforce certain subpoenas against nonfederal officials, congress itself has expressly carved out the authority of the senate to enforce subpoenas against federal executive officials asserting executive prerogative objections and what gives the senate statute. How does that help us think about the constitutional issue and stability is
Investigation. All persons having business before the Honorable United States Court of appeals for the District Of Columbia circuit. Draw near and give their attention so the court is now sitting. Be seated, please. Case number 195331 committee on the judiciary of the United States house of representatives versus Donald F Mcgahn 2nd appellate. Good morning, your honor. May it please the court. The House Judiciary Committee seeks to assert an implied cause of action to enforce the subpoena to compel mr. Mcgahn to testify regarding his duties as white House Counsel over the objection of the president of the United States. This interbridge dispute over institutional prerogatives bears no resemblance to be controversies under article 3 and moreover, while congress has purported to authorize senate commutes to enforce certain subpoenas against nonfederal officials, congress itself has expressly carved out the authority of the senate to enforce subpoenas against federal executive officials a
Employees, in letters to the state department employees, the committee threatened witnesses that if they insist on having Agency Council president to protect the executive branch and the confidentiality interests or if they make any effort to protect confidentiality interests at all, these officials will have their salaries withheld. Withholding of salaries. The committees have not afforded the president basic protections, such as the right to see all evidence, the right to present evidence, the right to call witnesses, the right to have counsel present at hearings, the right to cross examine all witnesses, the right to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses, or the admissibility of testimony in the evidence, and did, not for the president the right to respond to evidence and testimony presented. Thank, you i yield a reminder of my time. Gentleman yields back. For what purpose does mr. Swalwell seek recognition . To strike the last word. The gentlemans recognized. My,
Who they offer on the other side . President trump. 14,435 lies to date, since he has been president. Not under oath, but we should take his word for it. Then it is so absurd because in a call, we know the president s vocabulary. We know what he doesnt what he does not say. He might say winning a lot, he might say great. But in his ordinary conversation he does not use the words quid pro quo. When he has the conversation after the whistleblower is known to everybody, he gets a call, first thing out of his mouth is i dont want a quid pro quo. Where did that come from . It came from the fact that you are guilty of the crime that is charged. Just like a kid who just got caught going into the cookie jar, with crumbs on his mouth, when his mother says what are you doing. He says i did need that cookie. We have a call out of the blue in the first thing he says is i dont want a quid pro quo, i want them to do the right thing. No you would not have held up vital military aid. This is a country