immunity. it stems from the notion that congress can t force the president of the united states to come and testify. he also can t then force his senior adviser to come testify. it s taken by presidents and department of justices in both parties but it s untested. we don t know what the supreme court will do with that. i think there s the belief out there that executive privilege means that congress can t force anyone who works in the white house to testify, whether it s don mcgahn or kupperman, national foreign adviser. is that wrong? at first they re trying to assert something even broader than executive privilege which is absolute immunity. i have to disagree with ross a little bit. there is some precedent. in 2008 district court judge soundly rejected the idea of there being this absolute immunity, specifically citing the nixon case, saying that
garber. if a judge determines he can testify, can he still refuse? yes. what s likely to happen, this judge is a district judge, trial judge. if he orders mcgahn to testify there will almost certainly be an appeal and a stay in place and then whoever loses at that stage is likely to ask the supreme court to get involved. while that s all playing out it s very unlikely we ll see any testimony from don mcgahn. ultimately, isn t there majority support on the u.s. supreme court, especially now with two trump supreme court justices for a belief of very broad executive powers? aren t they likely to lose, the people trying to force mcgahn to testify? i think it s dangerous for folks to game out the supreme court. this is an argument that is there is no binding authority on this argument about absolute