House can subpoena WH counsel Don McGahn , appeals court rules

  • Thread starter Thread starter RidgeSprinter
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RidgeSprinter said:
Friday’s appeals court ruling was 7-2. Two Trump-appointed DC Circuit judges, Neomi Rao and Greg Katsas, did not hear the case after apparently recusing themselves.
Click to expand...
Why would they recuse themselves? Chief Justice Roberts told us there are no Obama judges, no Bush judges.
No need to recuse.
 
I am wondering, what happened to office of “Sergeant at Arms”, and the power of the House to issue a penalty - for example - 10000 dollars a daily fine and incarceration? During the Nixon trial, even the threat was sufficient to force compliance. So it would WORK.
 
JonNC said:
Doesn’t matter. Read what Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Click to expand...
Did he mention recusal? Is he on the court of appeals?

If they worked for Justice previously the judges may have worked on this very case. That could be why they recused themselves – not because there are Trump judges or Obama judges. Rhenquist recused himself from some of the Watergate cases.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Did he mention recusal? Is he on the court of appeals?

If they worked for Justice previously the judges may have worked on this very case. That could be why they recused themselves – not because there are Trump judges or Obama judges. Rhenquist recused himself from some of the Watergate cases.
Click to expand...
And?
There seems to be a different paradigm now. The expectationS seem to be different.
I’m just asking the question. If there are no Trump judges, then their work in the Justice department shouldn’t matter.
 
JonNC said:
If there are no Trump judges, then their work in the Justice department shouldn’t matter.
Click to expand...
Wrong! If they represented the DOJ on this very case previously it would be a conflict of interest for them to decide the case now, seeing as they would have confidential information about one side. Thus they would have to choose recusal.
 
Nepperhan said:
Wrong! If they represented the DOJ on this very case previously it would be a conflict of interest for them to decide the case now, seeing as they would have confidential information about one side. Thus they would have to choose recusal.
Click to expand...
It would only be a conflict of interest if there are Trump judges and Obama judges. We were told they do not exist. Once on the bench, they are no longer political.
 
Nepperhan said:
Did he mention recusal? Is he on the court of appeals?

If they worked for Justice previously the judges may have worked on this very case. That could be why they recused themselves – not because there are Trump judges or Obama judges. Rhenquist recused himself from some of the Watergate cases.
Click to expand...
Nepperhan said:
Wrong! If they represented the DOJ on this very case previously it would be a conflict of interest for them to decide the case now, seeing as they would have confidential information about one side. Thus they would have to choose recusal.
Click to expand...
Nepperhan said:
You are wrong on the law. Repeating yourself is not explanation.
Click to expand...
I agree with Nepperhan.

Rao worked for the Bush Admin White House Council and Staffer on Senate Judiciary Committee and Trump’s Administrator of a Department and clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.
It is prudent for a recusal.

Katsas served in the Dept of Justice, served in Trump’s White House Council and clerked also for Justice Clarence Thomas in both his capacities.
It is prudent for a recusal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top