times,[1] but reflect the President's sustained and unwavering view that it is legally impermissible for the House to obtain judicial relief. Where the President orders total defiance of House subpoenas and vigorously argues that the courthouse door is locked, it is clear that he seeks to obstruct the House in the exercise of its impeachment power.
This conclusion comports with common sense. The President is under investigation for soliciting and pressuring a foreign power to interfere in an election that is less than a year away. The House has already received compelling evidence of his misconduct. Waiting any longer would thus be an abdication of duty—particularly given the extreme implausibility that litigation would soon bring new evidence to light. Consider three lawsuits filed by House Committees over the past two decades seeking to enforce subpoenas against senior Executive Branch officials:
- In Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, this Committee sought to enforce a subpoena requiring former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to give testimony about the contentious firing of nine United States Attorneys. The Committee served that subpoena in June 2007, filed suit in March 2008, and won a favorable district court order in July 2008, but did not receive testimony from Miers until June 2009 due to the entry of a stay by the Court of Appeals and further negotiations between the parties.[2]
- In Committee on Oversight and Reform v. Holder, the Committee on Oversight and Reform (COR) sought to compel Attorney General Eric Holder to produce documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious. The committee served that subpoena in October 2011 and filed suit in August 2012. It then won a series of orders requiring the production of documents, but the first such order did not issue until August 2014.[3]
- In Committee on the Judiciary v. McGahn, this Committee seeks to enforce a subpoena requiring White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn II to give testimony regarding matters relating to the Special Counsel's investigation. The Committee served that subpoena in April 2019, filed suit in August 2019, and won a favorable district court order in November 2019, but the Court of Appeals has stayed that ruling and will not hear oral argument until January 2020.[4]
- ↑ See, e.g., United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 551 F.2d 384, 391 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ("the House as a whole has standing to assert its investigatory power"); McGahn, 2019 WL 6312011 at *16-34 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019) (rejecting DOJ's jurisdictional arguments); Comm. on Oversight & Gov't Reform v. Holder, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013) (same); Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d at 65-99 (same).
- ↑ See Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. July 31, 2008) (holding Miers was required to testify); 542 F.3d 909 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 6, 2008) (staying decision pending appeal); Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff at 3, Miers (D.D.C. filed Oct. 22, 2009) (Miers testified in a transcribed interview in June 2009).
- ↑ The district court rejected DOJ's motion to dismiss in September 2013, see Holder, 979 F. Supp. 2d 1; ordered production only of documents for which DOJ did not assert any privileges in August 2014, see 2014 WL 12662665 (D.D.C. Aug. 20, 2014); and did not order production of additional documents until January 2016, see 156 F. Supp. 3d 101 (D.D.C. Jan. 19, 2016).
- ↑ McGahn, 2019 WL 6312011; see id. at *4-6 (describing case history); see Order, No. 19-5331 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 27, 2019) (entering "administrative stay" and scheduling argument in January).
to Dismiss, Comm. on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives v. Dep't of Treasury, No. 19 Civ. 1974 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 6, 2019).
163
