I'm not getting too worked up about tonight's decision because:
1. It'll be appealed.
2. It was expected ("absolute immunity" doesn't exist).
3. Witnesses can still show up and assert privilege.
The *real* question is if a witness can assert privilege *without* a WH assertion.
1/ From Day 1, what I and other lawyers objected to was federal witnesses showing up and asserting executive privilege *without a prior White House assertion*. That's outrageous. But when Trump started blocking *all* testimony? Well, we *all* knew that wouldn't hold up in court.
2/ The real matter of import in tonight's federal district court decision is the timing: is it *possible* that it happened quickly enough that a SCOTUS appeal could be heard by mid- to late January? Hmm. Realistically? If McGahn wants to run out the clock, he probably still can.
3/ I think this ruling will be stayed by a higher court (appeals or, failing that, SCOTUS). So it's still hard, at the *moment*, to see how this leads to McGahn testifying in the short term. More likely would be Democrats asking Roberts to rule on this *during* the Senate trial.
You can follow @SethAbramson.
Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.
Enjoy Threader? Sign up.
Since you’re here...
... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.