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.
Threader is an independent project created by only two developers. The site gets 500,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Running this space is expensive and time consuming. If you find Threader useful, please consider supporting us to make it a sustainable project.