Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel described in the Mueller report as repeatedly standing up to President Donald Trump, could become a star witness again if congressional Democrats get their way in their investigation of whether Trump used his office to obstruct justice.

Since the April 18 release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and any ties to Republican Trump’s campaign, Democrats have seen McGahn as someone who could be as important as Mueller himself, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But the Democrats are likely to face Trump’s resistance. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the White House planned to oppose a subpoena by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for McGahn to testify.

Mueller’s 448-page partially blacked out report portrayed McGahn as one of the few figures in Trump’s orbit to challenge him when he tried to shut down the investigation that has clouded his more than two years in the White House.

“Mr. McGahn has been touted as a man of integrity and he is a major witness in the Mueller report,” said Sheila Jackson Lee, a member of the judiciary committee.

The White House did not immediately comment on the Washington Post report, which said Trump will claim executive privilege, a legal doctrine allowing the president to withhold information about internal executive branch deliberations from other branches of government.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with the Washington Post that White House lawyers had not “made a final, final decision” about whether they will cite executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other former and current officials from testifying.

“They testified for so many hours. They have all that information that’s been given,” Trump told the newspaper of the Mueller report and congressional Democrats.

McGahn’s attorney, William Burck, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats are particularly interested in hearing McGahn describe in his own words and in Congress an account in the Mueller report in which McGahn refused Trump’s instructions.

In June 2017 Trump called McGahn to say he should tell Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to remove the special counsel because he had conflicts of interest, the report said.

Trump also failed to get McGahn to dispute media reports that the president tried to fire Mueller, the report said.

“That, in itself, could be an obstruction of justice, as Mr. McGahn would be able to testify — that he was asked to do it and then asked not to tell anyone what he’d been asked to do,” Lee said.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice to provide the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, issued a subpoena on Monday for McGahn to provide the committee with documents by May 7 and testify on May 21.

But it was not clear that McGahn would comply, especially if the White House asserts executive privilege. Nor could Democrats predict how much the former White House counsel would be willing to discuss, even if he does testify.

On Tuesday evening, Nadler said, “The moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed.”

The House of Representatives has the sole power under the U.S. Constitution to impeach the president, and any effort would be led by the judiciary panel.

Mueller’s report concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish that Trump’s campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow. However, the report outlined multiple instances where Trump tried to thwart Mueller’s probe.

Mueller stopped short of concluding whether Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, a criminal charge that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But such a high standard would not apply to Democrats if they decided to bring impeachment proceedings.

In the days following the Mueller report’s release, McGahn came under attack from Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani who called into question the veracity of his statements to Mueller’s team of prosecutors.

“I would ask which of the three versions is McGahn standing by. There are three versions he gives of that account,” Giuliani told CNN over the weekend. “I’m telling you, he’s confused.”

A prominent elections lawyer, McGahn served as Trump’s campaign counsel before being named White House counsel in November 2016.

He played a pivotal role in helping Trump reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction and roll back regulations on a range of industries.
…

Donald McGahn, the former White House counsel described in the Mueller report as repeatedly standing up to President Donald Trump, could become a star witness again if congressional Democrats get their way in their investigation of whether Trump used his office to obstruct justice.

Since the April 18 release of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and any ties to Republican Trump’s campaign, Democrats have seen McGahn as someone who could be as important as Mueller himself, according to a source familiar with the matter.

But the Democrats are likely to face Trump’s resistance. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that the White House planned to oppose a subpoena by the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee for McGahn to testify.

Mueller’s 448-page partially blacked out report portrayed McGahn as one of the few figures in Trump’s orbit to challenge him when he tried to shut down the investigation that has clouded his more than two years in the White House.

“Mr. McGahn has been touted as a man of integrity and he is a major witness in the Mueller report,” said Sheila Jackson Lee, a member of the judiciary committee.

The White House did not immediately comment on the Washington Post report, which said Trump will claim executive privilege, a legal doctrine allowing the president to withhold information about internal executive branch deliberations from other branches of government.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with the Washington Post that White House lawyers had not “made a final, final decision” about whether they will cite executive privilege to prevent McGahn and other former and current officials from testifying.

“They testified for so many hours. They have all that information that’s been given,” Trump told the newspaper of the Mueller report and congressional Democrats.

McGahn’s attorney, William Burck, did not respond to requests for comment.

Democrats are particularly interested in hearing McGahn describe in his own words and in Congress an account in the Mueller report in which McGahn refused Trump’s instructions.

In June 2017 Trump called McGahn to say he should tell Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to remove the special counsel because he had conflicts of interest, the report said.

Trump also failed to get McGahn to dispute media reports that the president tried to fire Mueller, the report said.

“That, in itself, could be an obstruction of justice, as Mr. McGahn would be able to testify — that he was asked to do it and then asked not to tell anyone what he’d been asked to do,” Lee said.

Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who has subpoenaed the U.S. Department of Justice to provide the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, issued a subpoena on Monday for McGahn to provide the committee with documents by May 7 and testify on May 21.

But it was not clear that McGahn would comply, especially if the White House asserts executive privilege. Nor could Democrats predict how much the former White House counsel would be willing to discuss, even if he does testify.

On Tuesday evening, Nadler said, “The moment for the White House to assert some privilege to prevent this testimony from being heard has long since passed.”

The House of Representatives has the sole power under the U.S. Constitution to impeach the president, and any effort would be led by the judiciary panel.

Mueller’s report concluded that there was not enough evidence to establish that Trump’s campaign engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Moscow. However, the report outlined multiple instances where Trump tried to thwart Mueller’s probe.

Mueller stopped short of concluding whether Trump could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, a criminal charge that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But such a high standard would not apply to Democrats if they decided to bring impeachment proceedings.

In the days following the Mueller report’s release, McGahn came under attack from Trump’s personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani who called into question the veracity of his statements to Mueller’s team of prosecutors.

“I would ask which of the three versions is McGahn standing by. There are three versions he gives of that account,” Giuliani told CNN over the weekend. “I’m telling you, he’s confused.”

A prominent elections lawyer, McGahn served as Trump’s campaign counsel before being named White House counsel in November 2016.

He played a pivotal role in helping Trump reshape the federal judiciary in a conservative direction and roll back regulations on a range of industries.
…

Voter turnout in Florida jumped to more than 52% in last year’s midterm elections from almost 45% in the 2014 midterm races, buoyed by increased ballot-casting by young voters and Hispanics, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

But even though the swing state had high-profile races for a U.S. Senate seat and for control of the governor’s office — as well as a prominent youth voter-registration drive — turnout actually was actually slightly lower than the national average.

Nationwide, more than 53% of voting-age citizens cast ballots, the highest rate in four decades, according to the bureau’s Current Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement. The lowest turnout was in 2014.

Turnout by voting-age citizens between ages 18 and 24 in Florida went from 17.6% in 2014 to almost 30% in the 2018 midterms, the biggest jump of any age group, although all age groups saw increases, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

After a gunman killed 17 people at their high school in February 2018, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and others led a statewide voter-registration drive among Florida’s youngest voters. Despite those efforts, Florida’s youth turnout lagged behind the national youth turnout average of 32.4%.

Hispanic turnout in Florida jumped from 36% in 2014 to more than 44% in 2018, going from 892,000 voters to almost 1.4 million voters in pure numbers in four years. Florida had an influx of Puerto Rican residents after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in September 2017, but the Census figures don’t break down how many of them voted in the 2018 midterm races.

In Florida, women voted in larger numbers than men, and seniors voted in a higher concentration than any other age group in the midterm elections last year.

The bureau’s figures showed that 54% of the female-citizen voting-age population cast ballots in 2018, compared to 51% of men. Both sexes had significant increases over 2014 when only 46% of eligible women and more than 43% of eligible men voted.

Almost two-thirds of eligible senior citizens in Florida voted in 2018, compared to 60% in 2014.

Non-Hispanic whites in Florida had the highest participation rate at 57% in 2018, followed by blacks with 47%. Asians had a rate of around 40%, a decrease from 43% in 2014.

In 2014, the participation rate for non-Hispanic whites was 47.5%, and it was 44% for blacks.

In November, Democrats flipped two U.S. congressional seats in South Florida, but Republican Rick Scott defeated Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson for a U.S. Senate seat.
…

Voter turnout in Florida jumped to more than 52% in last year’s midterm elections from almost 45% in the 2014 midterm races, buoyed by increased ballot-casting by young voters and Hispanics, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

But even though the swing state had high-profile races for a U.S. Senate seat and for control of the governor’s office — as well as a prominent youth voter-registration drive — turnout actually was actually slightly lower than the national average.

Nationwide, more than 53% of voting-age citizens cast ballots, the highest rate in four decades, according to the bureau’s Current Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement. The lowest turnout was in 2014.

Turnout by voting-age citizens between ages 18 and 24 in Florida went from 17.6% in 2014 to almost 30% in the 2018 midterms, the biggest jump of any age group, although all age groups saw increases, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

After a gunman killed 17 people at their high school in February 2018, students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and others led a statewide voter-registration drive among Florida’s youngest voters. Despite those efforts, Florida’s youth turnout lagged behind the national youth turnout average of 32.4%.

Hispanic turnout in Florida jumped from 36% in 2014 to more than 44% in 2018, going from 892,000 voters to almost 1.4 million voters in pure numbers in four years. Florida had an influx of Puerto Rican residents after Hurricane Maria devastated the island in September 2017, but the Census figures don’t break down how many of them voted in the 2018 midterm races.

In Florida, women voted in larger numbers than men, and seniors voted in a higher concentration than any other age group in the midterm elections last year.

The bureau’s figures showed that 54% of the female-citizen voting-age population cast ballots in 2018, compared to 51% of men. Both sexes had significant increases over 2014 when only 46% of eligible women and more than 43% of eligible men voted.

Almost two-thirds of eligible senior citizens in Florida voted in 2018, compared to 60% in 2014.

Non-Hispanic whites in Florida had the highest participation rate at 57% in 2018, followed by blacks with 47%. Asians had a rate of around 40%, a decrease from 43% in 2014.

In 2014, the participation rate for non-Hispanic whites was 47.5%, and it was 44% for blacks.

In November, Democrats flipped two U.S. congressional seats in South Florida, but Republican Rick Scott defeated Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson for a U.S. Senate seat.
…

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce he is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for the 2020 election on Thursday, NBC news reported.

Biden, who will join a crowded field seeking to win the White House back from Republican President Donald Trump, will then travel to Pittsburgh on Monday, followed by trips to all four early voting states in coming weeks, an NBC news reporter said on MSNBC, citing unnamed sources involved in the planning.
…

Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden plans to announce he is seeking the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination for the 2020 election on Thursday, NBC news reported.

Biden, who will join a crowded field seeking to win the White House back from Republican President Donald Trump, will then travel to Pittsburgh on Monday, followed by trips to all four early voting states in coming weeks, an NBC news reporter said on MSNBC, citing unnamed sources involved in the planning.
…

Ugandan musician-turned-politician Robert Kyagulanyi, better known by his stage name Bobi Wine, has called for peaceful demonstrations after police on Tuesday refused to allow him to leave his home.  

On a Facebook post Tuesday, Kyagulanyi wrote that his home in Wakiso district, near the capital of Kampala, “is under siege. [Police] have surrounded my fence and installed barricades on all roads leading to my home.”

Kyagulanyi said that he had been headed to police headquarters to give notice of a “planned peaceful demonstration against police brutality, injustice and misuse of authority” but that he and his laywers “were blocked from delivering the letter and were ordered to leave or face arrest.” In response, his post urged defiance: “We shall go ahead and demonstrate peacefully as guaranteed by the constitution. This is our country.”

His post did not specify a time or location for any demonstration.

Kyagulanyi’s movement curbed

On Tuesday, police were heavily deployed on roads around Kyagulanyi’s house and all vehicles leaving his compound were thoroughly checked. 

Police had detained Kyagulanyi on Monday at a beach resort near Kampala, where he addressed supporters and was to hold a concert. Police used teargas and water cannons to disperse his supporters and then took the opposition politician to his home. 

Kyagulanyi had told VOA earlier Tuesday that he was not informed of his house arrest. When he walked to his gate to go to police headquarters, he was stopped by the district police commander.    

This led to an exchange between Kyagulanyi’s lawyer, Benjamin Katana, and police officer Jaffer Magyezi.

“My orders are: Either you go back to your house or you will be under arrest,” the officer said.  

“Is he under arrest now?” Katana asked about his client. “Because for someone’s movement to be restricted, he must be under arrest or quarantined. So is he under quarantine or he’s under house arrest?”

The officer responded to the musician: “Yesterday, you incited violence, of which you know you were charged.”

Kyagulanyi told supporters Monday that he had written to police three months in advance for permission to hold Sunday’s concert. He said Ugandan police have blocked 124 of his concerts since October 2017, acting on orders of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, “because he does not like what I sing. He wanted me to be like some other artists to be singing his praises.”

A show of strength?

Political analyst Muwanga Kivumbi says putting Kyagulanyi under house arrest sends Museveni’s message to Uganda that he controls the state. 

“ ‘I have the guns, am in control of police and prisons and all these things.  I’ll use them to leverage my position,’” Kivumbi said, imagining the president’s thinking. “The people of Uganda are saying, ‘Wait, you made the law.’  Actually, we are being so fair to the president that we are only telling him, be obedient to the law you attested to.”

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement on social media Tuesday questioning why Uganda’s government “has recently blocked musical concerts and radio talk shows, disrupted peaceful demonstrations and rallies, and deployed heavy-handed security forces against peaceful citizens.”

The embassy noted that Uganda’s constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and expression.

Ugandan government spokesman Ofwono Opondo responded in a Facebook post that his government “respects rule of law and constitutionalism which guarantees freedom of assembly, expression and movement.” He said the government “expects all leaders to abide by these standards. …”

Alluding to Kyagulanyi, Opondo continued: “Save for one artiste [sic], all artistes in Uganda enjoy freedom of performance. …”

VOA English to Africa Service’s James Butty contributed to this report.
…

Ugandan musician-turned-politician Robert Kyagulanyi, better known by his stage name Bobi Wine, has called for peaceful demonstrations after police on Tuesday refused to allow him to leave his home.  

On a Facebook post Tuesday, Kyagulanyi wrote that his home in Wakiso district, near the capital of Kampala, “is under siege. [Police] have surrounded my fence and installed barricades on all roads leading to my home.”

Kyagulanyi said that he had been headed to police headquarters to give notice of a “planned peaceful demonstration against police brutality, injustice and misuse of authority” but that he and his laywers “were blocked from delivering the letter and were ordered to leave or face arrest.” In response, his post urged defiance: “We shall go ahead and demonstrate peacefully as guaranteed by the constitution. This is our country.”

His post did not specify a time or location for any demonstration.

Kyagulanyi’s movement curbed

On Tuesday, police were heavily deployed on roads around Kyagulanyi’s house and all vehicles leaving his compound were thoroughly checked. 

Police had detained Kyagulanyi on Monday at a beach resort near Kampala, where he addressed supporters and was to hold a concert. Police used teargas and water cannons to disperse his supporters and then took the opposition politician to his home. 

Kyagulanyi had told VOA earlier Tuesday that he was not informed of his house arrest. When he walked to his gate to go to police headquarters, he was stopped by the district police commander.    

This led to an exchange between Kyagulanyi’s lawyer, Benjamin Katana, and police officer Jaffer Magyezi.

“My orders are: Either you go back to your house or you will be under arrest,” the officer said.  

“Is he under arrest now?” Katana asked about his client. “Because for someone’s movement to be restricted, he must be under arrest or quarantined. So is he under quarantine or he’s under house arrest?”

The officer responded to the musician: “Yesterday, you incited violence, of which you know you were charged.”

Kyagulanyi told supporters Monday that he had written to police three months in advance for permission to hold Sunday’s concert. He said Ugandan police have blocked 124 of his concerts since October 2017, acting on orders of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, “because he does not like what I sing. He wanted me to be like some other artists to be singing his praises.”

A show of strength?

Political analyst Muwanga Kivumbi says putting Kyagulanyi under house arrest sends Museveni’s message to Uganda that he controls the state. 

“ ‘I have the guns, am in control of police and prisons and all these things.  I’ll use them to leverage my position,’” Kivumbi said, imagining the president’s thinking. “The people of Uganda are saying, ‘Wait, you made the law.’  Actually, we are being so fair to the president that we are only telling him, be obedient to the law you attested to.”

The U.S. Embassy issued a statement on social media Tuesday questioning why Uganda’s government “has recently blocked musical concerts and radio talk shows, disrupted peaceful demonstrations and rallies, and deployed heavy-handed security forces against peaceful citizens.”

The embassy noted that Uganda’s constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and expression.

Ugandan government spokesman Ofwono Opondo responded in a Facebook post that his government “respects rule of law and constitutionalism which guarantees freedom of assembly, expression and movement.” He said the government “expects all leaders to abide by these standards. …”

Alluding to Kyagulanyi, Opondo continued: “Save for one artiste [sic], all artistes in Uganda enjoy freedom of performance. …”

VOA English to Africa Service’s James Butty contributed to this report.
…

The conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday to Trump administration arguments calling for the addition of a citizenship question in the country’s 2020 census, despite objections from big states and cities that the query would inhibit immigrants from taking part in the once-a-decade population count.

The five-member bloc of conservative justices holds sway on the nine-person court and seemed dismissive during an 80-minute hearing of contentions that the citizenship question could lead to 6.5 million people — many of them Hispanic immigrants — refusing to take part in next April’s survey.

The court’s newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President Donald Trump, suggested that Congress could change the law to block the citizenship question if it felt that the query would affect the accuracy of the census. Chief Justice John Roberts said that citizenship information is critical in enforcing the country’s voting rights law, the contention offered by the Trump administration as the reason to add the question to the census form for the first time since 1950.

Reaching as accurate a total as possible in the census is important in the United States because it determines how many lawmakers each of the 50 states has in the 435-member House of Representatives for the next 10 years and each state’s share of more than $675 billion in federal funding for an array of government programs.

Three lower federal courts have blocked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the census, from adding the citizenship question, finding that millions of non-citizens, often Hispanics, might avoid the census-takers for fear of running afoul of immigration authorities. Trump critics contend the citizenship question is an attempt to try to diminish the number of Democratic lawmakers in the House, where Democrats took control in January.

The case against the citizenship question was brought by New York state and other jurisdictions where large numbers of immigrants live.

New York Attorney General Letitia James said after the hearing that the citizenship question “will undermine the count. We must get the census right.”

For the majority of the people filling out the once-a-decade census, the answer to such a question would be easy: They are Americans by birth or naturalized citizens after arriving from other countries.

But Trump, who has embraced a tough stance against illegal immigration and pushed for construction of a wall on the southern border with Mexico to thwart the surge of migrants, also wants to include the citizenship question in an attempt to count the number of undocumented migrants in the country.

The precise figure is not known, but demographers say it could total about 11 million of the 328 million people in the United States.

Despite Ross’s decision to add the question to the survey, Census Bureau experts concluded that excluding the citizenship question would produce a more accurate figure for the U.S. population because undocumented immigrants might be reluctant to admit they are not U.S. citizens and refuse to answer the questions.

The Census Bureau estimated that 6.5 million people would avoid answering the questions if the citizenship query were to be included.

The Trump administration says it has wide discretion in designing the questionnaire and notes that the citizenship question has been asked on smaller annual population surveys. It says the question is needed to aid in the enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Some of the largest states and cities and rights groups are arguing against inclusion of the question, fearing an undercount in the census would hurt their interests, either in by cutting their congressional representation in as many as six states through the 2020’s or in federal funding.

The Nielsen television ratings company said Monday it also opposes inclusion of the citizenship question, saying an undercount of the U.S. population would adversely affect the U.S. media industry and other businesses that depend on accurate readings of consumer sentiment. Nielsen said its measurements of business trends could be inaccurate for a decade with the question added to the census.

After Tuesday’s hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, giving the government enough time to print the census questionnaire before the April 2020 count.

 
…