Mackenzie Walz  //  11/5/19  //  Daily Update

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Precedent suggests executive privilege does not apply in the impeachment context but, even if it does, the House’s need for the information should outweigh any confidentiality interest, contends Lawrence Friedman for Just Security.

Four White House officials defied Congressional subpoenas to testify before House impeachment investigators (WaPo; POLITICO).

The Ukrainian President may have asserted he did not feel pressure from President Trump because it would be unwise to criticize the US, a major donor, when the country is in need of assistance, argues Anders Aslund for Just Security.

President Trump denied the anonymous whistleblower’s offer to provide written answers to questions from GOP lawmakers (POLITICO).

The chairmen of the House committees leading the impeachment inquiry released transcripts of testimony from three Ambassadors (Lawfare).

• The Hill offers five takeaways from the transcripts here.

INVESTIGATIONS AND LITIGATION

The Second Circuit unanimously ruled that President Trump is not immune from Manhattan’s grand jury subpoena for his tax returns (POLITICO; WaPo; The Hill).

• The ruling is available here.

Writer E. Jean Carroll filed a lawsuit against President Trump, alleging he defamed her when he denied her sexual assault allegation (The Hill; NYT).

JUSTICE & SAFETY

The Administration issued sanctions against nine Iranian officials who are advisers to Iran’s leader, Ali Khamenei (WaPo).

The Administration waived a prohibition blocking over $115 million in security assistance from going to countries who are complicit in the recruitment and use of child soldiers (The Hill).

The Administration notified the UN that it has started withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement (WaPo; NYT; POLITICO).

RULE OF LAW

The Trea Turner interference call during Game Six of the World Series raises many legal questions within broad jurisprudential debates, explains Ben Miller-Gootnick for Take Care.

REGULATION

The proposed rescission of regulations prohibiting recipients of HHS funding from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity may be grounded in the rule of law and federalism, discusses Walter Olson for CATO.