Annie Donaldson, the former chief of staff to White House counsel Don McGahn and a crucial witness in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, found herself blocked from replying to questions from a House panel more than 200 times because of “constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”
The 55-page list of responses from Donaldson records 212 separate assertions of the clunky phrase, which appears to demand confidentiality without formally asserting executive privilege.
Donaldson issued the responses after House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) subpoenaed her, along with former White House Communications Director Hope Hicks, for testimony and documents in May as part of the panel’s probe into possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
Across the responses, Donaldson replied with the same boilerplate statement that the White House had asserted that the subject of the response was confidential.
“The White House has directed that I not respond to this question because of the constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests that are implicated,” the statement reads.
In a few cases, Donaldson added some detail when declining to answer a question.
For example, in response to a question about whether Donaldson knows about a July 22, 2017, conversation in which Trump allegedly told then-White House chief of staff Reince Priebus to get Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign immediately, Donaldson replied with the following:
“I am aware of a conversation between Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn, although I do not, today, have an independent recollection of whether or not I was present for any such conversation between Mr. Priebus and Mr. McGahn, or subsequently learned about this event.”
She then repeated the boilerplate non-assertion of executive privilege.
Read the transcript of Donaldson’s responses — or lack thereof — here:
But Trump claims that his adminstration cooperated fully (and that there was no collusion or obstruction) . . . and any number of other absurd statements.
lawsuits are fun
Tomorrow I’m going to fail to show up to work, and invoke my “corporate board-supporting strategic alignment of interests vis-a-vis ordered direction” if anyone asks. It makes exactly as much sense as this does
Lawsuits to compel McGahn/Hicks/Donaldson testimony have still not been filed. Folks can make up whatever excuses they want for this, but no one can accuse the House Dems of showing a sense of urgency here. We all know a GOP run committee wouldn’t have hesitated to get into court on stuff like this. We’ve honestly learned more about #trumprussia from GOP led hearings than Dem controlled hearings.
Leaders of Institutions used to defend institutional power. Now, we’re in the era of ‘shrug politics’.
What the heck is the difference between replying “constitutionally-based Executive Branch confidentiality interests” and “formally asserting executive privilege”?
Sure looks same to me.
And why is Toadglans so hesitent to assert executive privilege? He does everything else, whether it’s legal or not.