WASHINGTON — The White House’s top national security lawyer declined to appear for a scheduled deposition on Monday morning, saying he would wait until a federal judge rules on whether President Trump’s closest advisers have to answer questions from congressional investigators.

The lawyer, John A. Eisenberg, played a central role in dealing with the fallout at the White House from a July call between President Trump and the Ukrainian president, in which Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainians to conduct investigations that could benefit him politically.

The committee subpoenaed Mr. Eisenberg to appear for questioning, but the White House informed Mr. Eisenberg’s lawyer on Sunday that Mr. Trump was directing him not to testify. The White House invoked absolute immunity, a sweeping and contested form of executive privilege that holds the president’s closest advisers are not obligated to cooperate with Congress.

“Under these circumstances, Mr. Eisenberg has no other option that is consistent with his legal and ethical obligations except to follow the direction of his client and employer, the president of the United States,” William A. Burck, a lawyer for Mr. Eisenberg, wrote to House leaders Monday morning. “Accordingly, Mr. Eisenberg will not be appearing for a deposition at this time.”

Mr. Eisenberg was not the only witness defying House investigators on Monday. Robert Blair, the national security adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney; Michael Ellis, Mr. Eisenberg’s deputy; and Brian McCormack, the former chief of staff to the energy secretary, Rick Perry, were all expected to skip scheduled depositions, despite receiving subpoenas.

The objections were not unexpected, but nonetheless showed the limits House Democrats face as their fact finding tries to edge closer into Mr. Trump’s inner circle. Additional witnesses scheduled to testify this week are likely to follow suit, either out of loyalty to Mr. Trump or because of complicated legal issues posed by their proximity to the president.

With their inquiry moving at a rapid pace, Democrats have made clear they do not intend to wait around for the courts to settle the legal issues raised by Mr. Eisenberg and others to secure their testimony. Investigators are trying to complete most private witness depositions this week, before beginning to make the case in public next week that Mr. Trump used the levers of his office to pressure Ukraine into investigating Democratic rivals for his own political gain.

Democrats have indicated they would catalog defiance of subpoenas as further evidence of Mr. Trump obstructing Congress, an offense they view as potentially impeachable itself. And they plan to assume that any witness the White House blocks would have confirmed details of the emerging case against Mr. Trump.

Mr. Eisenberg’s decision heightens the importance of an unusual lawsuit filed by Mr. Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, Charles M. Kupperman, who faced the same situation as Mr. Eisenberg: a subpoena from the House and an instruction from Mr. Trump not to comply with it. Last month, Mr. Kupperman sued, asking a judge to determine whether he had to testify. Oral arguments could be heard in that case on Dec. 10.

“Mr. Eisenberg, as a lawyer and officer of the court, will abide by whatever final decision the federal judiciary reaches on the dispute between the executive and Congress,” Mr. Burck said.

No court has ever held that the absolute immunity theory is legally correct, and a Federal District Court judge rejected it in a Bush administration case, but that precedent is not binding — leaving the Trump administration free to again put it forward for a fresh round of litigation.

The suit will have implications that go beyond Mr. Kupperman and Mr. Eisenberg. Mr. Kupperman’s lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, also represents another highly sought-after witness, the former national security adviser, John R. Bolton. If House investigators subpoena Mr. Bolton, Mr. Cooper is likely to also ask a judge to determine whether he has to testify.

As the White House’s top national security lawyer, Mr. Eisenberg dealt directly with complaints from White House officials after Mr. Trump’s call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Witnesses have told House investigators that it was Mr. Eisenberg who decided to store a transcript of the call on a special network used for the government’s most sensitive national security secrets. At least one witness has said she told Mr. Eisenberg that one of Mr. Trump’s political appointees could be a counterintelligence risk, but Mr. Eisenberg declined to inform the Justice Department of the concerns.

Mr. Blair, who listened in on the July 25 call, is likely to have been privy to key details about the president’s direction to Mr. Mulvaney to freeze $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine this summer. His lawyer indicated over the weekend he would not cooperate.

Mr. Ellis could offer a direct account of the decision to lock down a reconstructed transcript of the call, and possibly of how the White House legal team handled reports made by national security officials alarmed by what they saw transpiring with Ukraine. A lawyer for Mr. Ellis said Monday morning that he had been directed by the White House not to cooperate and would not appear for an afternoon deposition.

And as Mr. Perry’s chief of staff, Mr. McCormack is said to have been involved in key events under scrutiny. He is now working at the Office of Management and Budget. An administration official indicated on Monday that neither he, nor other White House budget office appointees, would speak with investigators this week.

The White House did not appear to try to assert that any of the three, who are further removed from Mr. Trump, were absolutely immune from testimony. But correspondence released by the House Intelligence Committee indicated that Mr. Blair and Mr. Ellis had been directed not to appear because investigators would not allow a Trump administration lawyer to participate in the depositions in the hearing room.

Other witnesses have ignored or defied similar instructions. Democrats told lawyers for Mr. Blair and Mr. Ellis that they viewed it as just one of several “baseless procedural challenges” to the House by the White House. They pointed out that when Republicans were in charge, the House had set identical rules.

Charlie Savage contributed reporting.

Source: Read Full Article