White House officials refusing to testify Monday

White House officials refusing to testify Monday
© Greg Nash

Two White House officials subpoenaed to testify as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry declined to appear at the Capitol on Monday morning, and two others are also expected to be no-shows later in the day.

John Eisenberg, senior attorney at the National Security Council (NSC), and Robert Blair, senior adviser to acting White House chief of staff Mick MulvaneyMick MulvaneyTrump names new acting director of legislative affairs 12 things to know today about coronavirus Mulvaney: 'We've overreacted a little bit' to coronavirus MORE, were scheduled to testify at 9 a.m as part of the ongoing investigation into President TrumpDonald John TrumpTwitter CEO: 'Not true' that removing Trump campaign video was illegal, as president has claimed Biden formally clinches Democratic presidential nomination Barr says he didn't give 'tactical' command to clear Lafayette protesters MORE's dealings with Ukraine.


Democrats had also sought the testimony of two other figures Monday afternoon: Michael Ellis, one of Eisenberg's deputies, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources, energy and science at the Office of Management and Budget.

Lawmakers leaving the closed-door deposition room in the Capitol said they were informed by staff that none of the figures will likely appear.

"It seems like a blanket position that they're taking," said Rep. Stephen LynchStephen Francis LynchHouse Democrats object to Trump sending ventilators to Russia Hillicon Valley: House Dems push for B in state election funds | Amazon suspends over 6,000 sellers for price gouging | Google says 18M malicious coronavirus emails sent daily House Democrats push hard for mail-in voting funds MORE (D-Mass.), a member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee. "They will notify us, but right now it's our expectation that no one will show today."

The no-shows come at the start of the sixth week of the Democrats' impeachment probe, which was launched following allegations from a government whistleblower that Trump had withheld U.S. military aid to Ukraine as leverage to secure political favors from that country's leaders.

In a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a rough transcript of which was released by the White House, Trump had asked Zelensky to launch an anti-corruption investigation into former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden formally clinches Democratic presidential nomination The Memo: Job numbers boost Trump and challenge Biden Chris Wallace: Jobs numbers show 'the political resilience of Donald Trump' MORE and his son. Biden is among the leading presidential contenders in 2020, and the whistleblower voiced concerns that Trump was seeking to enlist foreign help to boost his reelection chances.

Eisenberg was reportedly the figure responsible for moving the transcript of the July 25 call to a classified server after hearing concerns from another figure in the Ukraine saga, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the NSC's director for European affairs.

Vindman, who was on the controversial phone call, testified privately last week that he felt it was inappropriate for Trump to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. Along with his twin brother, another NSC official, Vindman took those concerns to Eisenberg. Ellis sat in on that meeting, according to various reports.

As the investigation has evolved, Trump and his GOP allies in the Capitol are increasingly calling for the identity of the whistleblower to be revealed, voicing concerns — without providing any evidence — that the figure is an anti-Trump Democrat motivated more by politics than patriotism.

"The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff," Trump tweeted.

"He must be brought forward to testify. Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the informant? Con!"

The whistleblower's lawyers have offered their client's testimony in written form, but Republicans are, so far, cold to the idea.

"Why should Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffSchiff uses Tiananmen anniversary to condemn Trump's response to protests Flynn urged Russian diplomat to have 'reciprocal' response to Obama sanctions, new transcripts show The Hill's Morning Report - Presented by Facebook - George Floyd's death sparks protests, National Guard activation MORE get to call his witnesses and have them come in and testify within a back-and-forth dialog, and yet the whistleblower is supposedly only going to answer questions in a written format?" Rep. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsTrump names new acting director of legislative affairs House Judiciary to hear whistleblowers on 'politicization' of Justice Dept under Trump How Trump cleared the park around the White House for church photo op MORE (R-N.C.), a member of the Oversight panel, told repeaters in the Capitol Monday morning. "The statute does not provide for the whistleblower to remain anonymous."