The Political Insider

On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee told a federal appeals court that it still seeks to have former White House counsel Don McGahn testify which could possibly lead to the introduction of “additional articles of impeachment” against President Donald Trump concerning his relationship with Ukraine.

More Articles of Impeachment On the Way?

The panel’s counsel, Doug Letter, argued in a brief submitted to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that its subpoena of McGahn, who departed the White House last year, is not moot. Letter claims this is true despite the House’s approval of two impeachment articles — obstruction of Congress and abuse of power— in a House vote Wednesday.

RELATED: The Vote Is In: House Judiciary Committee Passes Both Articles of Impeachment

The brief reads,“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly—including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

Chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler, the House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed McGahn in March for its impeachment investigation, exploring whether President Trump or senior administration officials obstructed justice during special counsel Robert Mueller’s “Russian collusion” probe.

Trump Officials Wanted ‘Absolute Immunity’ for McGahn

Team Trump asked McGahn to defy the subpoena, citing “absolute immunity.” This is a measure that has long protected top administration officials from testifying before Congress.

RELATED: Impeachment Expert Blasts Pelosi, Says ‘Phony Impeachment’ Will Have Always Have ‘Asterisk’ 

In late November, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an administrative stay of previous ruling instructing McGahn to testify. The court stated it would consider granting a lengthier stay and scheduled a hearing for arguments to be heard on January 3rd.

The Department of Justice argued in the 10-page filing that the House’s impeachment vote “eliminate[d] the need” for McGahn to answer congressional questions and “underscore the reasons why this Court should dismiss or deny the Committee’s suit without adjudicating the subpoena’s validity.”

“Indeed, if this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” DOJ lawyer wrote. “That would be of questionable propriety whether or not such a judicial resolution preceded or post-dated any impeachment trial.”