Despite persistent detrimental judgments in the court, Trump has the advantage of time before the Democratic Party's impeachment efforts.

Critics of US President Donald Trump were delighted when federal judge Ketanji Brown Jacksonra ruled that former White House adviser Donald McGahn testified before Congress. The judge argued that the Trump administration's argument that White House senior aides are exempt from congressional hearings was "ridiculous."

The ruling was Trump's latest failure in a legal battle in lower courts, when he tried to defend himself before the impeachment investigation by the House of Representatives. Other battles are also taking place in court, surrounding Trump's disclosure of tax records and evidence of investigative investigations into Russia's election.

However, Charlie Savage, a commentator on NYTimes's national security and legal policy, argued that Trump was in fact winning the war with the Democrats, despite his adverse rulings. in federal court.

McGahn first refused the summons of the House of Representatives in May. It took three months for the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives to ask Judge Jackson to consider the execution of the warrant. Justice Jackson will take another three months to make a verdict, after conducting the debate and review 120 pages of text presents the opinions of the parties.

This is only the first step in a legal battle to force McGahn to testify before the House of Representatives. The US Department of Justice then immediately filed an appeal against Judge Jackson's ruling, making efforts to force McGahn to provide testimony before the House of Representatives to be bogged down in the near future.

Even if McGahn is forced to testify, a new cycle of litigation will inevitably begin to revolve around whether the specific information McGahn testifies to is entitled to executive immunity.

Meanwhile, time is supporting Trump. The door to parliamentary impeachment is dwindling amid the 2020 presidential election that will take place in less than a year. If the Trump administration's most important goal is to protect adverse information from leaking out during his time in office and running for office, this legal strategy is succeeding, Savage said.

"This is not a long-term strategy, it is more like setting short-term goals," said Martin Lederman, Georgetown law professor and lawyer at the Justice Department's Legal Consulting Office.

Just like in football, when the game is almost over, the defenders retreat deeply to limit dangerous situations from the opponent, the Trump legal team is also looking to buy time in the legal battle.

This strategy may cause Trump to be sometimes named in the media and may lead to decisions that have a great impact on later presidents, but it is an effective way to buy time for Trump to "overcome difficulties". in the impeachment battle.

In this unprecedented battle, Democrats are mostly relying on the courts to fight Trump's defensive wall. They continued to file for court on November 26, suing Justice Attorney William Barr and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for refusing to hear a hearing about how they sought to raise an additional citizenship question on the form. Census 2020.

However, Democrats are gradually realizing that the court is not a "magic wand" against Trump.

Adam Schiff, a Democrat who is leading the Trump impeachment investigation in the House of Representatives, has stated that MPs will aim to enact weighty provisions for impeachment, instead of getting bogged down in the court. "We don't want to waste months struggling with the trials, which the Trump administration wants," Schiff told NBC on November 24.

Schiff explained that he and his colleagues considered the investigation to be urgent because he thought Trump had called for foreign intervention in the 2020 election when pressuring the President of Ukraine to investigate the father and son. former US Vice President Joe Biden, a formidable opponent in the election next year.

Meanwhile, in a series of Twitter posts on November 26, Trump declared that he was not stalling, but merely ensuring that future US presidents were not "congested" by Congress.

"I am fighting for future presidents and the Presidential Office. If not for that, I really want people to testify," Trump wrote.

Professor Jack Goldsmith at Harvard University, who heads the Office of Legal Advice under the Bush administration, said that the legal battle between Trump and Democrats could force the Supreme Court to intervene.

Trump can hope that the Supreme Court, with 5/9 judges appointed by Republican presidents, including two directly appointed by Trump, can make a final decision in favor of He, in the same way that they supported the ban on entry he issued in 2018 despite opposition from lower federal courts.

"If the Supreme Court justices want to prolong this legal battle, they can do it," Professor Lederman said.