Starting impeachment removes Republican stonewalling

[SHRED]

That's what I've read.

Is this true?

[ehrnst]

1. Where did you read that? (nt)

[SHRED]

6. Here

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[Lock individual1 up]

8. THIS K&R nt

[ehrnst]

13. OK, a couple of things:

First:

One of us (Tribe) has supported investigation but resisted the call for impeachment hearings as such, defending House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in that regard, while the other (Lacovara) recently argued that Pelosi was duty-bound under the Constitution to have the House Judiciary Committee open a formal investigation into whether grounds for impeachment exist. One reason for doing so was to enhance the likelihood that the committee could see the evidence that Mueller developed through the use of his investigating grand jury. During the Watergate investigation, the special prosecutor working with a grand jury developed a report detailing the evidence tending to show that President Richard M. Nixon had committed various federal crimes, including obstruction of justice, that might constitute grounds for impeachment.

Not seeing where Tribe has changed his mind in the article. Can you point it out - seriously, this is dense reading.

Second:

But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is “not worth it.” That decision may hamstring Nadler’s quest for the complete Mueller report.

Not "bizarre," that was clearly trolling DT, because she knows that he cannot stand to be dismissed, especially by a woman, and especially by an older woman -who has power, and has nothing to do with any of her actual motivations. I got that, as did many, many others. I think that men might be less aware of that tactic. I'm not convinced that prep for an impeachment in the event that something changes ISN'T going on.

Also from WAPO:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/12/21/democrats-prepare-investigate-trump-every-angle/?utm_term=.8ec6794f6295

[wryter2000]

2. Nothing is going to remove Republican stonewalling

I'm curious what you read and where.

[SHRED]

7. WaPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html

[wryter2000]

12. Thanks

Don’t think that ends stonewalling. More like works around it. It’s the best reason I’ve read for impeachment so far.

[FBaggins]

3. Not really

In theory, it would make it easier to get some grand jury materials from the court, but it certainly doesn't "remove" stonewalling. Neither does a subpoena.

What people continue to misunderstand is that the legislative and executive branches are co-equal. Neither one has fiat control to force the other to do things. If both sides insist on not moving, the courts will have to get involved and that isn't a rapid process in most cases.

And, of course, we know the current SCOTUS makeup.

[Lock individual1 up]

10. Calling Mueller and his team to testify in close & (then) open hearings...

may force the rogue executive to comply to subpoenas?

[FBaggins]

11. Mueller is part of the Executive branch

He isn’t a free agent

[Smackdown2019]

14. He is a federal employee

Federal employees must answer any questions Congress has.

Executive Privilege can not implied when it dealing an investigation against the President.

[FBaggins]

16. Where did you get the idea that federal employees must answer any questions Congress has?

Were you not watching during the Obama or Clinton administration? Our guys refused to answer lots of questions (or even show up in some cases).

Executive Privilege can not implied when it dealing an investigation against the President.

That's silly... when do you think it does apply if not then?

[Smackdown2019]

18. Called Contempt of Congress

Jail time can arise.

[FBaggins]

21. Again... were you watching during the prior administrations?

Obama's Attorney General defied a subpoena... and lost a contempt of Congress vote and still didn't turn everything over.

How much jail time did he serve?

[Smackdown2019]

25. He was not impeached, he was in contempt

Big difference. The cronies have committed major crimes, start put the handcuffs on and impeach them!

[FBaggins]

29. ??? you just SAID contempt of congress.

This isn't an impeachment hearing. It's exactly the same scenario (a congressional committee wanting a DOJ federal employee to testify and being willing to subpoena if they can't get him to do it willingly). The only difference is that in the prior case it was the AG.

[Lock individual1 up]

17. If he and his team refused to testify on a voluntary basis...

… for any reason, including secret (internal) orders from BarR and Rosenstein…

How could he and his team defy subpoenas? They are supposed to represent Law & Order officers ffs! Not to represent a Rogue executive resembling more and more like a corRupt banana republic dictatoRship!

[Smackdown2019]

19. I agree with you

Mueller needs to testify and Congress can get him on the stand and ask what he reported. The report was submitted to Barr, nothing states he can not disclose what was in his report. Kinda like turning in your book report; you recited it to your other teacher.

[FBaggins]

22. Nothing says that he can not disclose what was in his report?

You mean... apart from the regulation that created his position that says that the report is confidential and only to be turned over to the AG?

That... and DOJ regulations governing communications with Congress of course. Regulations that he's definitely bound by.

[Smackdown2019]

26. Hmmm let's see....Executive Branch enforces laws

LEGISLATION creates laws and holds hearing of impeachments.

The legislators can call him up and ask him if committed high crimes and misdemeanors!

[FBaggins]

30. That doesn't logically follow... sorry.

The executive does more than just enforce laws... but even if that were the case, that's the branch that handles prosecutions and investigations.

and holds hearing of impeachments.

Again... this isn't one of those.

The legislators can call him up and ask him if committed high crimes and misdemeanors!

Not without the approval of the DOJ or a court order that survives appear they can't.

[Smackdown2019]

33. We have a amendment from Nixon era that ensures

We created a Nixon era amendment to ensure Presidents are not above the law.

Second, congress can hold a trial by calling up witnesses for an impeachment investigation.

It's their duty!

[FBaggins]

34. At least one of us has no idea what you're talking about

I can only assume that you're thinking of the 25th Amendment... but that was ratified before Nixon every took office and had nothing to do with ensuring that Presidents are not above the law.

They aren't, of course, but that comes from day one of the Constitution... not a "Nixon era amendment"

Second, congress can hold a trial by calling up witnesses for an impeachment investigation.

That's arguably true... but not relevant to the conversation. This isn't an impeachment investigation, it's just a congressional committee trying to get information. And executive branch employees of both parties have refused to testify in the past (up to and including attorneys general). Congress' power to investigate is quite broad... but not unlimited.

[Smackdown2019]

35. Actually that's why

We need the report to do the process of impeachment and considering barr stated a hint of OBSTRUCTION.

Laws were created after Nixon to ensure the headaches of OBSTRUCTION does not occur again by a sitting President. Were back at it again

[FBaggins]

20. He certainly should testify... but he doesn't have to and could be told that he doesn't have a choic

How could he and his team defy subpoenas?

The same way DOJ officers (up to and including the Attorney General) have refused in the past. Congress does not have unfettered power over the Executive branch. They would have to get a court to agree and in some previous cases the courts have determined that it's a political question and washed their hands of it.

They are supposed to represent Law & Order officers ffs!

True. And law enforcement is an executive function, not legislative. They answer to the DOJ/AG and ultimately the President. At any stage in the chain of command they can be instructed not to testify (or to not answer questions on certain topics). Congress can then move to make a criminal referral for contempt of Congress... but those go to the DOJ.

[FBaggins]

24. Not at all

If Congress doesn't like the executive's response they have the power to impeach and remove. If the offense is significant enough and the people agree... then someone else gets elected the next time. They just don't have the power to compel testimony absent the courts agreeing that it's required in that particular scenario.

Note that this is in no sense unique to the current administration. Prior administrations have refused to provide certain people to testify (or limited what they could say) and the Constitution didn't burst into flames.

Note also that not only is it not-unique... it's SOP for the DOJ. The SP has the power of a US Attorney and is bound by the same rules. Those rules say that they can't testify before Congress without the Office of Legislative Affairs signing off... and that OLA will handle all communication between DOJ and Congress on behalf of the AG.

[Smackdown2019]

28. Back them we did not have a Hitler either, now we do

It is evident that you are either with Hitler or against Hitler. We are at the brink of a civil war and I am afraid we Democrats are out gun from the whackos!

[Smackdown2019]

36. Your dreaming

Military can not be used us on Americans. It has in the past, but legally our troops can not be used on us. Even so, if an instant war breaks out, it would be too overwhelming the local PD. Look at Charlotteville in 17. It was nearly powder kig waiting to go off. But now, we are divided by your either your a trumper or not. More trump pushes the innocent, the worst it gets.

[MineralMan]

4. No, it doesn't really remove it.

If the House demanded Trump's tax forms and other documents, the administration could still refuse to hand them over. Then, the whole thing ends up in the courts, much as it will without impeachment proceedings. It will also not end Republicans trying to derail the proceedings. They will do so energetically and constantly.

The House can, and has, demanded documents. The difference is that, without impeachment proceedings, the goal will be to present information to the public, instead of internally in the House. Given the 2020 election, it might be more useful for us to see them, rathern than to pursue an impeachment which would not result in removal from office. The voters can handle the job of removing Trump from office just fine.

Either way, the process will continue into 2020. There's no doubt of that. I suggest we focus on the election and on public disclosure of evidence about Trump. I'd like to see his tax returns. I'd like to see the full, unredacted Mueller report, or at least hear from House members about what they contain. I believe there is a better chance of that, and sooner, without the impeachment proceedings.

[Lock individual1 up]

5. Can the Judiciary Committee obtain the SDNY findings on Individual 1?

If BarR is found to be at the top of individual 1's re-election campaign?

[MineralMan]

9. I don't know.

[Smackdown2019]

15. Constitution

Gives Congress to investigate and conduct impeachment proceedings of a sitting President. BARR and Trump can not withhold its executive branch from testifying. It's in the Constitution

[onecaliberal]

27. The constitution requires it for a president who commits high crimes or misdemeanors.

Trump is a criminal. If we don’t impeach him, impeachment is only for Democrats. Does anyone with a brain think a Democratic potus would have gotten away with even one of the hundred things trump has done to warrant impeachment.

[Quemado]

32. Trump's strategy is to run out the clock.

The House Democrats can start an impeachment inquiry, but Trump will fight tooth and nail in the courts and unless the Democrats can show there is an emergency, fights over this and that will be bogged down for months and months, possibly a year or two.