Impeachment is the nuclear option. It's time to push the button.
by digby
It looks like Trump and Barr are going to stonewall absolutely everything and, so far, the Democratic congress is still trying to demand that he not do that. I would guess that Trump and his henchmen will continue to be unmoved by these demands. Which leaves us with where to go next.
Michael Conway, who served as counsel for the U.S. House Judiciary Committee in the impeachment inquiry of President Richard M. Nixon in 1974, says that way is impeachment hearings:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and today’s congressional leaders can find guidance from the actions of Congress during Watergate.
On April 11, 1974 — following the February vote by the full House to authorize an impeachment inquiry — the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena, seeking White House tapes, transcripts, notes and memoranda relating to 147 conversations in which investigators believed that the president and his aides discussed, among other things, the Watergate burglary and its cover-up. Nixon, of course, refused.
In a report that same day, committee lawyers identified three potential remedies if Nixon did not comply with the committee’s subpoena, while explaining that “each of these methods presents problems.”
Democrats know they can't trust AG Barr. But they have a plan.
First, Congress “has the power to hold in contempt a person who has disobeyed its subpoena,” or, to a lesser degree, the House can reprimand or censure the recalcitrant witness. A contempt finding, however, requires an affirmative vote of the entire House.
If the subpoenaed party today — Barr — does not produce the requested documents or justify to Congress grounds for nondisclosure, the House could find him in contempt and order him arrested for the duration of the current term of Congress ending in January 2021 or until the party complies with the subpoena.
The last time Congress did that, however, was in 1935.
Recognizing in 1974 the impracticability of arresting Nixon, the staff report offered a second option: seeking a court order to enforce compliance. However, the co-equal nature of the executive, legislative and judicial branches raised a constitutional problem with seeking relief in court, suggesting, “it may be thought inappropriate to seek the aid of the judicial branch in exercising these powers.”
And, the staff added, seeking either criminal or civil relief for presidential noncompliance would “pose a number of problems for this inquiry, including delay, the uncertainty of relying upon the executive branch to prosecute the chief executive, and doubt whether an incumbent president may be prosecuted for a criminal offense before his impeachment and removal from office.” (This would certainly be applicable today, as any effort to compel compliance could well be tied up in court beyond the 2020 elections.)
The staff finally noted that noncompliance itself might be evidence in an impeachment proceeding.
Still, on April 30, 1974, Nixon attempted to blunt the impact of his intransigence toward both the committee and the second special prosecutor by making a televised address to the nation in which he displayed stacks of binders containing edited transcripts of 33 White House tapes to be delivered to the Judiciary Committee.
The committee then wrote Nixon on May 1 that he had not complied with its subpoena, but — in keeping with the committee’s report on the difficulties of forcing compliance — a motion that day to recommend to the House that Nixon be found in contempt was defeated 32-5.
In opposing the motion to recommend holding Nixon in contempt, then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino said: “We can consider the noncompliance of the president when we are considering the question of possible grounds of impeachment.”
The chairman’s words were prophetic: As an independent ground for impeachment, Article III held that Nixon should be impeached for refusing to produce tapes and records and thereby interfering with congressional exercise of its power of impeachment mandated by the constitution. That article was approved by a vote of 21-17 in July.
In its final report to the House in 1974, the committee explained why a president should be impeached for defying its subpoenas: “Unless the defiance of the committee’s subpoenas under these circumstances is considered grounds for impeachment, it is difficult to conceive of any president acknowledging that he is obligated to supply the relevant evidence necessary for Congress to exercise its constitutional responsibility in an impeachment proceeding.”
In 2019, the committee’s warning about what a future president may do has come to pass. Congress must act decisively to preserve its constitutional authority.
The Republicans cheapened impeachment in the Clinton case, probably for a reason. They knew that if they could demonstrate it as a rank partisan act it would lose much of its "nuclear" power. It probably succeeded in doing that to some extent. But impeachment over a cover-up of a betrayal of the country, criminal or not, is very different than impeaching someone over a lie in a civil case about a personal sexual matter. The first is the very definition of a high crime or misdemeanor. The second isn't.
The Democrats are making themselves appear to be as nakedly partisan as the Republicans were in 1998, by doing the opposite. They are going on television and giving interviews in which they wring their hands and express their fears that impeaching the president will harm them politically. Why they think it's a good look to show themselves as self-serving pols in light of this assault on the constitution is beyond me. You'd think they at least would make the argument on the merits if they are too scared to impeach. Of course, that would be hard since the only reason one can say that Trump shouldn't be impeached on the basis of the Mueller Report, as well as his rank corruption and unfitness, is that you believe the citizens of this country have no sense of ethics and morality and will punish you for doing it.
If the Democrats refuse, both parties will have said that a president cannot be indicted while in office and that impeachment is no longer operative for Republicans. If you don't believe me, just think about the fact that the last Democratic Special Counsel was Archibald Cox. Only Republicans are allowed to investigate. If they let this pass it will be clear that only Republicans are allowed to impeach.
Do you think they wouldn't have impeached Clinton?
Senior Republican lawmakers are openly discussing the prospect of impeaching Hillary Clinton should she win the presidency, a stark indication that partisan warfare over her tenure as secretary of state will not end on Election Day.
Chairmen of two congressional committees said in media interviews this week they believe Clinton committed impeachable offenses in setting up and using a private email server for official State Department business.
And a third senior Republican, the chairman of a House Judiciary subcommittee, told The Washington Post he is personally convinced Clinton should be impeached for influence peddling involving her family foundation. He favors further congressional investigation into that matter.
Trump was ON it:
.
