Michael Stern’s article in JustSecurity lays out the pressing need for an impeachment inquiry.
Beginning the process is about timing and the need to not think of impeachment as Pyyrhic since the real battle remains the 2020 election. It has become more pressing because of the willingness of the WH to obstruct further inquiry.
While it is true that the House has substantial powers of inquiry apart from impeachment, there is little doubt that initiating impeachment proceedings would strengthen its investigatory position considerably. Historically the House’s impeachment powers are integral to its status as the “grand inquest of the nation.”*
Because the House’s function in impeachment is judicial in nature, it implies the same authorities to obtain evidence as enjoyed by a court. As an 1843 House report stated: “The House has the sole right of impeachment … a power which implies the right of inquiry on the part of the House to the fullest and most unlimited extent.”
At a nuts and bolts level, a resolution establishing an impeachment inquiry enables the House to bestow on the Judiciary Committee special authorities for purposes of its investigation. Molly Reynolds and Margaret Taylor correctly point out that the most important powers conveyed in prior impeachment proceedings, such as subpoena and deposition authority, are now part of the standing authorities enjoyed by the Judiciary Committee (among others). Nevertheless, there are additional useful authorities, such as the power to gather information in foreign countries, that could be granted as part of an impeachment inquiry. That’s no small matter in an impeachment that may involve foreign emoluments and international affairs.
Finally, initiating an impeachment inquiry provides the House with several “self-help” options to better secure the production of information.
- First, to the extent the House wishes to employ the remedy of inherent contempt (in which the House through its own agents would detain or fine a contumacious witness), this strategy would be most defensible in an impeachment proceeding where the House is exercising a judicial function.
- Second, if President Trump continues to defy or direct others to defy congressional subpoenas especially for appearance before an impeachment hearing, this in itself could support an article of impeachment.
- Third, the House could draw an adverse inference from the unjustifiable failure to produce evidence, finding that the president’s refusal to provide information reflects the fact that it would not be helpful to his case.
No matter where Trump is or what he's supposed to be doing, his preoccupation with the Russia scandal and the growing calls for impeachment always take precedence.
Over the holiday weekend there was considerable chatter about whether or not special counsel Robert Mueller will testify in a public hearing before Congress. Apparently Mueller only wants to read a statement and then hold the hearing behind closed doors to avoid a "spectacle." It was also announced that the House Intelligence and Financial Services committees had come to an agreement with Trump's lawyers to hold off on enforcing the ruling that Deutsche Bank must hand over Trump's records until his appeal could be heard. (Legal observers say this made sense because it will speed up the appeal.) And yes, the Democratic leadership is still wringing their hands over impeachment, insisting that they must instead concentrate on passing bills that the Senate refuses to take up, and that Trump would rather spit nails than sign, because that's what the voters allegedly demanded when they gave them a majority.
www.salon.com/...