This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/us/politics/donald-trump-impeachment.html

The article has changed 8 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Raising Prospect of Impeaching Trump, House Seeks Mueller’s Grand Jury Secrets Impeachment Investigation is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says in Court Filing
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee on Friday said it would ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and use the court filing to make the most explicit declaration yet that lawmakers are weighing whether to impeach President Trump. WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee on Friday asked a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation, using the court filing to declare that lawmakers to have now launched an impeachment investigation of President Trump.
In a significant escalation, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Democratic chairman of the committee, said at a news conference that the application to the court would declare that the panel needs access to Mr. Mueller’s grand-jury evidence — such as witness testimony — to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president. In a legal maneuver that carries significant political overtones, the committee told a judge that it needs access to Mr. Mueller’s grand-jury evidence — such as witness testimony — because it is “investigating whether to recommend articles of impeachment” against the president.
“Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” Mr. Nadler quoted the legal filing as telling the judge, Beryl A. Howell, who supervised Mr. Mueller’s grand jury. “Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” the filing tells the judge, Beryl A. Howell, who supervised Mr. Mueller’s grand jury.
Referring to the part in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a president, the application continues, he said: “To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — recommendation of articles of impeachment.” Referring to the part in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a president, it continued: “To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.”
By styling the committee as already engaged in impeachment considerations as it carries out its investigations, Mr. Nadler was attempting to sidestep a debate raging inside his party over whether the House should hold a vote to formally declare that it is opening an impeachment inquiry. [Read the Judiciary Committee’s application.]
“Too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,’” Mr. Nadler said. “We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president and to consider what remedies there are. Among other things we will consider obviously is whether to recommend articles of impeachment.” With the filing, the committee’s chairman, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, was attempting to sidestep the debate raging inside his party over whether the full House should hold a vote to formally declare that it is opening an impeachment inquiry. In effect, he declared, that inquiry has already begun.
Other members of the committee were more blunt. “Too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,’” Mr. Nadler said at a news conference. “We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president and to consider what remedies there are. Among other things we will consider obviously is whether to recommend articles of impeachment.”
“I would say we are in an impeachment investigation, and as to the results of the investigation, it could lead to articles of impeachment or something else,” said Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland. Other members of the committee were more forward.
Representative Veronica Escobar, Democrat of Texas, declared, “We’re now crossing a threshold with this filing, and we are now officially entering into an examination of whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment.” “We’re now crossing a threshold with this filing, and we are now officially entering into an examination of whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment,” Representative Veronica Escobar, Democrat of Texas, declared.
Still, the move was as much about legal substance as it was about political optics. Democrats are hoping that Judge Howell will agree that their request for the grand jury material falls into the same legal category as Nixon-era requests, even though the Watergate-era access to grand jury material was granted to a formally declared impeachment inquiry. Still, the move was as much about legal substance as it was about political optics, and its legitimacy will face a definitive judgment. Democrats hope that Judge Howell will agree that their request for the grand jury material falls into the same legal category as a Nixon-era precedent when the committee gained access to Watergate evidence. But there is a difference that could matter: in 1974, the full House had voted to declare an impeachment inquiry opened.
The filing comes two days after Mr. Mueller testified before Congress for the first time about the findings of his 22-month investigation into Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump. Republicans — and some Democrats — said Mr. Mueller’s lackluster appearance had all but ended the impeachment threat, and they were not convinced the committee’s actions on Friday had changed that. The new filing comes two days after Mr. Mueller testified before Congress for the first time about the findings of his 22-month investigation into Russian election interference and possible obstruction of justice by Mr. Trump. Republicans — and some Democrats — said Mr. Mueller’s lackluster appearance had all but ended the impeachment threat, and they were not convinced the committee’s actions on Friday had changed that.
“Democrats want to convince their base they’re still wedded to impeachment even after this week’s hearing, but a baseless legal claim is an odd way to show that,” said Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the committee, who predicted the legal maneuver would fail. “Democrats want to convince their base they’re still wedded to impeachment even after this week’s hearing, but a baseless legal claim is an odd way to show that,” said Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the committee. He predicted the legal maneuver would fail.
But Democrats who control the panel are pushing forward and are seeking to add more evidence to the trove of information they are collecting about the case. But Democrats who control the panel called Mr. Mueller’s testimony an “inflection point” and are now seeking to add more evidence about what they believe to be serious wrongdoing by Mr. Trump.
The chairman said the committee would keep up the pace of its investigation during the House’s six-week summer recess, calling additional witnesses and filing a lawsuit as soon as early next week to force Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, to testify unless he agrees to come voluntarily first. Mr. McGahn’s account of presidential behavior sits at the center of the Mueller report. Mr. Nadler said the committee would keep up the pace during the House’s six-week summer recess, calling additional witnesses and filing a lawsuit as soon as next week to force Donald F. McGahn II, the former White House counsel, to testify unless he agrees to come voluntarily. Mr. McGahn’s account of presidential behavior sits at the center of the Mr. Mueller’s report.
Mr. Mueller’s report showed the Trump campaign welcomed illegal assistance from the Russians in 2016 and expected to benefit from it, but investigators did not establish that he had conspired with them in the illegal hacking and dumping of Democratic emails. It also explored several episodes in which Mr. Trump tried to impede the investigation. The 448-page document showed that the Trump campaign welcomed illegal assistance from the Russians in 2016 and expected to benefit from it, but investigators did not establish that he had conspired with them in the illegal hacking and dumping of Democratic emails.
But the special counsel decided not to render judgment about whether Mr. Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice, citing a Justice Department view that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from indictment while they are in office. It also explored several episodes in which Mr. Trump tried to impede the investigation. But the special counsel decided not to render judgment about whether Mr. Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice, citing a Justice Department view that sitting presidents are temporarily immune from indictment while they are in office.
Democrats have been divided about whether the House should formally declare that the committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry — a step that launched the proceedings against both presidents subjected to such proceedings in the modern era, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Aside from the coming court case, it is unclear whether the Judiciary Committee’s assertion that an impeachment investigation is effectively already underway will resolve a fight that has divided the Democratic Party. Around 100 House Democrats have said they support opening impeachment proceedings — including several more Friday morning — leaving about 135 who have not come out in support of such an inquiry or outright oppose it.
More than 90 House Democrats have said they support opening such proceedings, including Representative Ann McLane Kuster of New Hampshire on Friday, and some Democrats see such a step as a moral imperative to leave a black mark on Mr. Trump’s historical record, even if Senate Republicans are unlikely to remove him. Some Democrats see impeaching Mr. Trump as a moral imperative to leave a black mark on his historical record, even if Senate Republicans are unlikely to remove him. Others fear it could provoke a backlash, firing up Mr. Trump’s supporters and endangering newly elected Democrats who won moderate districts in the 2018 midterm.
Others fear it could provoke a backlash, firing up Mr. Trump’s supporters and endangering newly elected Democrats who won moderate districts in the 2018 midterm. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pressed caution. She signed off on using the impeachment investigation language in the lawsuit, according to a person familiar with its drafting. And it would appear to provide a middle course for Democrats, allowing them to continue to build a case without forcing members from moderate districts to vote on whether to do formally declare impeachment proceedings to be underway.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pressed caution. “We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed,” the speaker told reporters on Friday. “Not one day sooner.”
“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed,” the speaker told reporters on Friday, when asked if she was trying to run out the clock on impeachment. “Not one day sooner.” Democratic staff members and lawmakers had begun arguing in recent weeks that it was unnecessary to gain the full chamber’s approval to launch an inquiry. A primary legal effect of previous presidential impeachment resolutions was to grant the Judiciary Committee special powers to issue subpoenas and take depositions, but since the last one — against Bill Clinton in 1999 — rules changes have enhanced the panel chairman’s powers, making that redundant.
Against that backdrop, some Democratic staff members and lawmakers have been arguing that it is unnecessary to gain the full chamber’s approval to launch an inquiry, in part because the Judiciary Committee chairman has already gained the power to issue subpoenas and take depositions — authorities that earlier impeachment inquiry resolutions had granted. The Judiciary Committee has been flirting with the topic of impeachment for months, subpoenaing witnesses and holding hearings designed to better understand Mr. Trump’s behavior to potentially develop charges.
The Judiciary Committee has been flirting with the topic of impeachment for months, subpoenaing witnesses and holding hearings designed to better understand Mr. Trump’s behavior and potentially develop charges against him. In a hearing focused on Mr. Mueller’s report earlier this month, Mr. Nadler said that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the committee’s investigation, although no final determination has been made.” In a hearing earlier this month, for example, Mr. Nadler said that “articles of impeachment are under consideration as part of the committee’s investigation.” The application aggregated such moments as evidence that the investigation has been underway for some time.
By formally declaring that the panel is doing that in a court filing, Democrats are trying to get past the internal debate without forcing members from moderate districts to vote on whether to do so. Ms. Pelosi approved the language in the lawsuit, according to a person familiar with its drafting. The information at issue in the court filing are the portions in the Mueller report that were redacted because the information fell under a federal rule of criminal procedure that makes information presented to a grand jury secret. That rule has only limited exceptions to share it with outsiders.
The specific information at issue in the court filing are the portions in the Mueller report that were redacted because the information fell under a rule in the federal criminal code that makes information presented to a grand jury secret. That rule has only limited exceptions to share it with outsiders. Democrats want the House to gain access to the redacted portions of the report, as well as the underlying transcripts and documents that Mr. Mueller used a grand jury to gather. In 1974, the Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and his grand jury obtained a judge’s permission to send the evidence they had gathered to the House Judiciary Committee, which was already formally conducting an impeachment inquiry into Nixon.
In 1974, the Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and his grand jury obtained a judge’s permission to send the evidence they had gathered to the House Judiciary Committee, which was already formally conducting an impeachment inquiry into Nixon. In that case, the Nixon Justice Department did not object to letting lawmakers see the materials. In that case, the Nixon Justice Department did not object to letting lawmakers see the materials. In the current case, the committee is trying to get the material on its own. Attorney General William P. Barr has declined requests by Mr. Nadler to join the committee in petitioning the court.
In the current case, the committee is trying to get the material on its own. Attorney General William P. Barr has declined requests by Mr. Nadler that the Justice Department join the committee in petitioning the court to share the information. The department did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, including the question of whether it would now sit on the sidelines or instead go into court to actively oppose the committee’s application. The department did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, including the question of whether it would sit on the sidelines or go to court to actively oppose the committee’s request for evidence.
One complication is that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently issued a ruling with a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders see grand jury information. It limited the criteria to an explicit list of exceptions contained in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, saying courts have no inherent authority to make other exceptions. One complication is that the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently issued a ruling with a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders see grand jury information. It limited the criteria to an explicit list of exceptions that does not say anything about sharing such material with Congress.
That list of exceptions does not say anything about sharing grand-jury information with Congress for oversight purposes. But in making the ruling, the appeals court judges addressed the fact that their predecessors had permitted the Nixon-era Judiciary Committee to see such material. But in making the ruling, the appeals court judges addressed the fact that their predecessors had permitted the Nixon-era Judiciary Committee to see such material. The court decided that the Watergate-era step had been lawful because it could be interpreted as falling under an exception authorizing disclosure of grand jury material “in connection with a judicial proceeding.” The idea was that impeachment, which culminates with a trial in the Senate, is effectively a judicial proceeding.
The court decided that the Watergate-era step had been lawful because it could be interpreted as falling under an exception authorizing disclosure of grand jury material “in connection with a judicial proceeding.” The idea was that impeachment, which culminates with a trial in the Senate, is effectively a judicial proceeding. For that reason, whether Judge Howell agrees that the Judiciary Committee is conducting an impeachment investigation could determine whether it gets the material.
For that reason, whether Judge Howell agrees that the Judiciary Committee is effectively conducting an impeachment-related investigation could make a legal difference. House Democrats are hoping she will conclude that their request falls into the Nixon-era precedent, when a formal impeachment inquiry was already underway. The application acknowledged that the House has not passed a formal resolution telling the committee to open impeachment proceedings, but insisted that such a step was unnecessary and noted that it has carried out impeachment proceedings against federal judges without taking that step.
There is no formal rule that says the full House must formally authorize an impeachment inquiry for the committee to conduct one. While the committee obtained such authorizations in both the Nixon and Clinton cases, it has carried out impeachment proceedings against federal judges without taking that step. “Where, as here, a member has introduced articles of impeachment and those articles have been referred to the committee, the committee is fully empowered to conduct an investigation and exercise any other of its standing authorities,” the filing said.