How do we Investigate BEFORE we Impeach when the WH is stonewalling EVERYTHING?

[spanone]

...and will continue stonewalling everything.

Take it to the courts? = could take years.

What are our options?



Frustrated in Tennessee

[manor321]

1. By starting an impeachment inquiry

An impeachment inquiry is not impeachment. It's just the investigation under the heavier weight of possible impeachment. That inquiry should have started the same day the Mueller report was released.

[spanone]

2. This says that has already happened...

by Countable | 3.20.17

Preliminary Impeachment Inquiry Filed Against President Trump

A top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee has filed a "resolution of inquiry" into President Donald J. Trump. It can be considered a step toward the impeachment process because of the information sought in this case. The last time a resolution of inquiry was considered on the House floor was in 1995, against then-President Bill Clinton related to financial aid for Mexico.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, (D-NY) filed the inquiry; Nadler is the second ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which responds to such filings. He offered the following statement on his resolution:

"Donald Trump has refused to step away from his business interests in any meaningful way. His foreign entanglements are likely unconstitutional, he has repeatedly refused to disclose his financial assets, and he is clouded by the specter of Russian intervention in the election and his Administration.”
What's a resolution of inquiry?

According to official rules, the Judiciary Committee must respond to the resolution of inquiry within 14 legislative days, or Congressional workdays. The committee can either report the resolution favorably, reject it, or revise it. If it chooses not to act within that time period, Congressman Nadler could request that the resolution be discharged (meaning it gets pulled out of committee) so that the House as a whole can then vote on it.

https://www.countable.us/articles/237-preliminary-impeachment-inquiry-filed-president-trump

[FBaggins]

8. Not really

A few errors.

1 - It's just a "resolution of inquiry"... not a "preliminary impeachment inquiry"
2 - -It has to then be voted on by the judiciary committee to recommend consideration by the full House (this didn't happen).
3 - The full House has to vote to move forward. (Which obviously didn't happen because step 2 didn't happen)
3A - Theoretically, a discharge petition can pull it out of committee without a committee vote and move it straight to the floor. However -
3B - Pelosi wouldn't allow it. This was actually the issue back in March that prompted her "he's not worth it" comment.

[pdxflyboy]

3. Even if it is an official impeachment inquiry,

Can these MAGATS continue to stonewall, delay and refuse subpoenas, just as they are doing now? What will stop them during an impeachment inquiry. What is different about that?

[watoos]

4. Impeachment should have started

Before the Mueller report was released.
Republicans once again are controlling the narrative.

[BigmanPigman]

7. I agree. We should have but now we can't undo that error.

When will we learn that you have to fight and fight hard knowing the GOP will do everything imaginable to keep control and power. We can not be too cautious or put all of our eggs in one basket like we often do. I was bitching about this to my sister and she kept trying to reassure me, "Don't worry, the Dems have the Mueller report" over and over.

[malaise]

5. Enforce HOR's powers

and then impeach. Fuck ém!

[comradebillyboy]

6. Under what circumstances would Trump not stonewall?

I don't think impeachment proceeding will get him to cooperate.

[beachbum bob]

9. Watergate was going same path...

There is a process, let it go forward

[spanone]

15. nixon at least acknowledged the other branches of govt.

[FBaggins]

10. It's possible that the stonewalling is what we want.

For instance. The fight over Barr's testimony in the House is pretty ridiculous. Are we really to believe that committee Democrats need help from their staff attorneys in order to ask useful questions? The Senate Democrats didn't seem to struggle.

I think they wanted him to say no. I think they want the White House to fight subpoenas. One of the best ways to turn public opinion is to draw attention to moves that make them look like they're hiding something. In some of these cases, I don't think they have a strong legal leg to stand on... but just like stonewalling gets Trump past the elections for some of these cases... it gets Democrats past it as well (all while the stories of stonewalling grow).

[UniteFightBack]

11. Make it a civil matter and a judge can appoint a special council to enforce all. That's what the

talking heads are saying.

[StarfishSaver]

12. An impeachment inquiry will do nothing to stop the stonewalling

In fact, it will probably increase it.

[MiniMe]

13. You have to get the public behind you before you can impeach successfully

The only way to get the public behind you is to hold hearings. That is the only way the senate would get behind it. Remember, you need 2/3 of the Senate to convict.

[uponit7771]

16. Current impeachment numbers match Nixon's post tapes according to Gallup. Nixon was also

... very popular for any president at any time.

[PoliticAverse]

14. The Nixon whitehouse stonewalled (there were many court cases that resulted).

You just have to pursue things aggressively. Is there will among the Democratic leadership to do so?