What exactly would occur in the early stages of an impeachment inquiry that's not happening now?

[StarfishSaver]

[redstateblues]

1. The stonewalling would continue

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. Information gathering through hearings, investigations, etc.

[StarfishSaver]

4. That's all happening now.

House Oversight, Financial Services, Intelligence, Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Ways and Means committees, among others, are all conducting investigations and hearings into Trump's wrongdoing.

[greatauntoftriplets]

6. Isn't that really what's going on now?

They might not be calling it by that name, but it seems that's what it is.

[scarytomcat]

3. It is more serious than just an investigation

The House gets powers they don't usually have.

[StarfishSaver]

5. What powers does the House get in an impeachment inquiry that it doesn't otherwise have?

[CaptainTruth]

11. Haven't you heard? The House would get the Magic Wand.

Most people don't know about the Magic Wand because it's described in a little-known clause of the Constitution that was inserted by founding father Harold Potter.

Once the Speaker of the House and the House Judiciary Committee chairman join hands and say the magic word "impeachment" three times the Magic Wand appears.

By waving the Magic Wand the House can "stop Trump," even though he will remain in office and still have all the same powers he had before the Wand was waved. Exactly how this would "stop Trump" is shrouded in mystery, as no person living today has been able to explain it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. What powers are those? They already have subpoena power.

The rules under which congressional committees operate have changed quite a bit since the Watergate hearings and subsequent impeachment hearings; the committees now have broader subpoena power than they did then. At that time they had to vote to authorize subpoenas; subsequent rule changes give them the authority to issue subpoenas without a formal resolution. It's not likely that a formal impeachment process would alter consideration of the most difficult issue, that of executive privilege. Here's a good article explaining how and to what extent (if any) the investigation process would be different if a formal impeachment proceeding were to be initiated: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

One possible difference - at least in theory - is the power to obtain grand jury information:

...there is some historical precedent for the House judiciary committee to obtain such information from the court—most notably in the context of the Watergate impeachment proceedings. The relevant court opinion relied largely on a theory of inherent judicial authority, rather than an exception in statute, to turn the Watergate “road map” over to the House judiciary committee.

But on April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that judges don’t have inherent authority to release grand jury materials and must instead rely solely on exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e). So if the committee wishes to access that information, Nadler will likely need to convince the judge overseeing the Mueller grand jury that release of materials to the committee is “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.” Bottom line: It is easier to argue that an open impeachment proceeding is akin to a “judicial proceeding” than it is to argue that any run-of-the-mill oversight activities are preliminary to a judicial proceeding.

It is also possible that courts would expedite their proceedings if a formal impeachment was in progress:

We think it is entirely possible—probable even—that judges would recognize the primacy of impeachment proceedings against the president of the United States and expedite consideration of such cases. The case of U.S. v. Nixon—in which the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to turn over the infamous Oval Office recordings to the special prosecutor—was decided just over three months after the relevant grand jury subpoena had been issued. That was a criminal investigation, so the analogy is not entirely apt, but we think it reasonable to assume courts would take a similarly expeditious view in the context of a subpoena issued pursuant to impeachment proceedings. Of course, it is worth remembering that the Supreme Court has never decided a case concerning a congressional subpoena for information issued to an executive branch official where the president has asserted executive privilege. In theory, the Supreme Court could decide the issue is a political question and leave it to the other two branches to sort out in some other way.

But the gist of this article is that the House wouldn't have significantly more power under a formal impeachment resolution than it does now.

[stopdiggin]

10. good explanation

Thank you. That was accurate and concise. Now I hope a few people will bother to read it.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Thanks for providing this research and excellent explanation

However, it's not quite accurate to say that Rule 6(e) gives Congress any additional power to obtain grand jury material in an impeachment. It doesn't actually give them any power. It simply allows a judge, in his or discretion, to give grand jury material to certain proceedings, including impeachment inquiries.

But a judge is not required to give such materials to Congress, even in connection with an impeachment.

And while some observers believe the courts will be more willing to expedite decisions if requests are made under the guise of impeachment, last week's rulings show us that judges don't need impeachment inquiry in order to move lightning quick.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Arguably a judge might be more inclined to release grand jury information

in connection with an impeachment inquiry, but that's just an assumption. A judge could, but would not have to, release it to the HJC for any legitimate investigatory purpose, so the supposition is probably just that. Likewise, we know and have seen that courts can move pretty fast if they want to. Neither of these situations describes any special power that the House would have if a formal impeachment inquiry were authorized, but merely that the courts might consider the subpoenas and other requests to be more urgent.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Exactly

And that "might" is a world of difference from the insistence if some that, for example, "impeachment will give Congress new powers it doesn't have" and "Under impeachment, Congress can force Barr to turn over the grand jury material."

At least we're no longer hearing (at least I haven't seen it lately) that "Once the impeachment inquiries start, Trump won't be able to pardon anyone."

[StarfishSaver]

24. Last week's rulings are completely relevant

As I've said, impeachment proceedings don't mandate courts to provide grand jury material to Congress.

And executive privilege and attorney client privilege aren't in any way affected by the nature of the proceeding for which it's invoked. The privilege either exists or doesn't, period. If it doesn't exist can't be invoked an oversight hearing, it can't be invoked in an impeachment proceeding.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Executive privilege and attorney-client privilege are privileges that aren't based on

the kind of proceedings in which they are litigated. The latest rulings didn't address them because the issue had to do with the House's power to issue subpoenas of a president's records; more specifically, whether the subpoenas were in furtherance of a legislative purpose. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.pdf Executive privilege wouldn't be an issue at all with respect to financial records that preceded Trump's presidency, as with the Mazars and Deutsche Bank's records. But even if those issues had been raised, they are no more or less relevant to an impeachment inquiry than to discovery in any other congressional investigation or a civil or criminal trial. Either they exist or they don't, regardless of the proceeding.

[lapucelle]

28. What powers? N/T

[kentuck]

7. I think it would give the Congress more leverage..

...in dealing with witnesses and subpoenas.

Congressional subpoenas are supported by both Parties. Because the principle of law and order cannot be maintained unless both Parties agree that subpoenas from Congress cannot be defied.

If they still chose to defy their subpoenas and not appear before the Congress, they should be fined and held in contempt.

Also, it could lead to the beginning of actual impeachment proceedings. The Republicans have as much invested in this idea as do Democrats.

[StarfishSaver]

15. How would it give them more leverage?

The rules and laws related to Congressional subpoenas are exactly the same for any Congressional proceeding, whether it's an impeachment or other legislative or oversight matter.

And Congressional subpoenas are voted by a majority - the vote doesn't have to be bipartisan.

Witnesses have no greater reason to comply with a subpoena for an impeachment proceeding than for any other proceeding. The penalties and enforcement for defiance are exactly the same.

[BeyondGeography]

30. You could always write the multiple Democrats of House Judiciary

who have come out in favor of launching an inquiry. I’m sure they would be happy to explain why they feel such a move would strengthen their hand.

Anyway, there is a school of thought that argues exactly that:

A third framing, which we address here, is a more practical one: whether, for the purposes of carrying out further investigation, the House’s hand would be strengthened significantly if it initiated impeachment proceedings. A May 15 letter from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone to Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, brings this question into stark relief. The 12-page letter states, in essence, that the White House will not be providing any documents or information requested by the committee as part of an investigation announced on March 4 “into the alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption, and other abuses of power by President Trump, his associates, and members of his Administration.” In its response, the White House outlines a host of political and legal arguments, relying heavily on the premise that Congress has no “legitimate legislative purpose” for requesting the materials. This sweeping repudiation of Congress’s oversight powers brings into stark relief the question of whether there are procedural advantages in pursuing the same information and lines of inquiry under the banner of impeachment proceedings.

Several experts have argued that the House might have a stronger legal position in disputes with the executive branch over information and witness appearances if it were undertaking impeachment proceedings rather than investigations. Michael Conway, who served as counsel on the House judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, has advanced a similar argument. In particular, he points to a staff memo written in April 1974, which argues that “the Supreme Court has contrasted the broad scope of the inquiry power of the House in impeachment proceedings with its more confined scope in legislative investigations. From the beginning of the Federal Government, presidents have stated that in an impeachment inquiry the Executive Branch could be required to produce papers that it might with‐hold in a legislative investigation.”

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house

Others are more skeptical, it continues. You’re a skeptic. Being a skeptic doesn’t make you correct.

[StarfishSaver]

35. A few things

First, I'm not a "skeptic" This suggests that there is one accepted truth - those believing that impeachment will strengthen Congress' hands in the courts - and that any view that diverges from that truth is suspect.

In fact, there is no singular "truth" about this topic because we have no idea whether an impeachment would give Congress more leverage in the courts or not, unless it's actually tried (and even then, we wouldn't know unless we had an identical non-impeachment situation to compare it with, which won't likely happen).

So, no, I'm not a skeptic. I just have a different theory on the matter, a position that is no less rational than Conway's.

Second, I believe that the case law Conway is relying on is not applicable to this matter. If you read the full blog that you cited to, you saw that he bases his position largely on the principles and holding of Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon (1974). However, although Conway cites to the Court's finding that this committee's investigation was more a "more confined legislative investigation" than an impeachment inquiry and, therefore its request for documentation didn't merit the same deference as an impeachment inquiry, that case actually turned on the fact that an impeachment inquiry was already occurring simultaneously with the Select Committee's request. The fact that an impeachment process was already happening is what made the difference.

In the circumstances of this case, we need neither deny that the Congress may have, quite apart from its legislative responsibilities, a general oversight power, nor explore what the lawful reach of that power might be under the Committee's constituent resolution. Since passage of that resolution, the House Committee on the Judiciary has begun an inquiry into presidential impeachment. The investigative authority of the Judiciary Committee with respect to presidential conduct has an express constitutional source. Moreover, so far as these subpoenaed tapes are concerned, the investigative objectives of the two committees substantially overlap: both are apparently seeking to determine, among other things, the extent, if any, of presidential involvement in the Watergate 'break-in' and alleged 'cover-up.' And, in fact, the Judiciary Committee now has in its possession copies of each of the tapes subpoenaed by the Select Committee. Thus, the Select Committee's immediate oversight need for the subpoenaed tapes is, from a congressional perspective, merely cumulative. Against the claim of privilege, the only oversight interest that the Select Committee can currently assert is that of having these particular conversations scrutinized simultaneously by two committees. We have been shown no evidence indicating that Congress itself attaches any particular value to this interest. In these circumstances, we think the need for the tapes premised solely on an asserted power to investigate and inform cannot justify enforcement of the Committee's subpoena.

Of course, none of us know what would happen. However, because we don't yet know, I think the course that the House is taking now is the best since, once an impeachment inquiry is opened, many other avenues will close off and there'll be no going back. And so, in my view - and in the view of many others - it would be rash to rush into an impeachment inquiry based solely on a hope that doing so will allow access to additional information that is very likely available preliminary to and separate from an impeachment proceeding when such an action would affirmatively shut down other possible tools Congress has at this point.

Thanks for sharing Conway's piece with me. It's an interesting perspective and led me to revisit some material that was also interesting and helpful!

[bluestarone]

9. You see THIS is what most of us here do NOT undertstand.

Good thread IF we get the true facts out as to exactly WHAT will be gained by starting Impeachment inquiries? The Numbered one question to me is this, Will the courts decisions come QUICKER for the house? I mean will the inquiries SPEED up the court process for the DEMS. House investigation? Also will they help enforce the subpoenas? If they do nothing in this regard, then WHY start them?

[davekriss]

13. It would focus the citizenry

The average busy man or women will not tune in to hearings by this or that committee. They will not read a Mueller transcript of any closed door testimony. However, under the banner of "Impeachment Inquiry", a great many of them will be glued to their TV sets to watch and hear the various testimonies. No?

[StarfishSaver]

16. No. It's a big assumption to draw that callingit impeachment will suddenly rivet the public

to pay attention when they haven't bothered up until now.

[davekriss]

18. I disagree, I believe it is a safe assumption

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. I keep relating it back to Watergate.

The 1973 hearings were not impeachment hearings, but were hearings conducted by a Senate select committee to investigate who was behind the break-in and whether WH officials were involved (by this time the burglars had been prosecuted and their connections to the WH and CREEP had been discovered). The public was quite interested in those hearings even though they were not characterized as impeachment hearings. Whether or not the current investigations by the various House committees "rivet the public" has more to do with what they are uncovering than whether they are called impeachment hearings. So far it hasn't been especially riveting because of Trump's stonewalling, but once the information is produced - and it will be - things will get a lot more interesting.

[StarfishSaver]

20. "Has more to do with what they are uncovering than whether they're called impeachment"

EXACTLY right!

[davekriss]

33. I always thought they were impeachment hearings

And I was around for those (a teenager). I guess I was wrong. However, it was a “select committee”, which brought multithread investigations together under one committee? Kind of like a choice between watching just Game of Thrones rather than tuning in to 5 or 6 separate programs to get the same content.

I agree the problem now is the stonewalling. That will have to breakdown first before organizing a “riveting” GoT select committee to focus attention.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. The 1973 hearings were held by a Senate select committee

to investigate the Watergate break-in. These are the hearings that were mostly televised and in which John Dean and Alexander Butterfield (the guy who revealed the secret taping system) testified. Once the existence of the tapes was discovered the special prosecutor tried to get them, so Nixon ordered the AG to fire him. He and the assistant AG were fired (this was the Saturday Night Massacre in October of 1973). The actual impeachment hearings, held by the House, were not authorized until February of 1974 and began a couple of months afterward. They were not televised except for the opening statements and the final vote.

[Captain Stern]

22. A lot of people would feel better, but that's about it. n/t

[bluestarone]

23. Question here.

Let's say the House does their job and impeaches tRUMP. NOW the senate takes it up. (if they decide too. BIG IF here) Will THIS be public? or does the senate make it's OWN rules regarding this? Will ANY of the senate process set precedence for future senate Indictments? Are there ANY rules the senate HAS to follow regarding convicting him?

[StarfishSaver]

25. The only constitutional requirement is that the Chief Justice preside

and 2/3 vote is required to convict.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Here are the Senate's rules for impeachment trials:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/background/impeach/senaterules.pdf

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. The Senate doesn't indict because an impeachment trial isn't a criminal proceeding.

[bluestarone]

29. TY i get confused a lot on this

I believe i fixed it?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. The House makes the accusations; the Senate decides whether

the House's accusations are true and whether the president should be removed from office. It's that simple. Once the president is removed he can be prosecuted separately by a federal or state prosecutor for any statutory crimes he might have committed (which may or may not be the same acts that got him removed).

[pnwmom]

36. The question is whether we'd get a faster, stronger, response from the courts if Trump

were trying to block subpoenas in connection with a formal impeachment inquiry.

[StarfishSaver]

37. It would be hard to beat the speed and strength we got from the courts last week

[pnwmom]

38. That's true. We'll need to see how the Supreme Court handles this now, before we know. nt