Democrats Assuming Obstruction...bypass courts

[pbmus]

Link to tweet

[Doremus]

1. What does this mean?

My first thought wasn't complimentary, so I will trust there is a good reason for deciding not to pursue people who scoff at the law?

[elleng]

2. "We are not willing to let the White House engage us in a lengthy game of rope-a-dope in the courts,

so we press ahead,” Mr. Schiff told reporters outside his secure hearing rooms.

In earlier oversight disputes, House Democrats have turned to the courts with some frequency, but those lawsuits have already eaten up valuable months of time without signs of resolution any time soon. Mr. Schiff indicated Democrats now did not have the luxury of waiting, given the gravity of the allegations that Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist a help from Ukraine in smearing his political opponents.

“If this witness had something to say that would be helpful to the White House, they would want him to come and testify, Mr. Schiff said. “They plainly don’t.”

Mr. Schiff acknowledged that the White House would likely try to invoke similar privilege to try to block other high-level witnesses, including John R. Bolton, the former national security adviser said to be alarmed by Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine. Doing so would only fuel another article of impeachment charging Mr. Trump with obstructing Congress’s fact-finding, he said.

The remarks came as impeachment investigators braced for a busy week, which will include testimony from another five or more witnesses.

Around the time Mr. Schiff was speaking, the Justice Department announced that it would appeal a Federal District Court ruling handed down on Friday that said the House’s effort was a legally legitimate impeachment inquiry, and ordered the executive branch to provide secret grand-jury evidence to the House Judiciary Committee collected by the former special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections. . .

Mr. Schiff, who has significantly scaled back his public remarks in recent weeks, used his comments on Monday to hit back hard at House Republicans, whom he accused of “endorsing the White House obstruction.” He argued they should at least stand up for the legislative branch’s authority to compel evidence from the executive branch, saying that there would be future presidents they may want to investigate.

“What I find harder to understand is why the Republican members of this body in this House don’t want these witnesses to come forward,” Mr. Schiff said. “Where is their duty to this institution? Where is their duty to the Constitution? Where is there respect for the rule of law?”'

[Doremus]

13. Thanks, good points. nt

[Hermit-The-Prog]

5. it suggests that they believe they have plenty already

There are several items winding their way through the courts and may produce fruit before Articles of Impeachment are drawn up. If every obstruction by the Coward-In-Chief is taken to the courts, those Articles won't be completed for another year or more. Assuming the obstruction is because of guilt means that each of these instances will be presented as evidence supporting the claim of obstruction of Congress. Mueller's report documented at least 10 other ways Trump obstructed the investigation.

Adam Schiff was a prosecutor before a Representative. He knows when he has a solid case. If he didn't think there was enough evidence to prove obstruction already, it's unlikely he would make the announcement about not seeking relief in court for each blocked witness going forward.

[Doremus]

14. Thanks, good to learn about Schiff's prowess. nt

[onenote]

3. I don't think this is a particuarly good strategy

Unless and until the Supreme Court resolves the issue of whether the executive branch can order officials not to testify under the circumstances that are currently presented, no Republican is going to feel any pressure to support an obstruction article. However, if the SCOTUS slaps down the WH position and the WH refuses to comply, then Repubs would be in a more difficult position defending the president against an obstruction charge.

The House should pursue expedited SCOTUS review of the grand jury subpoena decision, citing the precedent for such expedited review in the US v. Nixon subpoena case. From District Court decision to Supreme Court decision, that case took only 2 months.

[Nevilledog]

4. Totally agree.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. this is not about the grand jury subpoena

[onenote]

7. The underlying issues are essentially the same in all of these cases

The WH claims that it doesn't have to comply with the subpoenas because this isn't a real "impeachment inquiry." That argument was shot down in the grand jury case, which arguably is a harder case. If it is shot down by the SCOTUS, it undercuts the WH position on subpoenas generally.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

8. this is about witnesses

"House Democrats plan to skip lengthy court battles to compel testimony from witnesses in the impeachment inquiry."

[onenote]

10. And they plan to use the witnesses failure to testify as the basis for an obstruction charge

But no Republican is going to feel any pressure to vote for an article of impeachment based on obstruction unless and until the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of whether the WH could legitimately tell the witnesses not to testify.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. this is not the only evidence of obstruction

[onenote]

16. Quoting from the OP:

"House Democrats plan to skip lengthy court battles to compel testimony from witnesses in the impeachment inquiry. Rep. Adam Schiff said lawmakers would use the lack of cooperation to bolster their case that President Trump has obstructed the investigation."

The moment the failure to comply with a testimonial subpoena is raised to "bolster" the obstruction case, the Republicans have an excuse not to vote for an article of impeachment unless and until the SCOTUS has had a chance to decide the legitimacy of the refusal to allow the testimony.

[StarfishSaver]

17. Actually the strategy is brilliant

He's not bypassing the courts. The cases are continuing to work their way through litigation. He's just saying they're not waiting for the courts to move forward on impeachment because even without the testimony and documents at issue in the cases, they have enough to impeach and they're also using the administration's efforts to stall, including the court cases, is further proof of obstruction supporting impeachment.

The courts will likely rule on all of this before the impeachment process is completed. If they rule with the Dems, they just add that to pile they've already stacked up and they're way far along in the process. If thee courts rule against them, they're no worse off than they are now but they haven't wasted time waiting on the courts.

[Garrett78]

9. Has Kupperman's lawsuit even been assigned to a judge yet? The courts are too damn slow.

[onenote]

12. Almost certainly yes.

Under the rules of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, cases are assigned to a judge almost immediately upon a complaint being received: "At the time a civil complaint is filed or an indictment or information is returned in a criminal case, the case shall be assigned to the judge whose name appears on the screen when the appropriate deck is selected."

One exception: a "civil case, requiring an emergency hearing, which is filed after normal business hours, shall not be assigned to a judge until the next business day." Kupperman filed his case on Friday, but I don't know what time it was filed. If it was after business hours on Friday, the assignment of a judge would not occur until today.

[Garrett78]

18. As of this morning, it hadn't been assigned, though the lawsuit was filed on Friday.

I have been on the road all day and haven't heard whether or not a judge has been assigned yet.

[onenote]

19. According to this article the declaratory ruling case was filed "late" Friday

Thus, under the District Court rules I described in my previous post, it would not have been assigned to a judge until some time today.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-security-official-asks-judge-determine-testify-impeachment/story?id=66545311

[blogslut]

11. Schiff said they were going to do this.

He said they would consider attempts to avoid subpoenas and testimony as obstruction. It shouldn't be surprising.