Today's impeachment resolution .. includes a key provision that has potential to become game changer

[hlthe2b]

Today's #impeachment resolution adopted by the House of Representatives includes a key provision that has the potential to become a game changer.

Former White House Counsel W. Neil Eggleston explains:

https://www.justsecurity.org/66797/a-game-changing-provision-in-the-house-impeachment-resolution/

The House Resolution incorporates by reference procedures adopted by the Judiciary Committee that will be entered into the Congressional Record. Those procedures are contained in an accompanying document, which has this key language:

“Should the President unlawfully refuse to make witnesses available for testimony to, or to produce documents requested by, the investigative committees . . . in furtherance of the investigations described in the first section of [this resolution], the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the President or his counsel under these procedures to call or question witnesses.”

This is, in effect, a discretionary measure that would keep President Donald Trump’s lawyers from participating in the impeachment process if the Trump White House continues to refuse to produce documents and bar witnesses from testifying. The provision is smart, important, and possibly even alters the current balance of power between Congress and the White House. This provision recognizes that the White House should not be permitted to participate in the process only on its own terms. If the White House wants to participate in full, then it has an obligation to respond to legitimate requests for witnesses and documents from the House.

[Ninga]

1. A very constitutional approach. I approve. Checks and balances! Nt

[RainCaster]

2. I like this idea!

[Mike 03]

3. Excellent

This goes some ways towards eliminating the power differential that has developed between the Executive and Legislative branches.

[Skraxx]

4. This Is a Brutal, Brilliant Fucking Trap! BRAVO PELOSI!!

"Cooperate, or sit down and shut the fuck up!"

[safeinOhio]

5. Pelosi

Makes the best deals.

[Skraxx]

6. No Deal for You!

That's the beauty. There's NO deal for Trump. He plays by her rules in her house. Period. She's telling him "Cooperate, or shut the fuck up". And it is a BEAUTY of a trap, because if they cooperate, they're fucked. If they don't cooperate, they are also fucked.

[calimary]

57. WHAT??? Actual consequences for bad behavior? Who could have guessed?

CONSEQUENCES for bad behavior. Something every devoted and responsible parent can understand. Something trump evidently NEVER got when he was growing up.

[orangecrush]

8. ...

[lark]

7. Oh snap!

Now that this is the case, I do want them to subpoena the full transcript of the 7/25 call and all others calls between traitor tot and the Zelensky. I don't believe he will give it up, the real version is totally damning to him Instead he'll just say no, then his lawyer will bully and threaten and scream. He'll bring witnesses which the committee denied, he'll do everything humanly possible to cause a total breakdown in decorum and process.

drumpf is not a normal person, he's so narcissistic, arrogant, stupid and ignorant and is used to always getting his way by unrelenting bullying and meanness. This was a very smart move by Dems, but unfortunately I doubt it will work with this traitor. It will still go to SCOTUS is my bet and what happens there is very uncertain. Do we officially become Nazi Germany or does one of the 5 Russian Repug SCOTUS actually care about the constitution over party? I don't trust them one little bit, but hope I'm wrong.

[napi21]

11. I like the idea of info on ALL CALLS involving Ukraine, BUT there is NO recording of the 7/25 call,

and from the witness yesterday, the 2 transcripts that exist were created by 2 different people and both have omissions. He said HE tried to fix one of them and the WH refused to do so.

I wonder if Zelensky has a recording of that call? Would the House be permitted to obtain a copy since it's from a foreign Country?

[luvtheGWN]

15. But the question still remains:

Why is the WH not producing the actual verbatim transcript? Why is it being kept hidden in the secret server? Of course, even if "it" were produced, there's no actual proof it's the real one......

[joost5]

19. I believe you're onto something.

he'll do everything humanly possible to cause a total breakdown in decorum and process

He can claim how much of a kangaroo court it is, the process is poisoned, etc... more sand in the gears. A guy that's in bed with the mob and career criminals will do everything he can to evade accountability. Hold on tight.

[Lock him up.]

9. Indict Barr for Obstruction of Justice first.

Or Obstruction of Congress. Co-conspiracy in cover-ups.

[EveHammond13]

10. very smart. you either participate FULLY or NOT AT ALL. your choice.

[SergeStorms]

12. Fuckin' A, Bubba!

Much more than rat republicans warrant or deserve.

[Mme. Defarge]

13. Whoa!

Formidable!!!

[Hortensis]

14. Doesn't sound any different from normal expected, though, just

adding another nail to the structure dealing with people taking obstruction to a degree our nation has never before seen.

[hlthe2b]

22. Actually, it HAS added a signficant aspect: His lawyers can NOT participate if they stonewall

or obstruct. This is a big deal because it has been formally announced as a condition going into the proceedings. If you think Trump's lawyers won't want to take part, especially given they ordinarily would not be allowed at this juncture of proceedings, I think you are mistaken. I believe the emphasis placed by former White House Counsel, Neil Eggleston is on target.

[Hortensis]

23. Yes, another nail to firm up the procedural structure, plug a rat hole

to make sure none run wild in there. But if there were no rats, it would not change anything.

[JudyM]

41. Except they will argue that he is not "unlawfully" refusing... I hope we don't end up in protracted

court proceedings because of the use of that word. I wonder if there’s some reason they had to use it... seems like it could’ve been left discretionary on both sides.

His argument is that he is above the law, after all.

[hlthe2b]

42. Again. this is rules of the impeachment inquiry. Courts will not get involved in arbitrating rules

passed by a separate and equal branch undertaking a specific constitutional function.

Courts could get involved on a single individual held in contempt for example but claiming some executive privilege. But that is quite different than this issue.

Courts will not get involved if there is a Congressional noncompliance determination that results in Trump's attorneys no longer being able to take part in these hearings because this is something the administration/Trump has no designated right to do, unlike the actual trial in the Senate. No one has the automatic right to become involved, informed, and argue with witnesses in an investigation or grand jury proceeding--only in the trial. This is no different. They are extending an opportunity that they have no requirement to do and based on the rules they have every right to withdraw this offer if the administration is not complying.

[JudyM]

46. Ok. We'll find out if it's accepted or fought... they are doing everything possible to slow down

the process.

[Uncle Joe]

16. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread hlthe.

[lunatica]

17. Quid pro quo baby!

You wanna participate? Sure, in exchange for what we want! We got conditions!

Hahahahaha!

[gab13by13]

18. Poetic Justice

[lunatica]

20. Welcome to DU.

It’s Karma! The bill has come due.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Wondering about the word "lawful". Doesn't that pretty much put us in the same place? He says

the witness is covered under exec privilege? Then comes more delay and litigation?

[hlthe2b]

24. There is precedence against global use of Executive Privilege during formal impeachment proeceedings

based on Nixon tapes. So, this will not go far. Further, since it is Congressional committees who decides if Trump's attorneys are complying, I don't think it is going to get them very far vis a vis a decision to exclude them from the opportunity to participate that Pelosi et al have conferred with these rules. Courts have no jurisdiction on impeachment rules passed by Congress.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

32. So you are saying the Dens decide if it's "lawful" or

not? Specifically if a witness claims privilege?

[hlthe2b]

34. They decide if Trump is adhering to the rules. So while they may not determine a "privilege" case

for any single individual, they can determine that he is categorically abusing and obstructing. His refusal to allow ANYONE, even those no longer employed by the WH to appear, for example. His refusal to provide ANY papers or other requested/subpoenaed documentation. His refusal to respond to subpoenas at all.

And, frankly, I'm not so sure they would not be within their authorities to determine to what extent use of claimed executive privilege-- with specific respect to this inquiry and the offer to allow Trump attorneys to take part ONLY-- is excessive based on past court precedence. The DC court has already ruled that the Congress is not extrajudicial in its impeachment inquiry functions, so essentially they area able to act as would a court on certain issues.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

37. I understand...but still strikes me that a court

Would need to decide on exec privilege. They will make every witness who refuses to testify "a grey area" if Congress decides whether or not privilege exists. Well they put the word lawful in the resolution so guess they expect litigation.

[hlthe2b]

38. They decide on executive privilege via a suit or appeal if a contempt charge is brought

Courts are not going to get involved in blanket oversight of Congressional rules. There is no legal basis for Trump to claim he has a right to be involved at this juncture--only when charges have been brought and referred to the Senate. So if the committee/Congress determines they are not complying they have every right to withdraw the opportunity for Trump's attorneys to take part at this juncture.

They are extending this but do not have to and in so doing have every right to set the requirements.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Let's just simplify this. Corey Lewandowski is called

to appear before House impeachment proceedings.

He declares, "at the behest of the prez he refuses to answer questions that relate to conversations between him and dingbat."

Dems say " no lawful justification" ???

[hlthe2b]

45. That is a civil contempt issue and they would litigate just as they already are on several others.

In fact the DC court hearing the Don McGahn issue is close to rendering a verdict and it appears it will go strongly against the admin. So that will render a considerable clarification on any "privilege" issues.

Here, the issue is whether or not the Trump attorneys get to take part in the hearings. If they continue to stonewall and obstruct. These are separate issues. The former issues with clarifying what is a lawful privilege for an individual subpoenaed and the extent to which Trump can hide behind it falls to the courts. The blanket issue on non-cooperation and its place in an obstruction article as well as the cooperative agreement to allow participation in the hearing side of impeachment falls to Congress.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

49. Thanks for imparting your patience and knowledge

So basically, bottom line, this resolution will prevent them (witnesses) from just not showing up? Or not producing requested docs? By prevent, I mean that they will relinquish specified rights regarding participation. (Not interested in that part). IF there is no legal issue regarding privilege.

[hlthe2b]

50. It is a novel approach that offers both inducement and a big stick. It will go hand in hand with

civil contempt charges (that will require the courts to adjudicate given the state of DOJ under BARR) but, I think when the McGahn decision comes down (soon) as well as the pending suit from Bolton's deputy, the admin will have lost their ability to scream privilege and some of these scofflaws will have to come in.

If Trump is stupid enough to believe he doesn't need to avail himself of this opportunity, he can continue to obstruct as he has to date. But, then they will add it to his articles of impeachment. And for Trump, he will lose the ability to counter public testimony which may well be the thing he fears most.


I read Laurence Tribe's book on impeachment a few weeks ago and have followed his twitter comments closely along with Neal Katyal's and Tribe's coauthor who is now assisting the House committees. There are a lot of novel aspects of this impeachment and it has been fascinating to see how they have addressed it. More surprises are sure to come up as Trump is anything but predictable and has no filter on words or actions it seems, so...

[riversedge]

25. Its a go. Trump will have to show docs and cooperate or STFU.

[C_U_L8R]

26. One bit of advice for Trump's lawyers

Get paid in advance.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

33. DUzy

[empedocles]

27. traitortrump has already played out the 'witchunt'/kangaroo court stuff, wonder

how he escalates?

[trump will escalate]

[BumRushDaShow]

29. Remember he even threw

"lynching" in there to change it up some.

I'm sure he's looking for another hyperbolic nonsensical analogy to overuse.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. "the White House should not be permitted to participate in the process only on its own terms."

Exactly because what they will be planning to do, since this would be public and "broadcast", is to make the whole thing into a nonsensical "reality show", Geraldo Rivera-style.

[Scurrilous]

30. K&R

[Nitram]

31. Very clever! Reciprosity!

[malaise]

35. It is brilliant

Rec

[Roland99]

36. Gen-yee-us. Pure genius

[Proud Liberal Dem]

39. Great

Masterstroke!

[warmfeet]

40. Lock all of them up.

This is the road to our survival.

[helpmenow]

44. Smart

I approve

[Pepsidog]

47. I think its ok but doesn't that just play into his strategy, scream and cry about the mean Dems

who won't let him play?

[regnaD kciN]

51. Pretty much...

He'll just continue to obstruct and, if his lawyers thereby get blocked, hold it up as proof that it's a partisan witch hunt.

The only way to get the White House to comply is by forcing them in court, if necessary.

[ancianita]

53. +1

[gulliver]

48. It would backfire.

Trump has no witnesses on his side to lose. The Dems should just devote a wall in the House Chamber. Every witness that refuses to testify should have their picture placed on the wall with a caption that includes there name. They should call it Trump's Wall of Shame.

[Roland99]

55. I like this!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. Like the way you think.... outside the box! Need

more of that.

[Cetacea]

52. K&R

Brilliant.

[orleans]

54. my initial thought is that it doesn't matter

they'll do what they want

("we don't need no stinkin law!&quot

[hlthe2b]

58. An interesting take on it....

Link to tweet