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

[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!