House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

  
Via:  1stwarrior  •  one month ago  •  10 comments

House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again
The comment came in a filing with federal court that argues Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T







The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.

House Counsel Douglas Letter said in   a filing   in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Story Continued Below

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.









It’s the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central witness.





In   a brief   filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.

However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.

“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on that claim.

A second Justice Department brief in a related case — the Judiciary Committee's demand for Mueller's grand jury evidence — suggests without basis that the Judiciary Committee's decision to advance articles of impeachment on the Ukraine scandal have effectively ruled out any effort to impeach the president based on Mueller's evidence, therefore rendering the matter moot.

It's unclear why the Justice Department argues that the committee has conceded that the Mueller impeachment investigation is over when House lawyers and lawmakers have described it as ongoing and active.

House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that   the panel planned to push on   with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.







Letter’s new filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.






Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.

“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee," he argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from the details of Trump’s conduct.

The filings landed Monday amid an ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled — will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.

Justice Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand aside.

“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”

“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.

The DOJ filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.

Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.






Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
 
 
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one month ago

Wait - wait - wait for it - the Dems/Libs in the House wanna keep on keepin' on.

C'mon folks.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one month ago

It's like they want to just throw rocks at him. Their hate is all consuming. They produced a totally partisan impeachment with no crimes, no evidence of crimes and no rights for the minority or the accused. Now it's time to turn the Articles of impeachment over to the Senate, where democrats are not in control and Pelosi suddenly wants to play more games.

They are so giddy about impeaching the President, they lose sight of the consequences. Not only will they lose everything in 2020, but the impeachment will not be remembered the way they think it will. In 1919 the World Series was fixed. A Baseball record book has the asterisk and the relevant footnote. It wasn't real. So it will be for this impeachment. It will be regarded as a sham and a stain on the legacy of Nancy Pelosi, not the President.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
1.1.1  Steve Ott  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    4 weeks ago
It's like they want to just throw rocks at him. Their hate is all consuming.

So it was ok for republicans to throw rocks for eight years but it isn't ok for democrats to throw rocks for three years? What happened? Did you run out of rocks?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Perpetual impeachment.

What a joke.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    one month ago

Sure. That sounds healthy for the country.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4  The Magic Eight Ball    one month ago

I hope the morons do it.

stupid fuks will always be stupid fuks like that.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1  dennis smith  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4    4 weeks ago

The House Dems are afraid they did not do their job the first time, so they want to do it again. You can't fix stupid but the Dem voters keep trying by reelecting those who fail  over and over.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
5  Ronin2    4 weeks ago

Their only goal is to remove Trump from office by any means necessary.  Laws, rules, morals, customs, and history only get in their way.

The Democrats have proven themselves to be collectively far worse than Trump. 

I only hope they pay for it during the next election cycle.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
6  Steve Ott    4 weeks ago

More Impeachments! Dumping Bad Presidents Should Be No Big Deal

"We're told impeachment is a nightmare, a coup d'etat, and a dangerous distraction from the business of government that will cause national trauma and the next civil war.

Don't believe it.

"If there is any country on earth that's pretty comfortable with the idea of getting fired, it's America," says Gene Healy"

Americans can lose their jobs for almost anything. Why are we so hesitant to give presidents the boot?

"Does it bother us when an old lech like Les Moonves of CBS or some new economy manchild like Adam Neumann of WeWork gets the business end of creative destruction? Like hell it does: This is the country that pioneered the idea of firing people as  entertainment.  For 14 seasons of NBC's reality TV game show  The Apprentice , Americans tuned in eagerly to see which contestants would be shown the door with the signature line "You're fired!" Then, in 2016, we went and elected the game-show host president of the United States. Since his inauguration, Donald Trump's tenure has been a whirlwind of self-dealing, management pratfalls, and public meltdowns of the sort that might get a mere captain of industry summarily canned. Luckily for him, he's failed upward into a post that comes with more job protection than the vast majority of American workers enjoy. Somehow we've decided that the  one job in America where you have to commit a felony to get fired is the one where you also control nuclear weapons. Given the damage an unfit president can do, shouldn't it be easier to get rid of one?"

All this talk about no crime was committed, no due process (Trump was invited to participate. He declined.) all shows a horrible lack of understanding. But then again, when did understanding something ever get in the way of denouncing something?

Oh, and the weeping and wailing and nashing of teeth about partisanship! Oh how the left has fallen and now sits in the clutches of Satan himself. But wait, the right is no less partisan. But that's ok, because, you know, they're right.They could bring in witnesses and listen to testimony that might exonerate the prez, but no, they have said in a very partisan way, that they will just vote to acquit and that is that.

And if the call was so perfect, why release some doctored memorandum of a transcript? Why not release the actual recording? Well, that would be telling wouldn't it? So, this fight is going to go on for some time until Republicans begin producing something other than their own "Days of Our Lives".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
7  seeder  1stwarrior    4 weeks ago

Closing - it's the holidays and we need cheer - not fights.

Merry Christmas to all.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



Paula Bartholomew
Larry Hampton
Sunshine
Sean Treacy
Mark in Wyoming
Drakkonis
zuksam


34 visitors