Here is something important to remember:
In 1974, the Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and his grand jury obtained a judge’s permission to send the evidence they had gathered to the House Judiciary Committee, which was already formally conducting an impeachment inquiry into Nixon. In that case, the Nixon Justice Department did not object to letting lawmakers see the materials.
Whether he was disposed to do it or not, Robert Mueller does not appear to have believed he had the authority to make a similar request. If he had attempted it, I’m sure Attorney General William Barr would have objected.
On Friday, the House Judiciary Committee moved ahead with making the request for this material on their own, without the support of the now-shuttered Office of Special Counsel and without the acquiescence of the Trump Justice Department.
The House Judiciary Committee on Friday said it would ask a federal judge to unseal grand jury secrets related to Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation and use the court filing to make the most explicit declaration yet that lawmakers are weighing whether to impeach President Trump.
In a significant escalation, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the Democratic chairman of the committee, said at a news conference that the application to the court would declare that the panel needs access to Mr. Mueller’s grand-jury evidence — such as witness testimony — to decide whether to recommend articles of impeachment against the president.
“Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” Mr. Nadler quoted the legal filing as telling the judge, Beryl A. Howell, who supervised Mr. Mueller’s grand jury.
Unless you want to include the electorate, Jerry Nadler is absolutely correct that, given the hand’s off posture of the Department of Justice, the House of Representatives is the only entity in the country with the authority and responsibility for holding a criminal president to account. The committee with jurisdiction is the Judiciary, which Nadler presently chairs. If he doesn’t do something, then nothing will be done.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee was already formally investigating impeachment when Leon Jaworski decided unilaterally that they needed all the available information. So far, in 2019, the committee has not begun a formal inquiry. Some people think this distinction might be crucial on court, and why not be on the safe side? What’s the harm?
But Nadler is arguing that formalities are unnecessary because impeachment is clearly within his jurisdiction and the courts cannot deny him crucial information he needs to exercise his powers. I think he’s on solid ground here, but there’s no telling how it will turn out in front of Judge Howell, let alone a very conservative Supreme Court should it reach them on appeal.
The significant thing, I guess, is that Nadler has now gone to court to argue that he’s investigating impeachable offenses. There’s a degree of formality to that step that was previously lacking.
Maybe Rashida Tlaib will get her wish after all.
“There is a tide in the affairs of men …” I’m 73. I can hope to see that what has seemed an intractable standoff turns into a flood that cleanses our aspirationally-great America. Crush that POS.
Every legal expert I’ve seen who has been making the argument about it being necessary to open an impeachment inquiry to bypass executive privilege and access grand jury material seems to think that they don’t need to vote on it formally (on the floor or in committee) and that what they filed still counts as conducting an impeachment inquiry. House Counsel said as much, too.
Are they wrong? I haven’t seen anyone who seems to think so. Keep in mind these are the people who have been saying how important opening an impeachment inquiry is to get this material.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-116hres430ih/pdf/BILLS-116hres430ih.pdf
We’ve been discussing this at home a bit lately, and the consensus among us is that whether or not the Dem leadership explicitly calls this an impeachment inquiry at this point, for all intents and purposes they’ve begun at last. Could be that we’re getting it wrong as well. And am noticing that more Congressional members are coming out in favor of impeachment. At the moment, there seems to be some momentum.
The way Nadler described the investigation it sure sounds like an inquiry to me. I don’t know why they would have to use the exact word “inquiry” to qualify. So we will see.
Chapter 1. In Chancery.
LONDON. Michaelmas term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. *** Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping, and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. *** And hard by Temple Bar in Lincoln’s Inn Hall, at the very heart of the fog, sits the Lord High Chancellor in his High Court of Chancery.
Never can there come fog too thick, never can there come mud and mire too deep, to assort with the groping and floundering conditions which this High Court of Chancery, most pestilent of hoary sinners, holds, this day, in the sight of heaven and earth.
Charles Dickens, Bleak House (1853)
One hopes that Chairman Nadler can do better with his case(s) against Donald Trump than the Chancery proceedings in Jarndyce and Jarndyce. But one has to shudder a bit when considering that the “conservative” movement long, long ago determined that a critical component to their future minority rule was capture of the courts by young, white (mostly male) reactionaries. I will be very surprised if these (very pro-legislative branch) Nixon/Watergate era rulings hold up this time around in the “Conservative” Era. And the time involved in obtaining anything definitive from our federal courts will be excruciating, as plaintiffs in the King’s High Court of Chancery found, to their dismay and despair…
But good luck to ye, Jerry, good luck to ye!