HOW can Congress go forward with impeachment when

[live love laugh]

the Executive branch is obstructing justice by withholding information and witnesses?

What will make them be more cooperative just because the House has “expanded powers”?

[StarfishSaver]

1. "expanded powers" they don't actually have ...

Those "expanded powers" are largely a fantasy based on the law of the Land of Twitter.

[medyhar]

2. It is not a fantasy

This has been clearly explained by experts for weeks now.

https://www.justsecurity.org/64318/how-impeachment-proceedings-would-strengthen-congresss-investigatory-powers/

[Bradshaw3]

8. And there's more reasons why it is not a twitter fantasy

From Lawfare:
"Impeachment proceedings may also give the judiciary committee a stronger case for obtaining certain materials protected from disclosure by statute, like the grand jury materials from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, certain people—including the government attorney presenting the case—involved in a grand jury proceeding “must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury.” There are certain exceptions in the statute that would allow a judge to authorize disclosure for certain specified purposes, including “preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding.”

The post said that, basically, it depends as to whether or not impeachment procedings would have greater powers but there are reasons to believe it would.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-powers-does-formal-impeachment-inquiry-give-house


It certainly is not a "twitter fantasy" to think so. Plus it's great when someone who ridicules with no factual basis is shot down.

[StarfishSaver]

9. I've read this piece

Among other things, Stern acknowledges that impeachment confers on Congress no additional powers it doesn't already have. His argument is that it may make it easier for Congress to exercise it's existing powers - but there is no basis for assuming this can be legally compelled.

For example, Stern says that impeachment "could" allow Congress to exercise additional authority to enforce subpoenas on foreign soil, but as noted in his source, that would solely be up to a foreign court and would not be guaranteed.

And I think his application of the case law is incorrect. For example, Senate Select Committee v. Nixon to suggest that an impeachment inquiry would have more authority to obtain materials than one of the other committees investigating Trump is incorrect. Among other things, in that case, an impeachment inquiry had already been opened, but other committees were attempting to subpoena some of the same materials already sought or obtained by the impeachment panel, which diminished the other panels' claim to those materials. That's not the case here since no impeachment inquiry has begun.

The Nixon tapes case also doesn't lead to a conclusion that an impeachment inquiry would be more likely to lead a court to reject an executive privilege claim than an investigation in this case would. And as for the grand jury materials, not only does FRCP 6(e) not require a judge to release grand jury materials to an impeachment inquiry, it also doesn't prevent a judge from releasing same to an investigation by another committee preliminary to impeachment.

Stern makes the same argument that many experts are making - that an impeachment COULD lead a court to view congressional requests for documents more favorably. But there is nothing in the law compelling it and such an outcome is not guaranteed, but completely up to the discretion of the individual judges ruling on any particular matter.

In short, does not give Congress "additional powers" - it simply COULD (but not definitely) give Congress a little more deference in exercising the powers it already has.

[unblock]

3. impeachment is a political process, there's a different standard of proof.

or more accurately, there really isn't a standard of proof. the house can really impeach on pretty much any basis it wants to, and the senate can convict on pretty much any basis it wants to.

well, the house probably needs to allege bribery, treason, or "high crimes and misdemeanors", but that last one is sufficiently broad and vague to make it easy to come of with something for any senior official they really want to get rid of.


the house and the senate could easily, in theory, decide that the mere cloud of suspicion is unacceptable in a sitting president and impeach and remove him for that reason alone.

certainly, if a sitting president should be on trial for a federal crime and is only not being indicted now because he's a sitting president, well, that is certainly a good reason to remove someone from office imho.


that said, we don't have a functional senate, so we're not likely to get any great joy from the process....

[live love laugh]

4. I see your points but I don't foresee any cooperation

The stage has been set to disregard the law,

[unblock]

5. i agree, there's not likely to be much more cooperation

but congress is free to reach a different conclusion.

a successful obstruction can foil a prosecutor even if they see what's going on.

but a functional congress could impeach and remove a president if they even suspected them of obstructing justice.


but i agree, this is a theoretical point. the senate would keep him in place if he murdered someone in cold blood on 5th avenue, provided that victim wasn't a rich straight white christian republican.

[marylandblue]

11. He'd never shoot a rich straight white Christian Republican.

They would shoot themselves and thank him for the honor. Many have already shot their careers, so they really have nothing to live for.

[unblock]

13. Cheney did and the victim apologized

[marylandblue]

14. Cheney didn't know how to run a personality cult.

[wasupaloopa]

6. This is especially important

Nevertheless, there are additional useful authorities, such as the power to gather information in foreign countries, that could be granted as part of an impeachment inquiry. That’s no small matter in an impeachment that may involve foreign emoluments and international affairs.


https://www.justsecurity.org/64318/how-impeachment-proceedings-would-strengthen-congresss-investigatory-powers/

[Fiendish Thingy]

7. The expanded powers would result in court orders as opposed to subpoenas

If a court order is defied, the violator is jailed; in addition, if Congress fails to act against those who defy a court order, we are truly screwed.

[H2O Man]

10. court

[pnwmom]

12. Here's an explanation from the Just Security blog.

One key point is that the Grand Jury would be able to turn over its evidence in the context of an impeachment investigation.

https://www.justsecurity.org/64318/how-impeachment-proceedings-would-strengthen-congresss-investigatory-powers/?fbclid=IwAR1c5mnXbFrtiEY3K8fTs_PvfoHHL-NT-hoB3vtAMFrk32wYS9JhboSzNp0