This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/us/impeachment-of-trump.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What You Need to Know About Impeachment How Impeachment Works and What You Need to Know About It
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Liberal House Democrats, struggling to combat President Trump’s stonewalling of congressional oversight, have come out by the dozen in recent days to endorse a new strategy to secure the information that they say they need: opening an impeachment inquiry.WASHINGTON — Liberal House Democrats, struggling to combat President Trump’s stonewalling of congressional oversight, have come out by the dozen in recent days to endorse a new strategy to secure the information that they say they need: opening an impeachment inquiry.
Supporters of an inquiry argue that they are not necessarily seeking the president’s ouster but instead are pursuing a legal strategy — warranted by the stakes — to try to break Mr. Trump’s blockade of nearly every document and witness that Democrats have requested since the release of the redacted report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in April. Opening an investigation, they say, could increase Democratic chances of winning court orders to require compliance with House subpoenas.Supporters of an inquiry argue that they are not necessarily seeking the president’s ouster but instead are pursuing a legal strategy — warranted by the stakes — to try to break Mr. Trump’s blockade of nearly every document and witness that Democrats have requested since the release of the redacted report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, in April. Opening an investigation, they say, could increase Democratic chances of winning court orders to require compliance with House subpoenas.
But others are wary, saying it would be politically risky; impeachment implies an effort to remove the president from office, and Mr. Trump is primed to try to exploit any such effort politically. On Thursday, he called impeachment a “dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”But others are wary, saying it would be politically risky; impeachment implies an effort to remove the president from office, and Mr. Trump is primed to try to exploit any such effort politically. On Thursday, he called impeachment a “dirty, filthy, disgusting word.”
Here’s what you need to know about how impeachment inquiries work.Here’s what you need to know about how impeachment inquiries work.
The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their terms are up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their terms are up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The House can impeach a president — which is like an indictment — by a simple majority vote. After a trial in the Senate, two-thirds of the upper chamber would have to vote to convict to remove the president.The House can impeach a president — which is like an indictment — by a simple majority vote. After a trial in the Senate, two-thirds of the upper chamber would have to vote to convict to remove the president.
Only three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Two were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. A third, Richard M. Nixon, resigned in 1974 to avoid being impeached.Only three presidents have been subjected to impeachment proceedings. Two were impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 and 1999. A third, Richard M. Nixon, resigned in 1974 to avoid being impeached.
Before the House decides whether to impeach a president, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether that step is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation.Before the House decides whether to impeach a president, the House Judiciary Committee first can hold hearings to investigate whether that step is warranted. This can include calling witnesses, collecting documents and debating whether the behavior in question constitutes an impeachable offense, which the Constitution only ambiguously defines. The inquiry would culminate in the panel either voting to recommend that the full House approve one or more articles of impeachment, or deciding not to make any such recommendation.
The full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries into Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former Federal District Court judge in 1989, began at the committee level, congressional aides say.The full House voted for resolutions directing the House Judiciary Committee to open the inquiries into Mr. Nixon and Mr. Clinton. But it is not clear whether that step is strictly necessary, because impeachment proceedings against other officials, like a former Federal District Court judge in 1989, began at the committee level, congressional aides say.
In 1998, the Clinton resolution granted the House Judiciary Committee certain powers to subpoena for documents and testimony. Since then, however, House rules have been changed to enhance the subpoena powers of Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, so that step may now be redundant.In 1998, the Clinton resolution granted the House Judiciary Committee certain powers to subpoena for documents and testimony. Since then, however, House rules have been changed to enhance the subpoena powers of Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, so that step may now be redundant.
The question matters because, at this stage, vulnerable Democrats in swing districts may prefer to avoid taking a public stand on the issue. On the other hand, the committee may not want to test whether it can open a presidential impeachment inquiry without a House vote because that would give Mr. Trump’s lawyers another argument to make in any court battles over Democratic subpoenas.The question matters because, at this stage, vulnerable Democrats in swing districts may prefer to avoid taking a public stand on the issue. On the other hand, the committee may not want to test whether it can open a presidential impeachment inquiry without a House vote because that would give Mr. Trump’s lawyers another argument to make in any court battles over Democratic subpoenas.
There is broad agreement that an open impeachment inquiry could help the Judiciary Committee argue that it has a right to information otherwise protected by grand jury secrecy rules. That information includes certain portions of the Mueller report that Attorney General William P. Barr blacked out, as well as underlying evidence like transcripts of witness testimony before a grand jury.There is broad agreement that an open impeachment inquiry could help the Judiciary Committee argue that it has a right to information otherwise protected by grand jury secrecy rules. That information includes certain portions of the Mueller report that Attorney General William P. Barr blacked out, as well as underlying evidence like transcripts of witness testimony before a grand jury.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently issued a ruling that put forward a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders, like members of Congress, see grand jury information. The decision’s reasoning called into question how it had been legal for the court, back in 1974, to permit the grand jury investigating the Watergate scandal to share its evidence with the House Judiciary Committee. But rather than overruling that precedent, the court decided the sharing of information could be interpreted as falling under an exception in the rules that permits such sharing when it is needed for “judicial” proceedings — and impeachment proceedings are like a judicial process.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently issued a ruling that put forward a narrow view of when courts may let outsiders, like members of Congress, see grand jury information. The decision’s reasoning called into question how it had been legal for the court, back in 1974, to permit the grand jury investigating the Watergate scandal to share its evidence with the House Judiciary Committee. But rather than overruling that precedent, the court decided the sharing of information could be interpreted as falling under an exception in the rules that permits such sharing when it is needed for “judicial” proceedings — and impeachment proceedings are like a judicial process.
Under that logic, if there was an impeachment inquiry opened against Mr. Trump, the House Judiciary Committee could invoke the Nixon-era precedent as a legal basis to ask a judge to let it see Mr. Mueller’s grand jury evidence.Under that logic, if there was an impeachment inquiry opened against Mr. Trump, the House Judiciary Committee could invoke the Nixon-era precedent as a legal basis to ask a judge to let it see Mr. Mueller’s grand jury evidence.
Yes, but it is less concrete. Some Democrats, such as Mr. Nadler, have argued that it would strengthen their case in coming court battles over the subpoenas that Mr. Trump has vowed to ignore. They cite two reasons.Yes, but it is less concrete. Some Democrats, such as Mr. Nadler, have argued that it would strengthen their case in coming court battles over the subpoenas that Mr. Trump has vowed to ignore. They cite two reasons.
“Part of the rationale for that is if you are in court seeking to enforce subpoenas, you have better odds in court if you can say this is part of an impeachment inquiry rather than just part of your general oversight,” Mr. Nadler said on MSNBC last week.“Part of the rationale for that is if you are in court seeking to enforce subpoenas, you have better odds in court if you can say this is part of an impeachment inquiry rather than just part of your general oversight,” Mr. Nadler said on MSNBC last week.
First, in early jostling over those information requests, the Trump administration and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers have put forward a sweeping argument that Congress’s information requests are invalid because they have no legitimate “legislative” purpose behind them — that is, the subpoenas lack sufficient connection to potential new laws that Congress may consider enacting. The Trump legal team has accused Congress of just trying to find out whether laws have been broken — a task it says is an executive branch function — and of digging up dirt for political ammunition. Supporters of an inquiry say that having an open impeachment process would strengthen their hand because in court proceedings, they could also tie their requests to their constitutional function of deciding whether to remove a president.First, in early jostling over those information requests, the Trump administration and Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers have put forward a sweeping argument that Congress’s information requests are invalid because they have no legitimate “legislative” purpose behind them — that is, the subpoenas lack sufficient connection to potential new laws that Congress may consider enacting. The Trump legal team has accused Congress of just trying to find out whether laws have been broken — a task it says is an executive branch function — and of digging up dirt for political ammunition. Supporters of an inquiry say that having an open impeachment process would strengthen their hand because in court proceedings, they could also tie their requests to their constitutional function of deciding whether to remove a president.
Second, Democrats have expressed fears that the Trump administration might try to use lengthy court battles over congressional subpoenas to run out the clock, thwarting their ability to perform oversight before the 2020 election. However, an impeachment inquiry is so serious that it could help persuade judges at each stage in the appeals process to expedite their rulings.Second, Democrats have expressed fears that the Trump administration might try to use lengthy court battles over congressional subpoenas to run out the clock, thwarting their ability to perform oversight before the 2020 election. However, an impeachment inquiry is so serious that it could help persuade judges at each stage in the appeals process to expedite their rulings.
Two points: it’s not necessary, and it could ultimately help Mr. Trump.Two points: it’s not necessary, and it could ultimately help Mr. Trump.
To date, the first two judges who have encountered the arguments that House subpoenas are invalid because they lack a legitimate legislative purpose have been deeply skeptical of that view — and both have moved quickly to dispose of the case at their level. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointed to the rulings as evidence that Democrats are succeeding without impeachment.To date, the first two judges who have encountered the arguments that House subpoenas are invalid because they lack a legitimate legislative purpose have been deeply skeptical of that view — and both have moved quickly to dispose of the case at their level. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pointed to the rulings as evidence that Democrats are succeeding without impeachment.
Moreover, once Democrats open an inquiry, they could lock themselves into a process that will take on its own momentum. A House vote on any articles of impeachment would put House Democrats in moderate- to conservative-leaning districts, where impeaching Mr. Trump is an unpopular idea, in a difficult spot heading into the 2020 election.Moreover, once Democrats open an inquiry, they could lock themselves into a process that will take on its own momentum. A House vote on any articles of impeachment would put House Democrats in moderate- to conservative-leaning districts, where impeaching Mr. Trump is an unpopular idea, in a difficult spot heading into the 2020 election.
Even if the House were to impeach him, it is unlikely that enough Republicans in the Senate would be willing to vote to convict him to result in his removal, just as Mr. Clinton was acquitted in 1999. The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Clinton was politically strengthened by Republican-led impeachment proceedings, and some Democrats fear that the same would be true here: If they open proceedings but fail to remove him, Mr. Trump would claim they overreached and that Congress had exonerated him.Even if the House were to impeach him, it is unlikely that enough Republicans in the Senate would be willing to vote to convict him to result in his removal, just as Mr. Clinton was acquitted in 1999. The conventional wisdom is that Mr. Clinton was politically strengthened by Republican-led impeachment proceedings, and some Democrats fear that the same would be true here: If they open proceedings but fail to remove him, Mr. Trump would claim they overreached and that Congress had exonerated him.