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/2019/10/25/us/politics/house-impeachment-subpoenas.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory Impeachment Inquiry Is Legal, Judge Rules, Giving Democrats a Victory
(about 2 hours later)
Breaking News Update: The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham. WASHINGTON — A federal judge handed a victory to House Democrats on Friday when she ruled that they are legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a decision that undercut President Trump’s arguments that the investigation is a sham.
The House Judiciary Committee is entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in a 75-page opinion. Attorney General William P. Barr had withheld the material from lawmakers. The declaration came in a 75-page opinion by Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington. She ruled that the House Judiciary Committee is entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Typically, Congress has no right to view secret evidence gathered by a grand jury. But in 1974, the courts permitted the committee weighing whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon to see such materials — and, Judge Howell ruled, the House is now engaged in the same process focused on Mr. Trump. Typically, Congress has no right to view such evidence. But in 1974, the courts permitted lawmakers to see such materials as they weighed whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon. The House is now immersed in the same process focused on Mr. Trump, Judge Howell ruled, and that easily outweighs any need to keep the information secret from lawmakers.
Judge Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote that law enforcement officials’ need to keep the information secret from Congress was “minimal” and easily outweighed by lawmakers’ need for it. And in a rebuke to the Trump administration, she wrote that the White House strategy to stonewall the House had actually strengthened lawmakers’ case. She cited Mr. Trump’s vow to fight “all” congressional subpoenas and an extraordinary directive by his White House Counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, that executive branch officials should not provide testimony or documents to impeachment investigators.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the president described in the Mueller report,” she wrote. “The White House’s stated policy of noncooperation with the impeachment inquiry weighs heavily in favor of disclosure,” Judge Howell wrote. "Congress’s need to access grand jury material relevant to potential impeachable conduct by a president is heightened when the executive branch willfully obstructs channels for accessing other relevant evidence.”
In reaching her decision, Judge Howell rejected the contention by Mr. Trump and his allies that the investigation Democrats are pursuing, which has since expanded to encompass the Ukraine scandal, is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry. The administration is likely to appeal the ruling; the Justice Department was reviewing it, a spokeswoman said. It came on a day when House investigators unleashed another round of subpoenas. They demanded that the acting head of the White House budget office and two other administration officials testify next month in their inquiry into Mr. Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine to open investigations that could benefit him politically.
The Justice Department is reviewing the decision, a spokeswoman said. Democrats praised Judge Howell’s decision. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, applauded the “thoughtful ruling” and its recognition that “our impeachment inquiry fully comports with the Constitution.”
In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one. “This grand jury information that the administration has tried to block the House from seeing will be critical to our work,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement.
Judge Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it. In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she wrote. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules and pointed out that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without such a vote.
An earlier version of the article is below. Judge Howell agreed with the Democrats, calling the Republican arguments “cherry-picked and incomplete” and lacking support from the Constitution, House rules or court precedents.
WASHINGTON — The triad of House committees leading the impeachment inquiry unleashed another round of subpoenas on Friday, demanding that three more administration officials — including the acting head of the White House budget office — testify as part of their investigation into President Trump’s pressure campaign on Ukraine. “Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” wrote Judge Howell, an appointee of President Barack Obama.
With the White House ordering all staff to stonewall the inquiry, the committees directed the three officials to submit to depositions early next month: Russell T. Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget; Michael Duffey, another top Trump appointee there; and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a counselor at the State Department. Though the impeachment inquiry has broadened to focus on investigating the Ukraine scandal that erupted last month, the dispute before Judge Howell arose from an earlier stage: the aftermath of the Mueller investigation.
Their accounts could be crucial to investigators’ understanding of the Trump administration’s decision to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine earlier this year, a move that administration officials and at least one witness in the inquiry have said resulted from a directive from the president. After Mr. Mueller completed his report about the Russia investigation and Mr. Trump’s efforts as president to obstruct it, Attorney General William P. Barr turned over most of the report to Congress. But he censored portions that contained material that is secret under grand-jury rules.
Mr. Vought and Mr. Duffey both played roles in freezing the aid, and investigators are eager to question them on how Mr. Trump asked for the freeze and why. Lawmakers demanded to see that text, as well as underlying documents and transcripts of testimony by witnesses who appeared before a grand jury. In July, they filed a petition asking Judge Howell to order the Justice Department to provide that information under the Watergate precedent.
The issue is at the center of the impeachment inquiry, which is investigating whether Mr. Trump abused his power to pressure President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to incriminate Mr. Trump’s political rivals. The $391 million security assistance package for Ukraine was delayed for months, as was a White House meeting between the two presidents, as Mr. Trump sought assurances that Mr. Zelensky would announce investigations of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter, and other Democrats. In its legal filings, the House Judiciary Committee asserted that it was already conducting an inquiry into whether Mr. Trump should be impeached. At the time, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was seen as reluctant to put forward a resolution formally authorizing such an inquiry, to avoid jeopardizing newly elected Democrats who won seats in moderate districts in the 2018 midterm elections.
All three of the officials were asked to appear in early November, suggesting that Democrats intend to continue the private phase of their investigation for several more weeks before convening public hearings. But in September, as revelations about Mr. Trump’s Ukraine dealings fueled support for an impeachment inquiry, Ms. Pelosi announced that one was underway — but stopped short of bringing a resolution to the floor. Republicans in Congress have seized upon the lack of a formal vote as the foundation for their opposition to the inquiry, focusing on process instead of the substance of the allegations against Mr. Trump.
The latest bevy of subpoenas — issued jointly by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform Committees, which are leading the investigation — will further challenge the administration’s reluctance to cooperate with the inquiry. Mr. Brechbuhl is a close ally of Mike Pompeo, the secretary of state, and it is unclear if he will join other State Department officials in defying White House orders to ignore subpoenas and appear before the committee. As of Friday, all but three Senate Republicans — Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine — had signed onto a resolution that accuses Democrats of conducting an unfair inquiry and calls on the House to vote for a formal impeachment investigation.
“We will not be participating in a sham process designed to re-litigate the last election,” Mr. Vought said on Fox News earlier this month. Also on Friday, the Republican National Committee’s governing body made the unusual gesture of declaring in a symbolic resolution that it “now more than ever wholeheartedly supports” Mr. Trump in the midst of “a nakedly partisan impeachment investigation.”
Mr. Vought announced this week that neither he nor Mr. Duffey, who was involved in the approval of the orders freezing the money, would appear as requested. Both the Trump legal team and Republicans have adopted the lack of a formal impeachment vote as a basis for their arguments that the inquiry is illegitimate — stressing it both publicly and in letters warning executive branch officials not to cooperate when Congress asks them to testify or provide documents, including Mr. Cipollone’s documents.
The budget office, under Mr. Vought’s leadership, has also refused to provide communications and other records that could potentially reveal more about the handling of the aid package for Ukraine. Some administration officials have defied that warning and testified anyway, while others have invoked the White House’s directions to refuse to cooperate with impeachment investigators.
Mr. Duffey, who moved to the budget office from the Department of Defense earlier this year, began overseeing the approval and distribution of the foreign aid in part because he wanted to become more involved in the process, known as apportionment, according to a senior administration official. Career officials remain involved in the process, while Mr. Duffey now reviews and signs off on it. One of the officials subpoenaed on Friday for testimony, Russell T. Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, had cited Mr. Cipollone’s letter when he announced this week that he and another top Trump appointee there, Michael Duffey, would not appear before Congress. Mr. Cipollone denounced the inquiry as “constitutionally illegitimate.”
Administration officials have said that Mr. Trump personally asked for the aid to be frozen ahead of a phone call with the new Ukrainian president where he asked for an investigation into Mr. Biden. And William B. Taylor Jr., the United States ambassador to Ukraine, testified this week that he heard a White House budget official say that the president had ordered the staff there not to approve the money. Mr. Duffey was one of the other officials who received a subpoena on Friday to submit to depositions about whether Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine was part of a quid-pro-quo effort. The third was T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a counselor at the State Department.
But Mr. Trump has doubled down on his assertion that there was nothing wrong with his discussion with Mr. Zelensky, again telling reporters on Friday that “this was a perfect conversation.” The new subpoenas — issued jointly by the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight and Reform committees, which are leading the investigation — suggested that Democrats intend to continue the private phase of their investigation for several more weeks before convening public hearings.
“This is a hoax — just like there was no collusion,” Mr. Trump said repeatedly of the allegations, charging that Democrats are “trying to make us look as bad as possible.” The subpoenas will also further challenge the administration’s reluctance to cooperate with the inquiry. Mr. Brechbuhl is a close ally of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and it is unclear whether he follow the White House directive or defy it to join other State Department officials who testified before impeachment investigators.
The committees are also scheduled to hear in closed session on Saturday from Philip Reeker, the acting assistant secretary of European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department. “We will not be participating in a sham process designed to re-litigate the last election,” Mr. Vought, one of the other officials who received a subpoena on Friday, said on Fox News this month.
The budget office, under Mr. Vought’s leadership, has also refused to provide communications and other records to the three panels that could potentially reveal more about the handling of the aid package for Ukraine.
The committees were also scheduled to hear in closed session on Saturday from Philip Reeker, the acting assistant secretary of European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department.
Nicholas Fandos and Edward Wong contributed reporting.Nicholas Fandos and Edward Wong contributed reporting.