Thread by @BBuchman_CNS

.@RepJerryNadler responds to WH refusal to participate in upcoming HJC Hearing: If POTUS "thinks the call was perfect and there is nothing to hide" then POTUS would turn over the "thousands of pages of documents" requested by Congress, allow witnesses to testify...
(1/2)

Instead of blocking them with "baseless privilege claims" and he would "provide any exculpatory information that refutes the overwhelming evidence of his abuse of power," Nadler wrote.
(2/2)
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews The House Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, issued a letter to Nadler this afternoon too. Collins says the majority is conducting the impeachment inquiry "without evidence" and dubs it, as he often does, a "sham" process.

You can read the letter from Rep. Collins in its entirety here
documentcloud.org/documents/6564…

Collins main point of contention in this letter is that Nadler has not yet announced the witnesses for the hearing slated Wednesday and that Republicans have not yet reviewed the House Intel Committee's report.

NEW - The witness list for Wednesday's hearing on constitutional grounds for impeachment: Noah Feldman of Harvard Law; Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law; Michael Gerhardt of Univ. of North Carolina School of Law and Jonathan Turley of GWU Law School.
@CourthouseNews

@CourthouseNews In October, Noah Feldman penned an op-ed for NYT, stating his position unequivocally: the U.S. is in the throes of a "constitutional crisis."
nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opi…

"The Constitution doesn’t indicate what is supposed to happen if the House tries to exercise its constitutional power of oversight to investigate the president and the president flatly rejects the House’s constitutional authority," Feldman wrote.

He continued: "Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."

"You might say under the Constitution, the House could justifiably impeach POTUS for refusing to participate in the impeachment inq. Indeed, the third article of impeachment adopted by the House Judic Cmte against Nixon charged him w/contempt of Congress for ignoring subpoenas...

He continues: "Impeaching a president for refusing to participate in an impeachment inquiry is a kind of meta-impeachment. It would allow Trump to argue that the meta-impeachment is illegitimate because it isn’t based on an investigation."

According to his op-ed, this brings us to the next condition nec. for a constitutional crisis: immovability on all sides.
"Assuming that Trump isn’t backing down, we’re witnessing a full-on confrontation between the House and the president, with no simple resolution available."

Read Feldman's op-ed (threaded earlier) for more of his perspective.

Pamela Karlan, with the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Clinic, just appeared at SCOTUS in October, arguing before the high court that federal civil rights laws should protect employees from sexual discrimination. Background on that via @ByTimRyan:
courthousenews.com/lgbt-bias-case…

@ByTimRyan Karlan also did an interview in '17 about the legal implications behind Trump's firing of Comey.
"If the firing is intended to obstruct a legitimate criminal investigation, it starts to veer into impeachment territory," Karlan wrote.
Interview here:
law.stanford.edu/2017/05/10/pam…

@ByTimRyan More broadly, Karlan gives her perspective on how to interpret the Constitution for @acslaw here: