The 1st article of impeachment, abuse of power, is overwhelmingly clear.
But the 2d article, obstruction of Congress, is weak, and the House should vote against it.
I offer a bright line rule here (a Golden rule?)
1/
The House had a choice:
1) Litigate over these subpoenas over 6 months;
2) or move forward with impeachment now.
I think House Dems are making the right choice...
It's bad to refuse a lawful subpoena, but the appropriate remedy is to go to court to argue its lawfulness.
@Dahlialithwick was asking last May when the Trump administration was ignoring subpoenas.
My answer to her was no, that doesn't reach a "constitutional crisis..."
slate.com/news-and-polit…
Such a confrontation for extrajudicial arrest would've been a constitutional crisis.
Then Congress should use inherent contempt vs. Mnunchin and impeach Trump.
But in our system of checks and balances, Congress does not have sole power over subpoenas.
Courts have a key role.
Relying on courts "would also raise complexities [if] a President who directed Executive officials to defy House subpoenas... then used his pardon power to immunize them from contempt orders if instructed by the Judiciary to honor those subpoenas."
1) It's a president explicitly defying a court order.
2) It's flagrant abuse of the pardon power.
3) It's a violation of the oath & faithful execution.
4) It's arguably criminal obstruction of justice.
It's a terrible counterargument.
"To be sure, judicial review may at 1st blush seem desirable because it would be an
independent determination by an entity with no interest in the proceedings."
At 1st blush, impeaching for"Obstruction of Congress" seems too much like self-interested turf-war.
No wonder Congress has a 12% approval rating...
When they're talking about process & protecting Congress, they may be right morally, but politically, that's losing or a lost opportunity.
The abuse of power/bribery case was too clear to wait any longer.
But that's the trade-off: Once the substantive case is strong, the process case is less urgent.
The Dems are arguing explicitly that they need more witnesses. The implicit message is the Ukraine abuse/bribery case isn't strong enough already.
Malarkey. It's already overwhelming.
Don't distract from that.
And also delayed pursuing tax returns through Ways & Means or NY state.
They risked delay & losing to avoid a small political risk.
theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
@SpeakerPelosi & House leadership spent most of 2019 delaying such litigation (or making bad faith arguments).
This is hypocrisy.
Congress can expose those bad arguments in court and impeach if POTUS ignores court orders or engages in extreme delay tactics in litigation.
Keep in mind: the litigation over the Nixon Oval Office tapes took a total of 4 months (Apr-Aug 1974)
If there is a reasonable schedule, Congress should try.
Or don't impeach.
then of course there'd be no time to litigate, but it is also unrealistic to remove for uncooperative behavior w/o more solid evidence of abuse of power just before an election.
Impeach for the underlying abuse, not the uncooperativeness
But removal must be the last resort only after other remedies have been exhausted.
By definition, the House impeaching for unlitigated subpoenas is no last resort.
The shoe will be on the other foot.
Do we really want the Benghazification of impeachment?
The House impeaching presidents for disregarding unlitigated subpoenas?