The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Valmy]

Is the US at war?

Probably. We are usually at war with somebody.

[FunkMonk]

Well apparently if impeachment continues we'll have a civil war anyway.

[Grey Fox]

On which side will the nuclear weapons will be?

[The Minsky Moment]

GOP now in full-bore throes of TDS:

Liz Cheney@Liz_Cheney.⁦@SpeakerPelosi⁩ said on 60 Minutes last night she knew the details of the classified Ukraine call before White House released transcript. This is starting to seem like a political set up. So, Madame Speaker, "what did you know and when did you know it?"

Russian trollbait tinfoil wingbattery is now firmly established on Capitol Hill.

[Syt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/463827-pompeo-balks-at-dems-subpoena-i-will-not-tolerate-house-efforts-to

Pompeo rejects Dem demands for officials' testimony

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that five current and former State Department officials would not show up for depositions scheduled by House Democrats in connection with their impeachment inquiry.

Pompeo asserted that the committee's demand for testimony from five current and former State Department officials beginning this week raised "significant legal and procedural concerns" and questioned the committee's authority to compel an appearance by officials for a deposition through the letters sent last week, according to a letter that the secretary of State released on his Twitter feed.

"Based on the profound legal and procedural deficiencies ... the Committee's requested dates for depositions are not feasible," Pompeo wrote, adding that the State Department "will be in further contact with the committee in the near future as we obtain further clarity on these matters."

The secretary of State also claimed that there is "no legal basis" for the committee's threat that the failure of the officials to meet their timeline for documents and testimony would constitute obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. And he raised concerns that House Democrats are seeking to "intimidate" State Department officials with a slew of requests on Ukraine and President Trump's interactions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

"I'm concerned with aspects of your request that can be understood only as an attempt to intimidate, bully and treat improperly the distinguished professionals of the Department of State, including several career Foreign Service Officers," Pompeo wrote in a letter to Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday.

"Let me be clear: I will not tolerate such tactics, and I will use all means at my disposal to prevent and expose any attempts to intimidate the dedicated professionals whom I am proud to lead and serve alongside at the Department of State," Pompeo wrote.

He said the committee had not sent subpoenas for their appearances or noticed the deposition to the department in accordance with House rules. Pompeo also said that the proposed dates offered by the committee for depositions "do not provide adequate time for the Department and its employees to appropriately prepare."

Engel, as well as House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), said in a letter to Pompeo last week that the depositions would be conducted jointly by their three committees.

The depositions requested by the committees last week had been scheduled for Oct. 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10.

In a joint statement issued later Tuesday, the three chairmen raised the possibility that Pompeo was engaging in witness intimidation, citing reports from the day prior that the top diplomat participated in the July 25 call between Trump and Zelensky at the center of an intelligence community whistleblower complaint.

The Democrats said that would make him a "fact witness" in the impeachment inquiry and that his actions could constitute obstruction of Congress.

"Any effort to intimidate witnesses or prevent them from talking with Congress — including State Department employees — is illegal and will constitute evidence of obstruction of the impeachment inquiry. In response, Congress may infer from this obstruction that any withheld documents and testimony would reveal information that corroborates the whistleblower complaint," Engel, Schiff and Cummings said in a joint statement.

"The Committees are operating pursuant to our long-established authorities as well as the impeachment inquiry," they continued. "We're committed to protecting witnesses from harassment and intimidation, and we expect their full compliance and that of the Department of State."

In addition to requesting depositions with the five current and former State Department officials, the House committee chairmen had also subpoenaed Pompeo for documents related to Trump pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival, and his son, Hunter.

Pompeo also said the State Department "acknowledges receipt" of last week's subpoena and "intends to respond" by the noticed date of Oct. 4.

Pompeo also accused Engel of trying to prevent State Department counsel from participating in the depositions, something he said amounted to an effort to "circumvent" the constitutional interests of the executive branch. Pompeo said he would refuse to allow the officials to appear for the depositions in the absence of department counsel.

"This amounts to an attempt to circumvent the Executive Branch's unquestionably legitimate constitutional interest in protecting potentially privileged information related to the conduct of diplomatic relations," Pompeo wrote.

"Therefore, the five officials subject to your letter may not attend any interview or deposition without counsel from the Executive Branch present to ensure that the Executive Branch's constitutional authority to control the disclosure of confidential information, including deliberative matters and diplomatic communications, is not impaired," he continued.

Pompeo also said the committee's requests sent to the same officials for documents appeared to "duplicate" a previous request sent to the State Department and argued that the documents are the property of the State Department. He asserted that the committee in doing so was engaging in an "act of intimidation" and inviting the officials to violate federal records laws.

He also accused committee staff of sending "intimidating communications" to career employees at the State Department who had asked that the requests be sent to the Bureau of Legislative Affairs as is normally done.

The first depositions had been scheduled for Wednesday with Marie Yovanovitch, the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and on Thursday with Kurt Volker, who was Trump's special envoy for Ukraine until his resignation on Friday.

The intelligence community whistleblower at the center of the impeachment inquiry alleged in their complaint that Volker visited Kiev with U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and met with Ukrainian officials to discuss how to "navigate" the "demands" Trump had made of Zelensky in a phone call the day before.

The House committees are also seeking depositions with Sondland, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent and State Department counselor T. Ulrich Brechbuhl. Kent is the only one of the five officials not to be mentioned in the whistleblower complaint.

Yovanovitch served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine until May when she was recalled from her post.

Trump said in his July 25 call with Zelensky that Yovanovitch was "bad news," according to a declassified rough transcript of the call released by the White House.

"The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that," Trump said.

[frunk]

Wow, I didn't know the Executive could just ignore Congress.  Dunno why the Nixon administration or either Clinton ever cooperated with them.

[Barrister]

Wow, I didn't know the Executive could just ignore Congress.  Dunno why the Nixon administration or either Clinton ever cooperated with them.

It's my impression (and US law-talkers can correct me) is that this is one of those areas where both sides have been afraid of getting a definitive, adverse ruling on the limits of congress's powers to subpoena witnesses and evidence from the executive, so they always wind up with some kind of compromise in the end.

Trump of course doesn't seem like the kind of would make that kind of careful analysis about the risks of pushing any issue all the way to the USSC...

[Habbaku]

Can anyone imagine the frothing rage of the GOP if Obama had done something similar?

[frunk]

It's my impression (and US law-talkers can correct me) is that this is one of those areas where both sides have been afraid of getting a definitive, adverse ruling on the limits of congress's powers to subpoena witnesses and evidence from the executive, so they always wind up with some kind of compromise in the end.

Trump of course doesn't seem like the kind of would make that kind of careful analysis about the risks of pushing any issue all the way to the USSC...

It's not like this is the first time this administration hasn't cooperated with requests from the House.  So far they've gotten away with it.

[The Minsky Moment]

Everyone needs to chill out a little. 

Trump did some really bad stuff, we are firmly back in the Nixonland of impeachment, constitutional crises, an out-of-control executive "led" by a increasingly paranoiac president and even more shrill fellow-travelers.  But stuff has to be allowed to take its course.  The House noticed some state dept guys for deposition, which is normal and appropriate.  Pompeo's response is 75% a legit legal letter which takes some plausibly justifiable positions like the witnesses should have some time to consult counsel.  It was wrong of him, however, to accuse the House of intimidating witnesses (a very serious charge proffered with zero evidence); it's also wrong for the House to accuse witnesses in advance obstructing justice because they ask for so more time to consult counsel before attending a voluntary deposition. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Wow, I didn't know the Executive could just ignore Congress.  Dunno why the Nixon administration or either Clinton ever cooperated with them.

It's my impression (and US law-talkers can correct me) is that this is one of those areas where both sides have been afraid of getting a definitive, adverse ruling on the limits of congress's powers to subpoena witnesses and evidence from the executive, so they always wind up with some kind of compromise in the end.

I don't think that's the case here.  The power of Congress to subpoena State Dept officials has been well established ever since it was abused by Senator McCarthy.  What is going in here is the House is trying to move fast and the Executive is trying to slow roll.  Subpoenas take time to issue and enforce, so Engel sent out deposition notices that don't have the same legal compulsion behind them.  State doesn't want to be seen to be obstructive and inviting a formal subpoena, by the same token they want to buy time, so they don't reject the notices out of hand but raise some superficially plausible objections about timing.  And the game continues...

[Barrister]

It's my impression (and US law-talkers can correct me) is that this is one of those areas where both sides have been afraid of getting a definitive, adverse ruling on the limits of congress's powers to subpoena witnesses and evidence from the executive, so they always wind up with some kind of compromise in the end.

Trump of course doesn't seem like the kind of would make that kind of careful analysis about the risks of pushing any issue all the way to the USSC...

It's not like this is the first time this administration hasn't cooperated with requests from the House.  So far they've gotten away with it.

Which matches what I've said.  Both when Obama was President, and Bush, and Clinton, going on even further back, both Congress and the Executive would generally avoid pushing matters to the USSC for the risk of getting a ruling they disagreed with.  Imagine if the USSC ruled that indeed Congress had sweeping, almost unlimited ability to subpoena documents.  Or the contrary - if the USSC ruled that executive privilege was incredibly broad.

There is the decision in US v Nixon, but even there my read is the court gave a pretty narrow decision on the facts of the case in order to ensure a unanimous decision.

[Tonitrus]

It should also be said that if they desire it, the Executive branch could ignore the USSC just as easily as it does Congress.  It's been done before.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nobody is ignoring anything ... yet.

[Tonitrus]

No, but it is an interesting (and perhaps troubling) aspect of our system of separation of powers.  What should/would agencies due in the case of conflicting orders from the Judicial/Executive/or Legislative branch.  Much like in the argument of written vs. tradition-based constitutions, this hasn't been a system-destroying flaw in US politics perhaps solely because of "tradition".