Panel petitions court to acquire Russia inquiry’s grand jury files
WASHINGTON — House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler filed a petition in federal court Friday to obtain secret grand jury material underlying former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, arguing the panel needs the information as it weighs whether to pursue impeachment of President Donald Trump.
The panel also is expected to file a lawsuit next week to try to enforce a subpoena against former White House counsel Donald McGahn, a key Mueller witness, if he doesn’t comply before then. That suit is expected to challenge the White House’s claim that former White House employees have “absolute immunity” from testifying before Congress.
The committee’s court battles are beginning as the House leaves for a six-week recess and Democrats are debating whether to impeach the Republican president. Although some House Democrats have said they favor starting the impeachment process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she wants
to build the strongest case possible before making that decision, including by going to court to force witnesses to comply.
The Judiciary Committee’s filing says the panel needs the information in order to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment.
“Because Department of Justice policies will not allow prosecution of a sitting president, the United States House of Representatives is the only institution of the federal government that can now hold President Trump accountable for these actions,” the filing told the judge, Beryl Howell, who supervised Mueller’s grand jury.
Referring to the part of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to impeach and remove a president, the filing continued: “To do so, the House must have access to all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise all its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity — approval of articles of impeachment.”
With the filing, Nadler was attempting to sidestep the debate inside the Democratic Party over whether the full House should hold a vote to formally declare that it is opening an impeachment inquiry. In effect, he said, that inquiry has already begun.
“Too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,’” Nadler said at a news conference. “We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president and to consider what remedies there are. Among other things we will consider, obviously, is whether to recommend articles of impeachment.”
Other members of the committee were more forward.
“We’re now crossing a threshold with this filing, and we are now officially entering into an examination of whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas.
The new filing comes two days after Mueller testified before Congress for the first time about the findings of his 22-month investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by Trump. Republicans — and some Democrats — said Mueller’s lackluster appearance had all but ended the impeachment threat, and they were not convinced the committee’s actions Friday had changed that.
“Democrats want to convince their base they’re still wedded to impeachment even after this week’s hearing, but a baseless legal claim is an odd way to show that,” said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. He predicted that the legal maneuver would fail.
But Democrats who control the panel called Mueller’s testimony an “inflection point” and are now seeking to add more evidence about what they believe to be serious wrongdoing by Trump.
“Some have argued that because [Mueller] was reluctant and seemed older than some remembered him, his work is somehow diminished,” said Nadler, who argued the hearing produced a “great change” on the issue of impeachment, but said Democrats need to continue building a public case about Trump’s transgressions.
“The evidence has got to be so solid and out there that impeaching the president wouldn’t tear the country apart,” Nadler said.
As of Friday, 101 House Democrats had voiced support for opening an impeachment inquiry, even as Pelosi has continued to counsel a more deliberate approach.
“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed, not one day sooner,” she said at her weekly news conference.
Pelosi was also dismissive of suggestions that she is trying to “run out the clock” with her reluctance to start impeachment proceedings, saying, “Let’s get sophisticated about this.”
Nadler said ahead of the court filing that the grand jury information “is critically important for our ability to examine witnesses” like McGahn and for the committee to investigate the president.
It’s unclear what new information might be found in the grand jury transcripts. Many of the high-profile witnesses connected to the White House, for instance, appeared for voluntary questioning before Mueller’s team rather than before the grand jury.
Trump said later Friday that “all they want to do is impede.” Democrats “want to investigate, they want to go fishing,” Trump said.
The panel has struggled to bring in witnesses like McGahn who spoke extensively to Mueller because the White House has directed them to refuse to testify. Trump has said he will fight “all of the subpoenas.”
Nadler said the committee is still negotiating with McGahn for documents and testimony, and the committee will file the lawsuit “in very short order” if he does not comply.
Information for this article was contributed by Mary Clare Jalonick, Eric Tucker and Zeke Miller of The Associated Press; by Nicholas Fandos and Charlie Savage of The New York Times; and by John Wagner, Colby Itkowitz and Kayla Epstein of The Washington Post.