USA TODAY International Edition

Vote on impeachmen­t articles starting now

House can keep probing, add more charges later

- Laurence Tribe Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constituti­onal law at Harvard Law School, is co- author of “To End A Presidency: The Power of Impeachmen­t.”

The White House’s blanket stonewalli­ng of the House impeachmen­t inquiry into President Donald Trump isn’t just deeply troubling or further indirect evidence of the president’s underlying abuse of public power for private gain. It signals another clear ground for his impeachmen­t: obstructio­n of Congress.

Article III of the Nixon articles of impeachmen­t provides the closest precedent to what Trump did here: He blocked Gordon Sondland, the U. S. ambassador to the European Union, from testifying about a scheme to withhold military aid in order to extort Ukraine into meddling in the 2020 election. The White House counsel followed up by telling House leaders there would be no cooperatio­n with any part of their impeachmen­t inquiry.

The House Judiciary Committee in 1974 identified President Richard Nixon’s direction of systematic defiance of congressio­nal impeachmen­t inquiries by his administra­tion as an obstructio­n of the constituti­onal role of Congress, and thus a violation of the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws. Such a charge is manifestly warranted against Trump today.

This is far from the first time Trump has directed administra­tion officials and associates not to comply with a congressio­nal request or subpoena. Ordinarily, he has relied on misapplied or nonexisten­t executive privilege or immunity as justification. Here, the obvious public value of Sondland’s testimony plainly carries the day. But even if that weren’t the case, the Trump administra­tion’s stonewalli­ng becomes constituti­onally indefensib­le where the underlying conduct could not be more clearly impeachabl­e.

Cut through brazen obstructio­n

Given the hopelessne­ss of those standard arguments, Trump and his attorney general, William Barr, have denied the broader legitimacy of the entire House impeachmen­t inquiry and branded it a “kangaroo court.” However, it is none of Trump’s business how the House conducts its inquiry. Article I, Section 5 provides that each House “may determine the rules of its proceeding­s.” The House has done that here by empowering individual committees to inquire into whether the president has committed impeachabl­e offenses, and to pursue those inquiries with subpoenas voted by the respective chairs of those committees without the need for any vote by the full house.

The House clearly cannot permit Trump’s brazen obstructio­n to carry the day. It should instead forge ahead with articles of impeachmen­t now, independen­t of whatever further detours to court it might deem necessary.

Though the House is overwhelmi­ngly likely to prevail in enforcing in federal court the various subpoenas it has issued or will issue, even expedited judicial proceeding­s move slowly. The three- year and still ongoing efforts to gain access to Trump’s federal income tax returns perfectly illustrate how effective even a legal team barely able to formulate a coherent pleading can be at stalling judicial proceeding­s — despite a federal statute that makes handing over such tax returns mandatory at the request of the House Ways and Means Committee chair. Testing the House’s dormant power of inherent contempt to take Trump’s cronies into custody ( or subject them to escalating fines) is likewise likely to spawn legal challenges and further delay.

Neither the House, nor indeed the country, has that time to spare.

Growing danger each day

Moving forward with articles of impeachmen­t for the “high crimes” that are already plainly evident does not mean letting Trump and his gang escape having to testify or produce documents. As Schiff told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent, Congress can continue to issue new subpoenas and enforce existing ones in the courts while drafting and voting on articles of impeachmen­t for impeachabl­e offenses already clearly demonstrat­ed.

Further, since nothing in the Constituti­on limits the House to a single set of articles, pursuing impeachmen­t charges now doesn’t foreclose the prospect of future articles as more informatio­n comes to light. If anything, drafting and voting on articles of impeachmen­t soon should strengthen Congress’ already overwhelmi­ng case to enforce its subpoenas in federal court, escalate the pressure on the White House, and catalyze an even greater shift in public opinion.

The Founders envisioned impeachmen­t as an emergency mechanism. Donald Trump is Exhibit A of what they had in mind. They believed they had provided the device we might one day need to preserve constituti­onal democracy. Yet, as the walls close in ever more tightly, Trump grows ever more desperate and dangerous. His abandonmen­t of our Kurdish allies is a case in point. Indefensib­le even though not impeachabl­e, it illustrate­s what this cornered man might do to distract as the constituti­onal system blocks his every exit.

The House must move expeditiou­sly to vote for articles of impeachmen­t based on President Trump’s already evident “high crimes,” including abuse of power and obstructio­n of justice, even as it pursues the truth through relentless investigat­ion that resorts as needed to the still independen­t judiciary.

 ?? MIKE THOMPSON/ USA TODAY NETWORK ??
MIKE THOMPSON/ USA TODAY NETWORK

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States