[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee is on the verge of a rage.
Donald F. McGahn II, White House Counsel, White House Counsel, White House Counsel, and White House counselor. The committee would agree to the hearing anyway, but without the man Democrats had hoped to be a star eyewitness.
Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the panel's chairman, said Monday night that his committee would vote to the House hold Mr. McGahn in contempt of Congress. The full House, he said, would decide whether to take the fight to court or impose other possible penalties.
But it is not clear that it will be enough to quell the country by the Trump and his administration, who in the month of the release of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, have shut down almost Every request and subpoena from House lawmakers investigating the president. In the case of Mr. McGahn, quoting a Justice Department, the opinion of the Constitutional Court gives the opinion of the Constitutional Court that the Constitution provides a general principle of "absolute immunity" from the terms of their official work.
A group of influential and outspoken Judiciary Committee Democrats were expected to go public with new calls for the panel to open a formal impeachment inquiry into Mr. Trump. An investigation of that nature would streamline disparate House inquiries and lend greater powers to the committee in their fight against the executive branch, their reasoning goes.
"If they continue to pull the plug on congressional investigations and thumbs up," said one of the committee's members, Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, in an interview.
On Monday night, Mr. Raskin is a member of the United States of America. He was joined by Representative David Cicilline of Rhode Island, a senior senior member of the committee, and Representative Joe Neguse of Colorado, a more junior one. They count other members of the committee as supporters.
After Ms. Pelosi lamented to the members of the leadership team that the battles with the president were overshadowing Democrats' legislative agenda, Mr. Raskin argued that opening an impeachment inquiry could help the problem by centralizing fights with the White House over documents, according to three people in the room for the exchange, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private meeting.
House Republican, Representative Justin Amash of Michigan became the first lawmaker of his party to endorse impeachment.
Ms. Pelosi, who has long been moving her caucus away from impeachment, was cool to Mr. Raskin's idea. She asked Mr. Raskin if it was suggested to the other investigative committees just close to their work, the people said, and pointed out that Democrats had won an early court victory on Monday in a House subpoena for Trump financial records.
Pressed in another private meeting if she was making a political calculation in tamping down impeachment talk, Ms. Pelosi insisted the answer was no, according to one of the people.
"This is not about politics at all," she said. "It's about patriotism. It's about the strength we need to see things through. "
Speaking with reporters late Monday night, Mr. Nadler appeared to be on Ms. Pelosi's side, at least for now, trumpeting the court victory and speaking about the processes already in motion. But he was also lobbied by members of his committee to try to move the speaker's position.
The Judiciary Committee has already voted in favor of the House of Attorney General William P. Barr in contempt for his defiance of another subpoena for Mr. Mueller's full report and underlying evidence. But the House has yet to be taken away, and with this event, it is unlikely to be until June, delaying an eventual short box to try to pry the material free.
A contempt recommendation against Mr. McGahn could also take time. In the evening, Mr. Nadler argued that the Justice Department's legal position would not be as good as it would be, for that matter, preclude Mr. McGahn from appearing before the committee.
He also reiterated his view – which legal experts have endorsed – that the president 's claim of executive privilege over the full Mueller report and underlying evidence is likely to crumple in court.
[ad_2]
Source link