Democrats maintain Trump's censorship on the table

Democrats in the House are considering a censorship move President TrumpDonald John TrumpThe Leader of the Anti-Abortion Group Pledges to Spend M During the 2020 Electoral Cycle Clyburn reflects on his remarks about the impeachment The Ministry of Transport seeks to quell the protests against the pipelines: report PLUS as a possible alternative to the dismissal of a president, they have been accused of blatant wrongdoing during the term of office.

A censorship resolution – essentially a public reprimand – lacks the inherent threat of impeachment to remove a sitting president. But supporters say it would send a clear and immediate message to voters that Democrats take seriously their constitutional responsibility to control the mistakes of leaders.

The issue of censorship comes at a time when Democrats are advancing with other congressional tools to attack Trump administration officials. The House should vote next week to organize the Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrDOJ rejects accusations that the GOP strategist played a role in the census citizenship issue. Press: Mueller must be called to testify before the House to hold the contempt vote in Barr over Mueller's report next week. in defiance of the refusal to comply with a subpoena to appear before a special advocate Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerThe house's House sign faces a decisive week on Trump Mueller's bid to withdraw from public life A Democratic lawmaker: "The only thing I can talk about what to talk about is dismissal MOREThe full report and related evidence.

representative Ro KhannaThe Rohit (Ro) KhannaKey House Group faces a decisive week on Trump Sanders who relies on Iowa to impose himself in front of Biden Hillicon Valley: Pelosi blames Facebook for failing to dismantle a tampered video | Democrats reinforce election security after Mueller warning | Critics Reject FCC Report on Broadband Access | Uber will ban passengers with bad ratings MORE (D-Calif.), Who called for Trump's immediate censorship, said it would send a warning to future administrations that Congress would not remain inactive in the face of presidential malpractice.

And unlike the impeachment, which requires overwhelming support from the Senate, the Democrat-controlled House could censure Trump without a single Republican on board.

"The advantage is that it can be done with the House," he said. "We can hold the president accountable and say that his actions are unethical, that he is committing a flagrant mistake and that future presidents can be held responsible."

"It's a permanent mark on the president's record," said Khanna.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) stood out in the face of censorship. They proposed the punitive measure after Trump defended the white nationalists who organized deadly protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, and the following year, then chairman of the CBC. Cedric RichmondCedric Levon Richmond Biden President puts pressure on Democrats to subscribe to The Hill's Morning Report – Trump turns the page for Mueller to investigate Democrats' campaign for Mueller to testify MORE (D-La.) Presented a GOP-controlled House censorship resolution, condemning Trump after the president described some developing countries, including those in Africa, as "makeshift country".

More recently, the representative. Steve CohenStephen (Steve) Ira CohenDemocratic Elector: Trump should not be allowed to attend the D-Day ceremony Trump: Demons do nothing at Congress Dem. Rep: Pelosi & # 39; must do what is right and impunity Trump PLUS (D-Tenn.) Launched a censorship in March, after the publication of Mueller's report on Russia's interference in the elections.

The idea did not attract Democratic leaders, but the President Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiClyburn revisits her remarks about dismissal Buttigieg: I should think twice before giving strategic advice to Nancy Pelosi Hillicon Valley: House Judiciary opens antitrust investigation on tech giants | Senate to receive briefing on election security | Quest Diagnostics violation exposes data on 11.9 million patients | House puts the audience on "deepfakes" MORE (D-Calif.) – who is under increasing pressure to get results as Democrats in the House pursue a series of aggressive investigations into possible presidential failings – said she's n & # 39; It excluded nothing as these surveys evolved.

"We'll see where they'll take us," Pelosi said last week. "Nothing is on the table."

A resolution of censorship could provide an outlet for democrats increasingly impatient with the pace of investigations, which have been hampered by the murmurs of the administration. The clashes with the White House have largely been transferred to the courts, and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis Nadler Top Judiciary Republican: Mueller believes "you are guilty until we prove your innocence" Seven key allies for Pelosi during the dismissal Democrats are short of essences to get away from the stimulus book PLUS (D-N.Y.) Said last week that he was not expecting these cases to be fully resolved before September or October.

Barr's contempt vote could also ease some pressure – for the time being – among Democrats demanding strong action.

However, censorship carries risks, according to a number of former Democratic legislators who follow the course of the saga.

"The advantage is that it may become a strategic substitute for an impeachment process that could turn against voters," said the former representative. Steve IsraelSteven (Steve) J. IsraelThe climate policy makes us think of the joke The Hill's Morning Report – Trump does not say legislation before Dems puts an end to his investigation The lonely world of Justin Amash MORE (D-N.Y.). "The disadvantage is that it could hurt investigations by House Democrats."

"If you adopt a censorship resolution, I guess you could argue that you no longer need these investigations because you have already censored the guy," he added.

Former Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) warned that it was too early to know whether Trump's actions deserved censorship or indictment. He said he supported Pelosi's slow move to gather more evidence of wrongdoing from the president before taking either action.

"The most important thing to do is to proceed in a way to resolve the proper role of the legislature in relation to the executive," said Pomeroy, referring to the courts. "Solving this problem will then open the door to the possibility of creating a disc that can or can not support censorship."

"To do it prematurely is more like:" We do not really like you. "And such a statement really does not matter," he added. "You must first be able to create a disc.

Censoring a president is extremely rare: only Andrew Jackson was the subject of such a formal reprimand, which was passed in the Senate in 1834 after Jackson refused to disclose records of his efforts to deny funds to the Second Bank of the United States.

In 1860, the House passed a resolution accusing President Buchanan of awarding military contracts for political ends. But while the resolution censored the secretary of the navy, she offered only a "reproach" to the president. "So, one could argue that the House has chosen a less strong reprimand for the president," wrote last year the Congressional Research Service in a report on censorship.

Presidents Lincoln, Tyler, Polk, Nixon and Clinton have also been the subject of censorship proposals, but these measures have never been adopted.

Pelosi is no stranger to the censorship process. When Clinton was deposed in 1998, the Democrats sought instead to censor their ally in the White House – a move that Republicans said was contrary to the Constitution. Pelosi and then-Rep. Charles SchumerCharles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerDisability Financing Policy – Why do Americans hate the secret sauce of Congress? According to the Democratic strategist, McConnell's comments on the vacancy in the Supreme Court are "a blessing". (D-N.Y.), Who is now the leader of the minority in the Senate, believed the opposite and took the floor to plead his case.

"The power of congressional censorship is a clear corollary of the inherent power of legislatures as a deliberative body to express themselves," said Pelosi at the time.

Former representative Tony Coelho (D-Calif.), Who led Democrats' campaign arm during much of the 1980s, said that there were sharp differences between the Clinton events, the most obvious being that Pelosi is facing a Republican at the White House. Nevertheless, he said that she learned from these events.

"Do not forget that she was a Democrat supporting a Democratic president." She thought that he had done something wrong and she said that she deserved to be blamed. Coelho said, "What she's learned is that the dismissal basically helped Clinton and that the censorship would probably have made no difference, anyway." And I think she's right about it .

Supporters of censorship like Khanna recognize that they risk attacks from the left; Defenders of the impeachment, in Capitol Hill and elsewhere, will surely judge a non-binding censorship resolution too soft.

Khanna pointed out that censoring Trump would not prevent the Democrats from coming back later on the impeachment.

"It does not prevent anything. It's just something, he says.

And he is quick to point out that any impeachment effort in the House is almost certain to die in a Senate controlled by Trump's Republican allies.

"What pinches an impeachment where the Senate acquits?" I mean, that's no reason either, except to show you're opposed to the president's behavior, "said Khanna. "[Censure] is a cleaner way to do it. "