[ad_1]
WASHINGTON – The legislature voted Tuesday to authorize the Judiciary Committee to issue two subpoenas related to the investigation of Robert S. Mueller III, threatening to open a new front of law to Democrats' efforts to investigate President Trump and his administration.
The resolution, which adopted the party's lines, 229 to 191, gives the Judicial Committee the power to ask a federal judge to compel Attorney General William P. Barr and the former White House lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, to comply with Congressional summonses. have completely or partially challenged.
But it also allows other committees of the House to use justice more quickly in future litigation – authorities that could quickly be put to the test. The House oversight and reform committee, for example, is expected to vote on Wednesday to recommend separate contempt quotes against Barr and Trade Secretary Wilbur Ross following the panel's investigation into of the administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.
"We are here in a struggle for the soul of our democracy and we will use all the tools at our disposal to hold this administration accountable for its actions and to ensure that the government works effectively for all people," Representative Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland and Chairman of the Oversight Committee, told reporters after the vote.
Despite previous threats and a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee, Democrats have ceased formally to condemn Mr. Barr or Mr. McGahn in contempt of Congress for the time being, waiving a crime charge in favor of what they hope to be a continuous lever to force cooperation. . The decision seems to be based, at least in part, on the new signs of compromise of the Ministry of Justice, which Monday agreed, after weeks of hostilities, to begin to share the main evidence gathered in Mr. Mueller's obstruction of justice investigation.
[[[[Read the resolution of the House.]
The Committee had asked Mr. Barr and the Department of Justice to provide him with the full text of the Special Council's report and the supporting evidence, and for Mr. McGahn to testify in public and produce evidence. evidence he had presented to Mr. Mueller.
Neither the Justice Department nor Mr. McGahn's lawyers immediately commented on the vote.
Democratic House leaders have called the vote an essential step in their methodical march to expose Trump's behavior and put pressure on the Trump government to cooperate with congressional demands for oversight. They also clearly saw a way to delay calls in their ranks in order to quickly dismiss the president, claiming that this showed that there were other ways to use their power to hold him to responsible.
"The responsibility of the speaker and of myself is to try to move forward in a measured, focused and effective way to gather the information the American people need to make decisions. and for us to make decisions, and I think we do, "said Maryland Representative Steny H. Hoyer, leader of the House majority.
President Nancy Pelosi, speaking to legislators in the House shortly before the vote, presented the court's authorizations as a step forward in keeping with the principle that Congress was "constitutionally obliged and legally entitled to access documents of the executive power and to examine them ".
If they follow up on the lawsuits, the Democrats will actually appeal to a third branch of the government, the federal judiciary, to settle a dispute between the legislative and executive powers over congressional law to conduct investigations and prosecutions. extent of the power of the president to protect. proof of the legislators. The answer could have important consequences not only for Mr. Trump, but also for the control of executive power for decades.
But there is no guarantee that the courts will give them a useful result – at least not quickly. Past cases extend over months or even years, which could be a problem for Ms. Pelosi and her team as they try to contain the calls for removal.
It was not immediately clear how quickly the Democrats would take legal action against Mr. McGahn, a key figure in Mr. Mueller's report, or whether they were trying to enforce the law against him. Mr. Barr. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee, New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, told reporters on Tuesday that the House would not hang around, but that the timing would depend on the General Counsel of the House who represents legislators in court. The lawyer, Doug Letter, will address the Democrats Wednesday morning at an in camera meeting.
"We will not go to court with the Attorney General until, in good faith, they do what they have agreed to do," Nadler said after the vote.
Tuesday's resolution also gives Mr. Nadler the power to ask a federal judge for access to the grand jury's secret documents collected during Mr. Mueller's investigation. This information is rarely made public, but Mr. Nadler explained that his committee needed to have access to it to determine whether an indictment was warranted. His efforts to persuade the Department of Justice to join him in making this request have been postponed.
The dispute within the Oversight Committee could soon test another provision of Tuesday's resolution, allowing committees to immediately bring the courts to enforce the subpoenas without a vote in the full House, provided that they have the blessing of their leaders.
Wednesday's vote for contempt comes from an investigation into why the Trump government is trying to add a citizenship question to the census, fearing the Democrats will remove population figures in liberal-prone areas before Congress seats are redistributed.
This spring, Barr asked a subordinate involved in the census question to challenge a subpoena requiring him to appear for a statement. He cited a rule of the House preventing a lawyer from the Department of Justice from accompanying the witness.
In a letter to Cummings on Tuesday, the Trump government said Trump would most likely invoke executive privilege if the panel did not back down. He added a A memo recently disclosed by the Office of the Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice sets out the argument that the appearance evidence was invalid because it encroached upon Mr. Trump's executive powers.
Despite the Democrats' calls to convince them to put their loyalty to the House, the Republicans unanimously opposed permission to take legal action. They said the democrats intent on destitution were neglecting more pressing political issues, such as those of migrants, which are overwhelming resources for the government on the south-western border.
"They are so entangled in their efforts to dismiss the president, the investigations and battles that are going on in their own caucus, that they seem unable to do anything that the American people have elected us to come here and to do it, "said the representative. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, Republican No. 3.
They also questioned the wisdom of their decision to bypass the formal contempt votes to go directly to court. In previous cases – including 2012 when Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. controlled the Republican-controlled Attorney General – the entire House voted in favor of this censorship before going to court. to request the execution of the subpoena.
"It's new, untested and risky," said Georgia Representative Doug Collins, Republican on the Judiciary Committee. "I will give it to you," he continued, "this majority is bold."
[ad_2]
Source link