Ministry of Justice Cites Dems Mixed Removal Messages to undermine House probe

The Justice Department flatly rejected Friday the assertion of Democratic House members to be conducting an "imputation investigation" on President Donald Trump, highlighting the misguided message from leaders Democrats in recent days, even citing the reluctance of President Nancy Pelosi to use the term at a press conference just a day ago.

In a new case filed Friday, Justice Department lawyers have argued that the House Judiciary Committee's efforts to obtain the most sensitive secrets of former special advocate Robert Mueller – evidence and testimony gathered by a grand jury – should be denied, in part because House Democrats can not agree on what to call their investigation.

History continues below

"The President of the House insisted that the investigation is not a proper indictment procedure," the lawyers wrote, citing Pelosi's statement in June that "the Democrats were not". not yet close "of such an approach.

Democrats in the House are trying to gain access to information from Mueller's grand jury, because the courts must recognize that they are conducting an impeachment investigation. By the end of July, the Judiciary Committee had stated that its imputation investigation met one of the exceptions to the federal grand jury secrecy rules: the House engaged in a "criminal investigation". 39 "imputation" and therefore initiated a preliminary action to a "judicial procedure" – the decision of the Senate. trial on the opportunity to dismiss Trump from his duties.

But the Justice Department refuted this claim on Friday, citing incoherent statements by top Democratic leaders – as well as their own claims that the ongoing investigation could result in countless other results than a single one. vote by indictment.

"The committee's description of its investigation clearly shows that it is too far removed from any potential legal process to qualify," the file says.

"As the chairman of the committee has pointed out – and as the House speaker and the House Majority leader have reiterated this week – the purpose of his investigation is to" evaluate many possible corrective measures, including censorship, impeachment articles, laws, constitutional amendments, and more, "he continues. "What can come from this investigation – if it is so – remains unknown and unpredictable."

Senior Democratic leaders have expressed concern this week that the lack of a unified message on the impeachment process could undermine their chances of appearing in court as they seek access to Mueller's secret files. and to the testimony of his principal witnesses, whom they deem necessary to determine whether or not Trump should be impeached.

Although a judge concluded that the Chamber's activities were sufficiently close to a preliminary inquiry, Justice Department lawyers went further, claiming that the indictment itself – and a revocation trial in the Senate – would still not be an exception to the grand jury's secrecy.

"[I]A referral procedure to Congress, including a hypothetical referral procedure to the Senate, does not constitute a "judicial process" in the plain and ordinary sense of that term, "they wrote.

The filing comes one day after the committee approved a set of technical procedures for its impeachment investigation, the most significant legislative initiative to date as part of the Democrats' potential effort to overthrow the president. Proponents of the impeachment said that approving the parameters was a historic endorsement of ongoing impeachment proceedings, but other Democrats – including Pelosi – have publicly downplayed that decision.

The thunderbolt has highlighted the reluctance of some Democrats to adopt the nickname "impeachment" amidst conflicting political agendas in the House's democratic caucus. Moderate Democrats, especially those who are vulnerable in 2020, have fled the impeachment speech, while the party's progressive base has urged Pelosi and his leadership team to adopt a more aggressive stance.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Initially proposed a "no" dish this week. He was asked if an impeachment investigation had been initiated, even though he had approved the legal statements of the House which indicated otherwise. He later returned these comments. And the Democratic Representative of House Number 5, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, said on Wednesday that he was not sure that a dismissal investigation had been opened before voting for the To support Thursday.

Last month, Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said his panel was engaged in a "formal impeachment procedure", a rhetorical escalation that echoes what the lawyers in the House had done. declared to federal judges in recent court filings. Nadler also said that if the courts acted quickly to resolve the dispute in the House, his committee could recommend impeachment by the end of the year. The Department of Justice quoted Nadler's comments in his filing Friday.

Nadler and his allies say that no formal vote of the House is needed to open an imputation hearing, noting that the removal of judges and some members of the executive that the Committee of the judiciary has overseen in recent decades has required no authorization from the House.

Although DOJ lawyers largely attributed their argument to the fact that the Democrats said the impeachment process was not the subject of their investigation, Mr. Nadler repeated Friday night that it was only a possible result.

"We have been very clear in recent months in court filings, in public statements, in official statements to the committee, that we are conducting an investigation in order, inter alia, to determine whether indictments should be made. to be reported. the whole House, "he told CNN, when he was asked to answer the DOJ's argument.

But Republicans believe that the removal of a president is a milder step and that the Democrats refuse to give full authorization for the investigation because they do not have votes – a dynamic motivated in part by external resistance from Pelosi to take this step.

Pelosi is aware of forcing the most vulnerable members of his caucus to take a politically difficult vote when impeachment efforts are virtually doomed to failure in a Republican-controlled Senate. She has repeatedly argued for continued prosecution and investigation of the President, although the majority of Democrats in the House are now in favor of dismissal or an impeachment investigation.

Republicans emphasized Pelosi's comments as evidence that no formal investigation had been opened. GOP leaders called the installation of Democrats "mockery."

"Their imaginary indictment is not going anywhere," Kevin McCarthy, House GOP leader said Friday morning at the annual House Republicans Retreat in Baltimore.

In their own legal filings, Democrats say they need Mueller's grand jury documents, as they could relate to their review of Trump's indictment articles. Mueller, in his 448-page report published in April, revealed evidence – some of which was based on grand jury testimony – that Trump had repeatedly tried to obstruct the investigation into the interfering Russia in the 2016 election.

The Justice Department shared Thursday with the judge appointed by Obama – Beryl Howell, chief justice of the federal court in Washington – elements of the grand jury file that the House seeks to obtain.

When initially tabled in July, Democrats argued that the "Jefferson Handbook", a parliamentary procedure guide used by the House and Senate, allows them to claim to be the object of 39, an impeachment investigation. The manual states that impeachment proceedings may be initiated in different ways, not just by a formal vote of the House. One method is to refer the acts of impeachment to the judicial commission.

As noted by Nadler and other Democrats, the House referred items to the committee of impeachment in January, claiming that these items are now officially in the study for approval or amendment.

Democrats in recent weeks have highlighted a series of House actions that they believe strengthen their position. In early June, the House voted to allow all committee chairs to enforce subpoenas in court – with the approval of House leaders acting on behalf of the entire House.

And last month, the House passed a resolution stating that all subpoenas and requests for information relating to Mr. Trump should be approved retroactively and in the future by the House. Proponents of the impeachment inquiry say that this shows that the House intended, even indirectly, to support impeachment proceedings without a formal vote.

Similarly, the Judiciary Committee officials noted that previous votes allowing impeachment proceedings were intended to authorize the commission to issue subpoenas and summons at a time when the commissions had much less power than they are in the modern era. Now, the committee already has the power to assign and file, they note.

Matthew Choi contributed to this report.