Replies to post #133522 on Just Politics

[BullNBear52]

Specifically, Democrats want to compel former White House counsel Donald McGahn — who witnessed multiple, damning instances of Trump obstructing justice — to testify to Congress, over the White House’s objections.

The House is set to sue to make this happen, with the goal of getting a judge to rule on the administration’s claim that the White House can assert “absolute immunity” to such requests. If Democrats win that, it could compel more cooperation on other fronts.

But an impeachment inquiry would make that more likely to succeed. As the Times reports, Judiciary members believe a unilateral inquiry without a full House vote would accomplish that goal:

Doing so, they think, would strengthen their hand in the courts and potentially persuade judges to move more quickly on cases such aslike the potential one against Mr. McGahn, while building on any momentum generated by Mr. Mueller.


Exactly.

[janice shell]

Fortunately, there is an answer to this problem: The House Judiciary Committee can launch an impeachment inquiry independently, without any vote by the full House.

And that's a good solution. Jerry Nadler, among others, is likely to be primaried next year, and this is a way to show the people in his New York district that he's willing to do what they want.

And if he does what's proposed, congressmen from more conservatives won't have to vote on an issue that may be controversial in their own districts.