House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...l2a?li=BBnb7Kz
The House is open to the prospect of impeaching President Donald Trump a second time, lawyers for the Judiciary Committee said Monday.
House Counsel Douglas Letter said in a filing in federal court that a second impeachment could be necessary if the House uncovers new evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct investigations of his conduct. Letter made the argument as part of an inquiry by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals into whether Democrats still need testimony from former White House counsel Don McGahn after the votes last week to charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

“If McGahn’s testimony produces new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the Articles approved by the House, the Committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment,” Letter wrote.
It’s the first impeachment-related filing by the House since lawmakers voted, mostly along party lines, to impeach Trump over allegations stemming from efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his Democratic rivals. It comes just hours after the Justice Department argued that the impeachment votes undercut lawmakers’ ongoing court case demanding testimony from McGahn, who was special counsel Robert Mueller’s central witness.
In a brief filed early Monday morning, DOJ lawyers acknowledge that the House’s approval of two articles of impeachment — focused on Trump’s alleged effort to withhold aid from Ukraine and his blockade of the House inquiry — do not render moot the legal fight over McGahn.


However, the Justice Department attorneys said the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to move forward with impeachment means there’s no longer urgency to resolve the House’s case. That bolsters the Trump administration’s argument that the courts should simply butt out of the legal showdown, the DOJ filing says.
“The reasons for refraining are even more compelling now that what the Committee asserted — whether rightly or wrongly — as the primary justification for its decision to sue no longer exists,” the DOJ lawyers wrote, without elaborating on that claim.
A second Justice Department brief in a related case — the Judiciary Committee's demand for Mueller's grand jury evidence — suggests without basis that the Judiciary Committee's decision to advance articles of impeachment on the Ukraine scandal have effectively ruled out any effort to impeach the president based on Mueller's evidence, therefore rendering the matter moot.
It's unclear why the Justice Department argues that the committee has conceded that the Mueller impeachment investigation is over when House lawyers and lawmakers have described it as ongoing and active.
House lawyers indicated in advance of last week’s committee and floor votes that the panel planned to push on with its impeachment-related investigations. Democratic lawmakers who led the House impeachment inquiry have long contended that their efforts to gather more evidence would continue and that the timing of the impeachment vote reflected the urgency of the matter, not the conclusion of the effort to obtain witnesses and documents.
Letter’s new filing emphasizes the fact that nothing precludes the House from impeaching Trump again if it unearths new evidence, though no member of Democratic leadership has suggested such a course, particularly with a looming Senate trial and the presidential primary season imminent.
Letter also notes that McGahn’s testimony could become crucial evidence in the upcoming Senate trial.
“McGahn’s testimony is critical both to a Senate trial and to the Committee’s ongoing impeachment investigations to determine whether additional Presidential misconduct warrants further action by the Committee," he argued. Letter added that McGahn’s testimony is important aside from these matters, as the House considers legislation that might arise from the details of Trump’s conduct.
The filings landed Monday amid an ongoing struggle between Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell over whether a Senate trial — whose contours remain unsettled — will include testimony from witnesses who never appeared before any House panel. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, in particular, has requested testimony from acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton.
Justice Department attorneys argued in their new submission that the coming Senate trial is yet another reason for the judicial branch to stand aside.
“If this Court now were to resolve the merits question in this case, it would appear to be weighing in on a contested issue in any impeachment trial,” the DOJ legal team wrote. “The now very real possibility of this Court appearing to weigh in on an article of impeachment at a time when political tensions are at their highest levels — before, during, or after a Senate trial regarding the removal of a President — puts in stark relief why this sort of interbranch dispute is not one that has ‘traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process.’”
“This Court should decline the Committee’s request that it enter the fray and instead should dismiss this fraught suit between the political branches for lack of jurisdiction,” the Justice Department lawyers added.
The DOJ filing was one of several submissions expected Monday in response to requests the appeals court issued about an hour after the impeachment votes last week, seeking clarification of the impact of the votes on the McGahn case and a parallel legal fight for access to grand jury secrets in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
Both of those cases are expected to be heard on Jan. 3 by partially overlapping three-judge panels. The Justice Department, which brought the cases to the appeals court, is not urging any delay of those arguments. However, the DOJ lawyers said the court shouldn’t rush to get out a decision in the McGahn case — potentially leaving a ruling until after the expected impeachment trial is complete.


DPST's are already panning more "Impeachment in search of A Crime"!! They will abandon any pretense at bipartisan governance of America until Jan , 2025. Truly absurd in their TDS.

They can impeach for any number of things, and i’m Sure they are up to it

But they only have 11 months left

Probably they will have flurry of impeachments, one after the other, in their lame duck session between November’s election and when the new Congress is sworn in

You know el Diablo is walking the halls of congress seeking more impeachments for he knows his time is short

...Probably they will have flurry of impeachments, one after the other, in their lame duck session between November’s election and when the new Congress is sworn in... Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

We could start a pool on how many.

DPST House is already planning new Impeachment proceedings for next year.

They have only One Agenda.

pathetic!!!

relax Guys, the House will only seek another impeachment if they discover more reasons, like testimony that reveals incriminating behavior.. remember, Trump blocked REAL witnesses from testifying in the House, if they come forward in the Senate, there may be more grounds for more charges.

I know you hate to admit Trump blocked witnesses.. you would rather call it "Executive Privilege" that the co-equal branch of government would rule upon later. whatever the case, new information may bring new charges.. why is that a difficult notion?

We could start a pool on how many. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

DPST House is already planning new Impeachment proceedings for next year.

They have only One Agenda.

pathetic!!! Originally Posted by oeb11

Looks likes someOne is already pissing in your pools, UC!

And it’s that pasty faced little girl standings on the diving platform!

LOLLING yous

The Dims have investigated Trump and his administration for over 3 years. Have already sent many to jail for process crimes. The Dims had the CIA and FBI spy on the the campaign. They planted spies in his administration. They even raided the President personal attorney and collected evidence - an unheard of move.

But they're a subpoena and witness short to having President Trump red handed! Maybe a couple of tax returns!

This whole thing is the Dims using their Washington operatives to feed news organizations to keep their ratings up. This had nothing to do with "crimes and misdemeanors". It has all to do with the decoronation of Hillary. I'm tired of it.

The Dims have investigated Trump and his administration for over 3 years. Have already sent many to jail for process crimes. The Dims had the CIA and FBI spy on the the campaign. They planted spies in his administration. They even raided the President personal attorney and collected evidence - an unheard of move.

This had nothing to do with "crimes and misdemeanors". It has all to do with the decoronation of Hillary. I'm tired of it. Originally Posted by gnadfly

odd post.. you admit that many in Trump's orbit were caught and sentenced for crimes, yet you want us to believe the smoke we see coming from Trump has no fire behind it? and furthermore, should be ignored, because the motive isn't "pure"?

Hey CHUNGSTER been you been trolling any pastures for a little raw doggin' lately??

Hey beebsy, give your little mouse balls a tug, eh!

Still waiting to read something from yous that isn’t a rant. Or an insult.

Yous and oebsy must be joined at the hips. Unless....

Impeachment ,,,

relax Guys, the House will only seek another impeachment if they discover more reasons, like testimony that reveals incriminating behavior.. remember, Trump blocked REAL witnesses from testifying in the House, if they come forward in the Senate, there may be more grounds for more charges.

I know you hate to admit Trump blocked witnesses.. you would rather call it "Executive Privilege"



Because that's what it is but it does not mean the court will rule in Trump's favor. There is a very good chance they won't.



that the co-equal branch of government would rule upon later.


So you do understand this and yet bitch that it shouldn't be.


whatever the case, new information may bring new charges.. why is that a difficult notion? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Do you really not understand this? Trump can not block anybody if they choose to testify. Didn't Trump order Dr. Hill and all the others that testified not to testify and yet they did and still have their jobs?



Trump can tell any of these people that they will be covered by Executive Privilege "If" they "choose" not to testify. Those that did testify defied Trump and those that didn't decided to let a judge decide if they had to appear.


John Bolton is a private citizen. Trump can not "block" or compel him to testify but Bolton can say that the President has said under his Executive Privilege prerogative, that he doesn't have to unless a judge orders him to. This is the legal process and though the House can do anything it wants and call it obstruction of Congress, it isn't. If the court orders those individuals to testify and they refuse, they will be defying a court order and could be prosecuted but of course if ordered, all of them will testify.


Why make a big deal out of a perfectly legal process? If the House or Senate want people to testify and they say no, let the court decide but for Congress to say that it has the sole authority to demand somebody testify is simply incorrect or the court process would not be in place and the court would not be hearing the case on Jan. 3rd.


Again, if Bolton or Mulvaney or the other two witnesses do testify and say yes, Trump withheld funds and asked for an investigation into the Bidens, it won't change a thing. There will still be no crime, there will be no obstruction of Congress in the legal sense but that won't stop Democrats from calling it something it is not.


Pelosi went with the only two articles that had any chance or so they thought. To believe they left others out to be used "next time" is just silly but of course if the Democrats come up with something "new" that hasn't been brought up before, of course they can do the same thing again and again and again but each and every time they do that with something as weak as this case, they will be hurting their chances even more than they have done now.