Hillary Clinton says Congress should begin Watergate-style hearings after Mueller findings
Source: Bloomberg
WASHINGTON Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said Congress should begin a Watergate-style investigation into President Donald Trumps attempts to obstruct Robert Muellers probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election that she lost.
Clinton wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that lawmakers should undertake substantive hearings on the special counsels report from his investigation and shouldnt jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment.
Obviously, this is personal for me, and some may say on that Im not the right messenger, she acknowledged. But the decision between Trumps immediate impeachment and doing nothing, she wrote, is a false choice.
It was a mistake for Republicans to pursue impeachment in 1998 against her husband, President Bill Clinton, and would be a mistake now.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-says-congress-should-begin-watergate-style-hearings-after-mueller-findings/ar-BBWg4Dq?li=BBnb7Kz
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)That would allow us to get Mueller's grand jury info.
yardwork
(61,687 posts)SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If todays House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Hillary should know, she was there. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
That is what we need to do now.
As I have also been saying for days (although Hillary does not mention it in her piece, BUT I AM SURE SHE KNOWS), regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no inherent power to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committees subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trumps former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barrs decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committees right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadlers committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional oversight committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutors office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a grand jury investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the exception for judicial proceedings and coheres with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is not worth it. That decision may hamstring Nadlers quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government oversight to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee and the public about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trumps selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must go this route, and do it immediately.
So, you don't have to believe me, just listen to Hillary Clinton and Lawrence Tribe.
Response to SunSeeker (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
gldstwmn
(4,575 posts)pecosbob
(7,542 posts)This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger, she said.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)I've felt so alone calling for them these last few days, and being mocked...until Hillary's piece today.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039878
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12040085
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12042951
Can I have a link to your posts?
pecosbob
(7,542 posts)that generalized investigations should be begun and impeachment proceedings follow, as they did in Watergate. There are so many issues Dems need to address immediately that go far beyond collusion or obstruction. Impeachment should be an organic result of those investigations and this will likely take a lot of time to complete...
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039447
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039488
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)"I think investigations can begin and impeachment can be left on the shelf for now." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039575
"It's vastly more important to address the criminal enterprise that is the GOP than to impeach Trump." https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039488
Dems can and should investigate the numerous cases of wrondoing [sic]by the administration. They would take an extended period of time. Even if impeachment is the end result that would not come for a year or more. The Senate will not get to intervene in any proceedings until such a time as impeachment proceedings are begun. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407
You have been shouting "BS" to folks calling for impeachment proceedings to commence. "I say BS to the OP...investigative hearings are called for" https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12039407
You have been dismissive of people like me who have been calling for impeachment proceedings to commence because you apparently believe "the Senate will get to intervene." But you are wrong. An impeachment proceeding is not just a vote on articles of impeachment, as Hillary made clear in her piece. It involves formal impeachment investigation hearings. That impeachment vote is the end of the impeachment process, not the beginning. The Senate does not come into play until the House votes on article of impeachment, passes them, and forwards them to the Senate for trial.
pecosbob
(7,542 posts)am I not speaking English? I have been dismissive of no one calling for immediate impeachment...just saying that impeachment is the end of a long process.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)Hence your opposition to immediately commencing impeachment. You insisted that we start "investigative hearings" first, for about "a year" then maybe go to impeachment. But regular oversight investigation hearings are very different from formal impeachment investigation hearings. Please let me explain why.
Hillary in her Op Ed called for immediately commencing formal impeachment investigation hearings because:
During Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee also began a formal impeachment inquiry that was led by John Doar, a widely respected former Justice Department official and hero of the civil rights struggle. He was determined to run a process that the public and history would judge as fair and thorough, no matter the outcome. If todays House proceeds to an impeachment inquiry, I hope it will find someone as distinguished and principled as Doar to lead it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-mueller-documented-a-serious-crime-against-all-americans-heres-how-to-respond/2019/04/24/1e8f7e16-66b7-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html?utm_term=.108a5648959e
Hillary should know, she was there, working as an impeachment lawyer for the committee. The process started with a formal House Resolution: "An impeachment process against Richard Nixon was formally initiated on February 6, 1974, when the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution, H.Res. 803, giving its Judiciary Committee authority to investigate whether sufficient grounds existed to impeach Richard Nixon, the 37th President of the United States of high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily related to the Watergate scandal....The Judiciary Committee set up a staff, the Impeachment Inquiry staff, to handle looking into the charges, that was separate from its regular Permanent staff. Based upon the recommendations of many in the legal community, John Doar, a well-known civil rights attorney in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who was a long-time Republican turned Independent, was hired by Rodino in December 1973 to be the lead special counsel for the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Doar shared with Rodino a view that the Senate hearings had gone overboard with leaked revelations and witnesses compelled to testify under immunity grants; they were determined to do things in a more thorough and objective process." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon
That is what we need to do now.
As I have also been saying for days (although Hillary does not mention it in her piece, BUT I AM SURE SHE KNOWS), regular oversight hearings do not give authority to Congress to obtain Mueller's grand jury info, only formal impeachment proceedings can do that.
As Lawrence Tribe stated in the Washington Post:
In a 2-to-1 decision in McKeever v. Barr, the court reaffirmed the principle of grand jury secrecy and concluded that a court has no inherent power to release grand jury information. This decision will give Barr a plausible basis to resist the Judiciary Committees subpoena of the entire Mueller report, even if the committee goes to court to enforce it. But both the House and the attorney general have ways to cope with this obstacle, if they have the political will and the professional judgment to do so.
In McKeever, two Republican appointees, including President Trumps former deputy White House counsel, concluded that grand jury information must remain confidential unless a request for disclosure falls within one of the narrow exceptions listed in the federal rules of criminal procedure. The court refused to allow the disclosure of grand jury proceedings relating to the 1957 indictment of an FBI agent suspected of conspiring with the regime of Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo to kidnap and murder an outspoken critic. Even though all the witnesses and principals died long ago, the court concluded that a historian writing a book about the incident could not get access to the grand jury proceedings.
In the face of Barrs decision not to disclose any of the Mueller report to the public or even to the House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D- N.Y.) until Barr and his team have scrubbed the report of grand jury information (and other material), Nadler and committee Democrats have authorized a subpoena for the full report, setting the stage for a court fight over the committees right to see grand jury information. Although the public need underlying the request for disclosure in McKeever was much less pressing, the decision in that case undermines the position of Nadlers committee, because the controlling federal rule contains no exception allowing congressional oversight committees to demand access to otherwise secret grand jury proceedings.
One of the exceptions to grand jury secrecy is disclosure preliminary to or in connection with a judicial proceeding. To authorize disclosure of the Watergate grand jury information, the special prosecutors office argued that the House had authorized its Judiciary Committee to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry and that such an inquiry could be fairly analogized to a grand jury investigation and thus a judicial proceeding. Both the district court and the court of appeals agreed, and the Judiciary Committee obtained both the report and the underlying evidence.
Significantly, the appeals court decision several days ago reaffirmed that exception. All three judges agreed that an impeachment inquiry falls within the exception for judicial proceedings and coheres with other rulings about the proper scope of grand jury secrecy.
But Pelosi has declined to allow the Judiciary Committee to open even a preliminary impeachment inquiry, asserting rather bizarrely that Trump is not worth it. That decision may hamstring Nadlers quest for the complete Mueller report. Nothing in the federal rules creates an explicit exception allowing congressional committees exercising general powers of government oversight to demand access to secret grand jury material. So, Pelosi and Nadler are confronting a dilemma of their own making: either revisit the politically fraught impeachment question or concede that the House is at the mercy of whatever judgment the attorney general makes in excising grand jury information, which may include the most salient material about possible collusion and obstruction of justice.
For his part, Barr also has delicate judgments to make. If he is so inclined, the attorney general could properly opt to exclude only the names and actual testimony of grand jury witnesses while nevertheless informing the Judiciary Committee and the public about the substance of the information developed during the proceedings. Unfortunately, Barr has given every indication that he intends to make needlessly sweeping redactions, especially having ruled that, in his judgment, the evidence of obstruction of justice did not rise to the level of a prosecutable crime. Trumps selection of his new attorney general may prove to be his best line of defense unless Pelosi revisits her stance and directs the House Judiciary Committee to include impeachment within its investigatory ambit.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-full-mueller-report-could-be-released--if-the-house-opens-impeachment-hearings/2019/04/08/e47fff42-5a14-11e9-a00e-050dc7b82693_story.html
Not only would trying to recreate the grand jury testimony be time-consuming and wasteful in a regular oversight hearing, now that the White House has ordered all Trump aides, including McGahn, to not respond to Congressional subpoenas, it will be next to impossible to do it in light of case law. But not if it is a formal impeachment investigation hearing. That is why we must commence the impeachment process and do so immediately.
yardwork
(61,687 posts)SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)yardwork
(61,687 posts)Hearings may very well lead to impeachment, but focusing on that now dissipates energy and sets up a false dichotomy. Your posts here focus on impeachment. We need to focus on hearings.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)Hillary is calling for formal impeachment investigation hearings. THAT is the whole point of her piece. That is how she is counseling us to respond. She is telling us to start the impeachment process.
Please quote where in the piece Hillary says to "stop focusing on impeachment."
ginnyinWI
(17,276 posts)So many people don't read or won't read something like the Mueller Report. They want pictures. If it's on TV or streamed with a lot of video clips on FB or Twitter, it will get a lot more people informed.
That's the point in her op-ed that stood out to me. Get the truth to the people, and then see where we go from there.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)Televised of course.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,615 posts)an independent commission like 9/11 would be transparent, quick, non partisan and fully funded (that is why the GOP never allowed it when Dems wrote bills introducing it). Also, televised hearings is the way to go...if they could get them up and running by the Summer, like during Watergate, this could get the ball moving faster.
Hillary is the voice I needed to hear. I trust her experience, judgment and unique position.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,615 posts)SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)onetexan
(13,050 posts)SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)She's always the smartest adult in the room!
yaesu
(8,020 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)nearly a year after the Senate Select Committee on Watergate hearings began. The senate hearings are what everyone was watching starting in the summer of 1973.
I agree about calling witnesses and getting the facts before Americans via televised hearings, but I believe the Dems are making a mistake by having the investigations done by individual committees. That makes everything disjointed. Pelosi needs to establish a select House committee to weave all these individual threads together. The senate select committee is the model to follow.
SunSeeker
(51,609 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,289 posts)dlk
(11,574 posts)Lights, cameras, action lets get started!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I know it is pure fantasy on my part. I would love to see a rematch with Hillary Clinton running for President. The election was stolen by foreign and domestic criminal behaviour.
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)K&R