But first. On Oct 8, 2019, White House Counsel Pat A. Cipollone served notice to House Democrats that the White House will not cooperate with their impeachment inquiry into President Trump. It was an eight page scathing rebuke of the Impeachment inquiry. It reads, in part, like a typical Trump Twitter rant, but its level of coherence is far above the capability of the “fucking moron” that sits in the White House. It says,
you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the
American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now
apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results
of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election,
Hey Pat, I got news for ya. That’s what impeachment does.
The second paragraph of the letter says,
“For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to
call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to
have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You
have conducted your proceedings in secret.”
Hey Pat, I got news for ya. You only get to do that in preparation for and during trial. A prosecutor must make available to the defense all exculpatory evidence and a witness list before trial. Defense is allowed to cross-examine witnesses during trial and to call their own witnesses.
Many legal scholars call into question the White House claim that the inquiry violates due process. They also make a point that the Fourteenth Amendment only applies in cases which would potentially…
“deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”
An impeachment doesn’t threaten this. It only removes someone from public office.
In addition, have you ever heard the term Grand Jury? The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution refers to it:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless
on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,…
A House impeachment inquiry is akin to a Grand Jury and as such Grand Juries, which return indictments in
many criminal cases, operate in closed deliberation proceedings; they are given specific instructions regarding the law by the judge. Many constitutional restrictions that apply in court or in other situations do not apply during grand jury proceedings. For example, the exclusionary rule does not apply to certain evidence presented to a grand jury; the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth or Sixth amendments cannot be introduced in court. Also, an individual does not have the right to have an attorney present in the grand jury room during hearings.
I know this because I watch Law & Order.
There was an episode in which the person against whom a Bill of Indictment was requested wanted to testify to the Grand Jury. They have that right. The person’s lawyer was present and objected to a question put forth by the District Attorney. The DA respectfully told the defense attorney to shut up, and was reminded that he is NOT a participant in the proceedings.
A vast majority of lawmakers in Congress are…Wait for it…LAWYERS! They should know this.
One glaring problem of the letter is the absolute lack of citations to case law even when Cipollone refers to a Supreme Court decision where he asserts,
The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all
congressional investigations. Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process
Clause applies to impeachment proceedings.
Hey Pat. Where’s your proof. Any lawyer should know that when you submit a brief, you cite CASE LAW.
If you read The Mueller Report you will see that anytime a legal point is raised, the pertinent case law is cited. There are literally dozens, if not more, instances of this.
The letter further complains that there must be a vote of the full house to initiate an inquiry; an issue raised by nearly all Republicans on the hill. It reads,
the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an
impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking
political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic
constitutional step.
This is not necessary. The word impeachment is only mentioned seven times in the Constitution, and is only mentioned ONCE in Article I which enumerates the responsibility of the House of Representatives. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate that a vote of the full House must be conducted. Essentially it is giving the House the power to set its own rules concerning impeachment.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 5
5: The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other
Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Hey Pat. Where does it say vote by the full House? Yes, it was done for Nixon and Clinton. So what?
In the words of Law & Order’s ADA McCoy, Shut up, Pat.
By the way, The Constitution says,
Article I, Section 3, Clause 7
7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to
removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of
honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall
nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and
Punishment, according to Law. (my emphasis)
See you in court, Donald.