First: note the byline. Yes, I have not posted in almost a year, but you just might be seeing more of me again.
One of my favorite posts from back in the days when I posted regularly was the one on retroactive classification. The really fun part was the statement from J. William Leonard that retroactive classification is a “metaphysical impossibility”:
Today, Marcy included me in an email conversation with J. William Leonard, who previously served as the Director of the National Archives’ Information Security Oversight Office and before that as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Security and Information Operations. The question posed to Mr. Leonard was whether the retroactive classification of the report was properly carried out. Leonard’s response noted that since “the purpose of classification is to preclude unauthorized disclosure”, that is “a metaphysical impossibility for information whose disclosure was authorized in the first place.”
So imagine my delight when I went to the copy of the declassified whistleblower complaint and encountered this on only the second page:
On first glance though, it might be easy to say these two situations are different. In the case of my previous post, we were talking about a document that had already been published with an “unclassified” marking and was even mentioned in the press. Here, we are talking about a report that is being submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General and would, at least at the beginning of the process, be closely held. But the complaint, if found credible, was destined for dissemination to Congressional committees, and so would eventually be fairly widely seen. The whistleblower rightly was working to protect against someone realizing just how embarrassing the report is to the President and our government and deciding that the report should be buried rather than widely shared.
The comparisons, though, go much deeper. My earlier post goes on to discuss the use of retroactive classification in the cases of Sybel Edmonds, Thomas Drake, Franz Gayle and Robert MacLean. What do these people have in common? They were all whistleblowers. And as soon as the government realized just how embarrassed they would be when the truth came out, they tried their best to shove it back under a rock.
It is fortunate for us that this whistleblower has such a deep understanding of the classification process. Even better, this person appears to have a thorough understanding of the history of whistleblowers and what happens to the information they aim to disclose. The bit early in the report on classification does a good job of providing justification for the body of the report to be unclassified. Perhaps the note about retroactive classification is an attempt to leave a trail once it is attempted.
Remarkably, though, that is not the most important instance of retroactive classification in the report. The part of this report that may well have the most lasting historical impact is this (in what, ironically, was originally classified and now declassified):
So, “White House officials” realized just how embarrassing the call’s full transcript would be. We had learned earlier in the report that the White House Situation Room regularly produces a “word for word” transcript of calls and puts it on a computer system accessed by people at the Cabinet level. Further, the whistleblower informs us that this time, it was “White House lawyers” who directed that the transcript be removed from this system and moved to the more secure system. Coupled with the note from the appendix, we see that Trump’s White House has decided that retroactively classifying embarrassing information is their best bet for burying information to prevent it being spread by whistleblowers. We are so fortunate that this whistleblower fully understands that process and has even documented it for us, essentially in real time.
Time will tell, but it seems to me that by telling us there are more transcripts buried on the secure computer system, the whistleblower has provided a roadmap to information that may prove even more catastrophic for the Trump Administration than the disclosure of the attempt to get Ukraine to smear Joe and Hunter Biden.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/emptywheel-06_1500x1000.jpg10001500Jim Whitehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngJim White2019-09-27 12:36:262019-09-29 14:13:45Retroactive Classification: The Government’s Favorite Tool for Silencing Whistleblowers
I’m working on a new whip list right now. I’ll update this post with a refreshed whip list at the bottom of the page once I’ve collected the freshest batch. Last I checked we were between 138-148 House Democrats in favor of an impeachment inquiry or impeachment. The magic number is 218.
If you haven’t called your representative and asked them to support impeachment inquiry, please do so. If your representative already supports a formal inquiry, thank them to maintain their perception of public support.
Stress the urgency to take action — we can all see the Trump administration is degrading before our eyes. The whistleblower complaint needs investigation and only a formal impeachment inquiry will have the legal clout to override any attempts to obstruct investigation.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121 or use Resistbot.
Please make the effort to look up your representative’s local office for the phone number. Some constituents have reported their rep’s voicemail is full; having the local number will provide a fallback to contact them.
Recruit like-minded constituents, even kids, to call their representatives. Yes, youngsters who are too young to vote are still constituents entitled to representation.
It’s time.
. . .
UPDATE — 2:50 P.M. EDT —
I can’t update my own list fast enough right now. Here’s where three news outlets stand on their whip counts:
POLITICO: Who supports impeachment? 211 Democrats support impeachment or impeachment inquiry, 28 Democrats who don’t support impeachment or impeachment inquiry — yet as of last update 9/24/19
Looks like NBC and Politico caught up to each other. If this is accurate, we only need 8-9 Democrats yet to sign on to secure an authorizing resolution.
This is the current list I have of Dems who are not yet in support of an impeachment inquiry. Some are no surprise like Tulsi Gabbard, this general election’s Jill Stein. Or Henry Cuellar, who is far more conservative than his district — just asking for a primary to take him out.
Anthony Brindisi NY-22 R+6
Cheri Bustos IL-17 D+3
Henry Cuellar TX-28 D+9
Joe Cunningham SC-1 R+10
Sharice Davids KS-3 R+4
Rosa DeLauro CT-3 D+9
Tulsi Gabbard HI-2 D+19
Jared Golden ME-2 R+2
Vicente Gonzalez TX-15 D+7
Ron Kind WI-3 EVEN
Conor Lamb PA-17 (R+2.5 under 2016 map, may change)
Al Lawson Jr. FL-5 D+12
Dan Lipinski IL-3 D+6
Ben McAdams UT-4 R+13
Stephanie Murphy FL-7 EVEN
Tom O’Halleran AZ-1 R+2
Collin Peterson MN-7 (House Ag committee chair) R+12
Max Rose NY-11 R+3
Linda Sánchez CA-38 D+17
Kurt Schrader OR-5 EVEN
Terri Sewell AL-7 D+20
Donna Shalala FL-27 D+5
Xochitl Torres Small NM-2 R+6
Jeff Van Drew NJ-2 R+1
Susan Wild PA-7 (D+1.1 under 2016 map, may change)
Frederica Wilson FL-24 D+34
But Wilson, whose district is rated D+34? or Sánchez, who’s served for 16 years in a D+17 district?
Especially under a continuing blue wave, when the 2020 vote will be a referendum on Trump?
If one of these representatives are yours, call them and ask them to get behind a formal impeachment inquiry. Contact info above in this post.
UPDATE — 3:45 P.M. 25-SEP-2019 —
We are soooo close! Thank you to these Democrats who’ve finally stepped over to the right side of history:
Cheri Bustos IL-17 D+3
Henry Cuellar TX-28 D+9
Rosa DeLauro CT-3 D+9
Dan Lipinski IL-3 D+6
Stephanie Murphy FL-7 EVEN
Linda Sánchez CA-38 D+17
Terri Sewell AL-7 D+20
Donna Shalala FL-27 D+5
According to NBC’s list these eight representatives now bring the total number to 216 in support of a formal impeachment inquiry.
These folks are still Undecided or No votes:
Anthony Brindisi NY-22 R+6
Joe Cunningham SC-1 R+10
Sharice Davids KS-3 R+4
Tulsi Gabbard HI-2 D+19
Jared Golden ME-2 R+2
Vicente Gonzalez TX-15 D+7
Ron Kind WI-3 EVEN
Conor Lamb PA-17 (R+2.5 under 2016 map, may change)
Al Lawson Jr. FL-5 D+12
Ben McAdams UT-4 R+13
Tom O’Halleran AZ-1 R+2
Collin Peterson MN-7 (House Ag committee chair) R+12
Max Rose NY-11 R+3
Kurt Schrader OR-5 EVEN
Xochitl Torres Small NM-2 R+6
Jeff Van Drew NJ-2 R+1
Susan Wild PA-7 (D+1.1 under 2016 map, may change)
Frederica Wilson FL-24 D+34
What the heck is going on with the Ag Committee chair? As if Trump’s disastrous handling of trade hasn’t been enough reason to seek impeachment before this solicitation for foreign assistance to cheat his way into re-election.
And what’s going on with the lingering holdouts who are in D+ districts? This is a blue wave; the House was won in 2018 because the people wanted the White House restrained. They still want him restrained. Get on the right side of this.
If one of the holdouts is your representative, you know what to do.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WristWatchClock_Tristan-Colangelo-Unsplash_24SEP2019_bluetrans-2.jpg8441500Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-09-24 11:26:002019-10-18 11:25:26Whip It Good: Time Has Come Today [UPDATE-3]
It’s time to revisit the ongoing comparison of Nixon’s Articles of Impeachment with possible Articles against Donald Trump. Previous posts in this series:
An expansion of Part 2 into 2b addressing more abuses of power is planned in the near future. Trump continues to rack them up.
As noted in previous posts in this series, the House Judiciary Committee prepared five Articles of Impeachment against Richard M. Nixon during the course of its impeachment inquiry. Only three of the five were passed out of committee and approved by Congress. We all know Nixon resigned before the House could vote on the three approved articles.
The fourth article which was not approved pertained to Nixon’s Operation Menu — the covert bombing of Cambodia. Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, had not expressly approved this in its 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution. The bombings went unreported for four years and contributed to the destabilization of Cambodia.
A fundamental problem with this Article was that Congress bore some of the blame for the bombing; the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was written in such a way that it didn’t expressly preclude bombing of neighboring nations along the border with Vietnam. The resolution also did not constitute a declaration of war against North Vietnam, authorizing instead the use of military force to meet its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. The legality of the military action in Vietnam was on thin ground, making action on any neighboring country even more questionable.
~ ~ ~
It’s not impossible this very same challenges will form the basis for another Article of Impeachment against Trump should he pursue military action against Iran without adequate approval from Congress.
But we already have seen Trump take action without Congressional approval and without the support of existing legislation behind him, beginning with his first week in office. His Executive Order 13769 to begin a Muslim travel ban was illegal; he persisted in pushing a ban focusing on Muslims with subsequent Executive Order 13780 and Presidential Proclamation 9645 until his Departments of Justice and Homeland Security arrived at restrictions which met the letter of existing law according to a now-stacked and partisan Supreme Court after several lawsuits. This is not a faithful execution of the law — 8 U.S. Code § 1158.Asylum — it’s whack-a-mole with innocent humans as collateral damage for no constructive reason or benefit to this country.
When acting Attorney General Sally Yates announced the Department of Justice would not enforce the Muslim travel ban three days after Trump signed Executive Order 13769, she explained that the ban was not lawful. Trump rejected this opinion and fired her instead of relying on her expert opinion. He had to be told repeatedly by federal judges his executive order was not enforceable because it was unlawful.
People were detained unlawfully. People were unable to travel freely. The primary reason for their restriction was their religious identity — a violation of the First Amendment and its protections of religious freedom. It was a fundamental human rights violation under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory.
Trump’s introduction of a “zero tolerance” policy implemented during the first months of his term in office has also denied freedom of movement to persons seeking asylum at the border. The policy’s implementation resulted in systematic crimes against humanity including enslavement; deportation; imprisonment; torture; sexual assault including rape; persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds; other inhumane acts.
None of this was authorized by Congress; none of this is in 8 U.S. Code § 1158. These acts also violate numerous U.S. laws as well as treaties. While there is not currently a treaty on crimes against humanity, Trump’s bad faith execution of U.S. law and existing treaties like the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the U.N. Convention Against Torture spell out many of these crimes.
Again, Congress did not authorize acts like:
— separating children from parents or guardians;
— holding children in cages;
— trafficking separated children into unauthorized adoptions without parental or guardian consent;
— deportation of minors without parent or guardian;
— failure to track minors so they can be reunited with parents and/or guardians;
— failing to provide reasonable care including adequate food and water, bedding, hygiene, heat and cooling, health care;
— transporting detained persons without notification to parents, guardians, family members;
— refoulement – deporting asylum seekers back to the place they fled;
— forced labor.
Nothing in U.S. law or treaties to which the U.S. has been a party or signatory authorizes this kind of treatment.
Trump also systematically defies a court order issued in June 2018 prohibiting further separations of minors from their families at the border and instructing the Department of Homeland security to return minors to their families. The Trump administration weaseled around the court order, detaining entire families at military facilities — new concentration camps — while DHS continued to separate families on an irregular basis.
We’ve seen evidence of this systematic lawlessness based on inspections by Congressional tours of detention facilities — concentration camps in which asylum seeking minors were denied reasonable “safe and sanitary” conditions.
The number of illnesses and deaths attributable to Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy may never be fully known because the administration has done so much to avoid monitoring and oversight.
~ ~ ~
Other deaths which can be wholly attributed to Trump’s bad faith in executing his office are those of 2,975 Americans who lived in Puerto Rico (pdf) when Hurricane Maria hit the island in 2017.
Puerto Ricans were denied their right to equal protection under the law; they were not accorded the same access to federal aid as mainland citizens, in contrast to the assistance received by other Americans after Hurricane Harvey, Irma, and Michael in 2017-2018.
And none of this had the imprimatur of Congress.
~ ~ ~
Unlike Nixon’s Operation Menu which only lasted 14 months, Trump’s derogation of Congress’s authority through his bad faith execution of laws is now into its 33 month. His malign acts increase in depth and breadth, now including the wretched refusal of Bahamians fleeing their hurricane devastated country, continued separation of families including Bahamian children.
There are homeless who work in Silicon Valley, homeless only because there isn’t affordable housing. Will he stop at them? Is he doing this to line his pockets in some way or as a campaign promise not shared with the public?
Will Congress do nothing at all to stop this creeping and inhuman fascism, these sustained attacks on human rights of citizens and non-citizens alike?
The 93rd Congress may not have passed the fourth Article of Impeachment against Nixon, but at least they understood and grasped the executive could and must be removed with the three articles they passed. It’d be nice if the 116th Congress was less supine.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/USFlag_KevinMorris-Unsplash_08OCT2016_1500pxw_mod-e1558831138343.jpg9941500Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-09-11 21:57:492019-09-12 09:32:34History’s Rhyme, Part 5: Bad Faith, Unauthorized Acts and Crimes Against Humanity
[NB: Check the byline, thanks. Updates will appear at the bottom of the post before the whip count table. /~Rayne]
I was really torn about sharing this video — watching it induced a wicked flashback to my salad days. As problematic as the images in it are now, the lyrics are effective and the tune snappy.
Just the thing to get you pumped up to make a phone call to your representative. Now crack that whip!
Since the last Whip It post we’ve picked up these Democrats in support of an impeachment inquiry:
Rep. Lauren Underwood IL-14 (rated R+5*)
Rep. Anthony Brown MD-4 (rated D+28)
Rep. Ben Ray Luján NM-3 (rated D+8)
As the current Assistant Speaker and former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair during the last session, Luján is the highest ranking representative to commit to date.
According to POLITICO’s most recent count, we’re at 131 Democrats in support of an impeachment inquiry. We need 87 more to pass an authorizing resolution.
We’re entering the tough slog. It’s not going to be pretty when representatives are offering tepid support in spite of their very blue district, or flipping only after claiming their district is too conservative. I’m rather annoyed at Anthony Brown, for example, whose district is D+28 — ridiculous to string this out so long and make such a tepid statement when declaring support.
There are 104 Democrats who have not yet committed to supporting an impeachment inquiry. This means 17 Democrats can remain uncommitted and a resolution would still pass.
But there are 75 Democrats in districts ranked D+0 or better who have yet to get behind an inquiry. There are no excuses for this; surely they can see the 2018 wave will continue, especially as a recession begins and Trump continues to put the nation at risk nearly every damned time he tweets.
12 of the 29 Democrats in R+1 or worse districts must also eventually give their support. They will lose their existing Democratic base if they don’t. If they don’t already see obvious reasons why an impeachment inquiry must begin, they need to be primaried for having failed their oath of office.
You’ll notice if you haven’t in past Whip It posts that I’ve given up on the House GOP members. They are wholly committed to a transnational organized crime syndicate’s omertà, willing to kowtow to foreign entities to obtain continuing support, willing to turn a blind eye to the many gross failings of the Trump administration.
They’ve completely thrown in the towel on democracy by refusing to protect voting infrastructure and ensuring every citizen has access to the polls.
Their oath of fealty to their syndicate is stronger than their loyalty to their fellow Americans and the Constitution.
This is the moment of differentiation for Democrats. This is when the rubber meets the road, when bullshit walks. Do not be found wanting when weighed and measured; do not be Republican light. Be a true (little r) republican and defend this democracy.
That goes for us as constituents as well. It’s still upon us to keep this republic, showing up at town halls our representatives have during the remaining summer recess, by calling their offices in D.C. or locally, by sending faxes or using Resistbot to make our sentiments heard.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Call your representative (and only your representative) and ask them to support an impeachment inquiry, even if they are a Republican. If your representative has already thrown their support behind an inquiry, do be sure to thank them.
This whip count will continue to be updated. Share in comments any new announcements by House members throwing support behind an impeachment inquiry.
And thank community member harpie for staying on top of the count as new commitments are made.
UPDATE-1 — 7:00 PM EDT —
Looks like another Democrat declared support for an impeachment inquiry while I was drafting this post.
Rep. Jim Langevin RI-2 (D+6)
UPDATE-2 — 11:30 PM EDT —
Oops, my count was off by two and now I know why. I missed Ruppersberger and Trone.
UPDATE: POLITICO’s official impeachment inquriy whip count is at 131 Democrats (132 overall w/ Amash).
Come on, Hoyer. Your Maryland district is a D+11 like Ruppersberger’s. Don’t think for a moment we’ve forgotten you.
UPDATE-3 — 3:40 PM EDT 22-AUG-2019 —
Add another to the tally, now at 134.
Rep. Bruce Schneider IL-10 (D+10)
UPDATE-4 — 6:00 PM EDT 22-AUG-2019 —
Feels like things are picking up steam. We have two more to add to the count:
Rep. Bill Keating MD-09 (D+4)
Rep. Mark Takano CA-41 (D+12)
That’s 136. Who’s next?
UPDATE-5 — 5:50 PM EDT 23-AUG-2019 —
Politico added Ro Khanna to their count; he’s made tepid statements over the last two months like Anthony Brown MD-4 so we hadn’t added him before now. I guess we’ll add him and then hold his feet to the fire to ensure he delivers, hmm?
Rep. Ro Khanna CA-17 (D+25)
Really no excuses not to be bolder when you’re in a true blue district. Be a leader, for crying out loud.
Emphasis indicates those who have committed to supporting an inquiry since the last whip update.
(1) Vice Chair, House Democratic Caucus
(2) Chair, House Ethics Committee
(3) Chair, House Foreign Affairs Committee
(4) Chair, House Appropriations Committee
(5) Chair, House Rules Committee
(6) Chair, House Armed Services Committee
(7) Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(8) Chair, House Homeland Security Committee
(9) Chair, House Small Business Committee
(10) Chair, House Energy and Commerce Committee
(11) Chair, House Veterans’ Affairs Committee
* Ranking by Cook Partisan Voter Index (2018), indicating degree to which a House congressional district leans toward one of the two major parties.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Phone2_QuinoAl-Unsplash_21AUG2019_3.jpg26664000Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-08-21 18:45:002019-10-18 11:25:45Whip It Good: Crack That Whip [UPDATED-5]
We could use a boost now as we work our way through the dog days of summer. Take a look at how far we’ve come even if it seems too slowly, measure our progress.
As of today we have 123 House Democrats supporting an impeachment inquiry.
This means we’ve picked up four more votes since the last Whip It post.
We need 95 more representatives to support a resolution approving an impeachment inquiry. It’s slow but steady progress.
Sure, we continue to hear that the House Judiciary Committee is working toward impeachment. HJC chair Jerry Nadler told CNN last week,
“This is formal impeachment proceedings…We are investigating all the evidence, we’re gathering the evidence. And we will at the conclusion of this — hopefully by the end of the year — vote to vote articles of impeachment to the House floor. Or we won’t. That’s a decision that we’ll have to make. But that’s exactly the process we’re in right now.”
But the HJC neither has a majority vote approving an impeachment inquiry within the committee nor a majority of the votes across the entire House — yet.
This only fuels the right-wing pundits who assure us attempts to impeach are doomed, DOOMED, they say.
Bah. Do take note of the source, like conservative think tanks’ thinky-tankers who are paid to both promote their conservative donor’s aspirations and sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
As I’ve noted before in previous Whip It posts, it’s still on us to make this happen by showing up at town halls our representatives have over the summer recess, by calling their offices in D.C. or locally, by sending faxes or using Resistbot to make our sentiments heard.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Call your representative (and only your representative) and ask them to support an impeachment inquiry. If your representative has already thrown their support behind an inquiry, do be sure to thank them.
It’s also time to take note of states in which too few Dems have thrown their support behind an inquiry. Like Connecticut — what the hell, Nutmeg State? What the actual hell?
This whip count will continue to be updated. Share in comments any new announcements by House members throwing support behind an impeachment inquiry.
Emphasis indicates those who have committed to supporting an inquiry since the last whip update.
(1) Vice Chair, House Democratic Caucus
(2) Chair, House Ethics Committee
(3) Chair, House Foreign Affairs Committee
(4) Chair, House Appropriations Committee
(5) Chair, House Rules Committee
(6) Chair, House Armed Services Committee
(7) Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(8) Chair, House Homeland Security Committee
(9) Chair, House Small Business Committee
(10) Chair, House Energy and Commerce Committee
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TelephoneCall_QuinoAl-Unsplash_mod3.jpg10001500Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-08-14 16:00:152019-10-18 11:26:00Whip It Good: Higher and Higher
In the last several days, Jerry Nadler has stated more and more clearly that his committee is conducting an inquiry on whether to file articles of impeachment. Six months after gaining the majority, this feels like a slow walk perhaps intended to time any impeachment vote based on how it will impact the election.
In its press release and complaint seeking to enforce its subpoena against Don McGahn last week, the House Judiciary Committee made an alarming claim: that Don McGahn was the most important witness in its consideration of whether to file for impeachment.
McGahn is the Judiciary Committee’s most important fact witness in its consideration of whether to recommend articles of impeachment and its related investigation of misconduct by the President, including acts of obstruction of justice described in the Special Counsel’s Report.
That claim suggests that the House Judiciary Committee has a very limited conceptualization of its own inquiry and perhaps an overestimation of how good a witness McGahn will be.
McGahn’s probably not as credible as HJC Dems think
I say the latter for two reasons. First, in the early days of the Russian investigation, McGahn overstepped the role of a White House Counsel. For example, even after his office recognized they could not talk to Jeff Sessions about the Russian investigation or risk obstruction, McGahn followed Trump’s orders to pressure Dana Boente on the investigation.
At the President’s urging, McGahn contacted Boente several times on March 21, 2017, to seek Boente’s assistance in having Corney or the Department of Justice correct the misperception that the President was under investigation.326
Curiously, McGahn and Boente’s versions of what happened are among the most divergent in the entire Mueller Report, which might suggest McGahn was less than forthright in testimony that, per footnotes, came in one of his earlier interviews.
Plus, as the Mueller Report acknowledges, the NYT story that triggered one of the key events in the report — where Trump asked McGahn to publicly rebut a claim that he had asked McGahn to fire Mueller, which led him to threaten to resign — was inaccurate in its claim that McGahn had functionally threatened to resign (which was clear in real time).
On January 26, 2018, the President’s personal counsel called McGahn ‘s attorney and said that the President wanted McGahn to put out a statement denying that he had been asked to fire the Special Counsel and that he had threatened to quit in protest.784 McGahn’s attorney spoke with McGahn about that request and then called the President’s personal counsel to relay that McGahn would not make a statement.785 McGahn ‘s attorney informed the President’s personal counsel that the Times story was accurate in reporting that the President wanted the Special Counsel removed.786 Accordingly, McGahn’s attorney said, although the article was inaccurate in some other respects, McGahn could not comply with the President’s request to dispute the story.787
Put McGahn under oath, and Republicans will ask if he was a source for that story, and if he was, why he oversold what he did. At the very least they’ll beat him up for letting the “#FakeNews NYT” spread lies.
There are far better (tactically and Constitutionally) reasons to impeach
More troubling still, asserting that McGahn is the most important witness — and stating that he’d be a witness in “criminal obstruction” — you prioritize that cause for impeachment over others, causes that might elicit some Republican support or at the very least mobilize the Democratic base.
To my mind, the best cause for impeachment — in terms of cornering Republicans and mobilizing the Democratic base — pertains to Trump’s repurposing of otherwise allocated funding for his Wall. This was an issue about which Republicans themselves had problems. It highlights Trump’s impotence to deliver on his campaign promise that Mexico would pay for his wall. It goes to issues of efficacy on national security issues. And it highlights how Trump has abused authority — authority which goes to the core of separation of powers — to facilitate his attacks on Latino immigrants. Plus, depending on when impeachment was triggered, having focused on the power of the purse would provide a tool to rein Trump in if he survived the election.
Democrats should also focus on Trump’s abuse of the Vacancy Reform Act in his appointments to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Board, DOJ, DOD, and ODNI. Violating the spirit of Consumer Financial Protection Board gave Trump a way to gut an entity meant to protect consumers, something that Elizabeth Warren will be able to magnify better than anyone (all the more so if and when the economy starts to turn south). Appointing Big Dick Toilet Salesman Matt Whitaker to fire Jeff Sessions provides a different way to get to the Russian investigation, and may (if BDTS prevented Mueller from naming Trump in the Roger Stone indictment) focus more attention on the resolution of that case (which has the potential of being both a really damaging trial or a pre-trial pardon). The appointment of Patrick Shanahan as Acting Secretary of Defense provides a way to focus on ethics complaints about his tenure, to say nothing about Trump’s tolerance for familial abuse. And Trump must be held accountable for whatever predictable problems selecting a loyalist over Sue Gordon as Acting DNI will cause — and some of the predictable problems, which might involve North Korea, Iran, or cybersecurity, could be quite damning.
Another impeachment cause that would invoke some of the same issues as the Russian investigation, but in a way that would be more awkward for the President, is Trump’s abuse of security clearances, starting with, but not limited to, Kushner’s (this is an issue where the Oversight Committee has done great work). An inquiry into why Trump gave Kushner clearance would provide a way to get to Kushner’s awkward role in foreign policy, particularly the possibility that he shared US classified information with Gulf oligarchs. If Kushner is found to have shared intelligence allowing Mohammed bin Salman to target Al-Waleed bin Talal or Jamal Khashoggi, it will invoke a slew of issues that will put Republicans in an awkward position (and have the salutary effect of focusing attention on Trump’s refusal to keep the Saudis honest).
Democrats would be idiots if they didn’t make an issue of Trump’s self-dealing, including but not limited to emoluments. It’s likely Republicans would defend the President on this point, but if they do, it can form the basis for legislation to more clearly prohibit such self-dealing going forward if Democrats do well in 2020. In addition, it goes to an issue that was absolutely key to Trump’s supporters, #DrainTheSwamp, but on which he has been (predictably) an utter failure.
Finally, Democrats should include Trump’s refusal to respond to violations of the Presidential Records Act in any impeachment inquiry. It is true that most Administrations have had problems adhering to PRA going back to Poppy Bush (Obama is to a large extent an exception, but Hillary’s avoidance of the Federal Records Act undermines that good record). But when pressed, most prior Administrations have been forced to admit the details of their failures to fulfill the law. Here, Trump has simply refused to respond to all questions about PRA violations. Some of these violations involve key players in the Russian investigation: Jared, KT McFarland, and Bannon. But these same people were involved in other scandals, such as the willingness to sacrifice US standards on nuclear security so that a bunch of Republicans can make $1 million per reactor (again, this would incorporate great work done by OGR).
This is a non-exclusive list. The point is, however, that HJC should frame their impeachment inquiry broadly, partly because some of Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors have pissed off Republicans in the past, and partly because a failed impeachment trial can still frame Republican obstruction in a way that voters will care about.
Obviously, I think Trump’s conduct during the Russian investigation is important, and it’s all packaged up with a bow. But it’s not even just obstruction. Trump lied under oath in his written responses to Mueller. And Trump cheated to win an election. So even while pursuing impeachment on Russia, it needs to be more broadly conceived than the issues that Don McGahn can address.
Other witnesses have more to offer than Don McGahn
So even in the emphasis on the Russia investigation, I think there is at least one better witness: Jay Sekulow. Sekulow has done a number of things that don’t qualify for attorney client privilege, such as his conversations directly with Michael Cohen to write a false statement hiding the President’s ties to Russia. That goes directly to Trump’s sworn lies.
Then there’s John Kelly. He was at DHS for the beginning of Trump’s abusive immigration policies. He knows details of Trump’s security clearance abuses (and might actually give a damn about them). He should know details of the PRA violations (and if not, should be accountable for why not). And he knows details of Kushner’s privatized foreign policy (and probably tried to control it). Kelly was a minor witness for Robert Mueller, but should be a key witness to any impeachment inquiry.
Finally, there’s the role of the Office of Legal Counsel and its head Steve Engel in all this. Some of OLC’s opinions enabling Trump’s abusive acts have been every bit as dodgy as John Yoo’s ones. It is the place of DOJ’s oversight committee to review the circumstances of those shitty opinions. While the government would likely fight this testimony particularly aggressively based on deliberative and attorney-client privileges, both John Yoo and Steven Bradbury have testified before, Yoo on an issue (torture) pertaining to abuse. Engel would still be able to testify about patterns of communication and the degree to which Trump dictated outcomes.
I’ll grant you, there are good reasons why McGahn may be a good tactical witness. I suspect that, by the time he testified, McGahn might be prepared to Bigfoot his testimony, not least in an attempt to cleanse himself of the Trump taint. So at that level, he may be a willing, damning witness.
So calling McGahn the most important witness might just be a legal tactic, a means to tie HJC’s obstruction inquiry with witnesses who have been blocked from testifying. And the White House Counsel position (to say nothing of the former White House Counsel position) is one for which there is precedent (under Clinton and Bush) for coerced testimony.
But I hope to hell HJC doesn’t really believe he’s the most important witness.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/440px-Don_McGahn_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg618440emptywheelhttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngemptywheel2019-08-13 09:32:192019-08-14 07:30:41Don McGahn Is Not the Most Critical Witness on Impeachment
At the time we had 85 votes in support of an impeachment inquiry representing 39% of the needed 218 votes to pass a resolution authorizing an inquiry’s formal launch.
Today we’re better than half way to 218. The table below reflects the new tally of 118 House Democrats and one Independent in support of an impeachment inquiry. We now need 100 or 45% more of the House Dems.
It’s still on us to make this happen by showing up at town halls our representatives have over the summer recess, by calling their offices in D.C. or locally, by sending faxes or using Resistbot to make our sentiments heard.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121
This whip count will continue to be updated. Share in comments any new announcements by House members throwing support behind an impeachment inquiry.
House Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler has said his committee has “in effect” been conducting an impeachment inquiry, but his statement does not have the full force that a majority-supported resolution would have. It’d be much harder for a federal court to deny Constitutional powers to an inquiry authorized by a majority of the House. Nadler and the Judiciary Committee (HJC) filed an application for the release of grand jury materials (pdf) on July 26, relying on Watergate- and Clinton-era arguments to bolster this request. I’m not a lawyer but I think this could go either way after the recent McKeever v. Barr decision.
House Oversight is other committee steadily chipping away at Trump’s corruption. Chair Elijah Cummings must be making serious inroads if Trump’s bashing of Baltimore and Cummings as a Maryland rep is any indication. I saw a chart somewhere outlining the progress of Oversight investigations but I can’t find it now — it must have terrified Trump and his minions. Oversight’s work also looks like a precursor to an impeachment inquiry, but whether it can likewise wield clout like an impeachment inquiry remains to be seen.
The surest approach is an impeachment inquiry, freighted with authority directly from the Constitution. Let’s get one in gear — call your representatives. And do thank those who’ve already thrown behind an inquiry.
Emphasis indicates those who have committed to supporting an inquiry since the last whip update.
(1) Vice Chair, House Democratic Caucus
(2) Chair, House Ethics Committee
(3) Chair, House Foreign Affairs Committee
(4) Chair, House Appropriations Committee
(5) Chair, House Rules Committee
(6) Chair, House Armed Services Committee
(7) Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(8) Chair, House Homeland Security Committee
(9) Chair, House Small Business Committee
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/YellowPhone_MikeMeyers-Unsplash_21JUN2019_mod3_1500pxw.jpg9971499Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-08-05 22:08:312019-10-18 11:26:13Whip It Good: Impeachment Inquiry — Better than Half Way
You may also notice though we agree that an impeachment inquiry is necessary, not everybody at this site agrees how to go about it.
All the shouting and the namecalling won’t change this fact: With 433 active House seats it will take 218 votes (allowing 1 safety vote) to pass a resolution to begin an impeachment inquiry; we are now at 85 votes or 39% of the necessary votes.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could try to put this up for a vote right now but she’d lose. It’d be obvious to that corrupt orange monster and his evil minions there was absolutely no Congressional check on his power. Trump, his minions and sponsors would perceive this failure as a permission slip to continue their crime spree, possibly ramping up to even worse.
One thing can change this dynamic.
You.
You can raise hell with your intransigent representative if they are a Democrat who has not yet offered their support for an impeachment inquiry. You can still raise hell with your GOP representative just so they know we are still expecting them to perform to the letter of their oath of office.
You can also identify a primary candidate running against the most resistent representatives, make a donation to them, volunteer to help their campaign, and then call your intransigent rep and let them know you are going to ensure they are primaried because they are failing their oath of office.
You can share Law Works’ production of The Investigation recorded last week if friends and family haven’t read the Mueller report and don’t understand that Trump obstructed justice. Now bmaz thinks this production was a stunt but treat it as a podcast: talk a friend or family member into a long car ride over the holiday and weekend, and play The Investigation while you’re on the road. Talk about the report and the obstruction — and then persuade them to help make calls.
About those rallies outside media offices: we could have rallies outside local offices of members of Congress, but there’s no guarantee media will treat these as newsworthy. They didn’t cover any of MoveOn’s rallies this month for example. So hold them at media offices, like outside the biggest radio or television stations in your market. Make it impossible to avoid coverage. I’d like to tell you to avoid the Sinclair-owned ones but if the local station picks up the story, it’s a double win. If you organize one with a group be sure to prepare clear, succinct talking points and have a designated spokesperson deliver them.
You can wallpaper your municipality with home printed materials to drum up more support. Feel free to use this graphic:
Post it at the library, grocery store, coffee shop, wherever there’s a bulletin board open for public use.
Is this an old school approach? Sure, but let’s face it — the new school efforts aren’t breaking through.
It’s up to you. And you, and you.
Let’s roll.
Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121
Updated whip count follows below; share in comments any new announcements by House members throwing support behind an impeachment inquiry.
A word to leaders of certain activist organizations who’ve been dogging Nancy Pelosi: it’s YOUR organizational leadership failing this country if you haven’t persistently encouraged your members to focus on getting the 218 House votes needed. Harassing Pelosi doesn’t make it likely the outstanding 133 vots will turn up; it makes it more likely they will hold out longer to avoid the harassment they’ve seen aimed at Pelosi. Jesus Christ, use your fucking brains. No dog is going to willingly show up for a whipping they’ve seen another dog take; they’ll run and hide.
Carrots are good as well as sticks; while your organization badgers Pelosi for fundraising now, keep in mind the entire House must raise money to run in 2020. Reward the representatives who are committing to voting for an impeachment inquiry with donations.
This is an open thread.
UPDATE — 1:00 p.m. 02-JUL-2019 —
Updated spreadsheet with count. Note that 16 of 25 Democratic House Judiciary Committee members are now in support of an inquiry since last week — that’s 67%.
Still zero GOP support save for Justin Amash; meanwhile the RNC is dishing out tickets for a non-campaign campaign event using taxpayer funded resources limiting access to a taxpayer-funded Fourth of July holiday. Surprised none of these spineless leeches are sucking up to Moscow for the holiday.
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TelephoneCall_QuinoAl-Unsplash_mod3.jpg10001500Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-07-01 13:55:532019-10-18 11:26:24Whip It Good: Impeachment Inquiry — Do You Even Math? [UPDATED]
[NB: Check the byline, thanks! Updates at the very bottom. /~Rayne]
CNN published a report this weekend tallying the House Democrats who have already expressed support in one way or another for an impeachment inquiry. The head count stood at 63 out of 235 Democrats on Saturday, along with lone Republican Justin Amash (R-MI).
There are many possible reasons why House Democrats haven’t yet expressed support for a Constitutionally empowered inquiry, not the least of which is simple chickenshit worry about polling for the 2020 race. I say chickenshit because 2018 was a huge wave and the reasons which drove that wave have not subsided. They have only increased in intensity.
Can you think of anyone in your circle of friends and family whose taxes have gone down since the Trump tax bill passed? Can you think of anyone who’s found their grocery bill or their rent has gone down? What about medical bills — has anyone you know experienced a drop in prescription drug costs or health care insurance premiums?
And what of other matters like personal privacy or the ability to vote? Have those matters improved for the average Americans you know?
Now we can add more rural Americans to the discontented having been ignored while their states have been inundated, just as coastal residents in hurricane-damaged states have also gone without timely attention and aid.
The blue wave will continue. Its power needs to be focused. We have some time to address that. But we also need to develop that focus with more effective investigations into the Trump administration’s public corruption and abuses of power as well as obstruction of justice and oversight. An impeachment inquiry will provide the teeth necessary to obtain evidence and testimony, and it’s well past time to get the House Dems on board.
Here’s the whip list below — I will update it as I see reports in the media.
Your job as a citizen is to exercise your civic duty and contact your representative to find out where they stand on an impeachment inquiry, and to convey your opinion supporting one.
Do share your results in comments; we’ll watch to see how long it takes for the media to catch up with any changes in this whip count.
I saw a mention of 67 Dems now supporting an inquiry but I only have 64. If you know of any other House members who have now said they support an impeachment inquiry, please let me know. Thanks.
UPDATED — 5:00 p.m. 19-JUN-2019 —
Thanks to community member harpie who shared a link to NBC’s latest whip count which showed 66 House Dems and 1 House GOP member supporting an impeachment inquiry. NBC’s list deviated from CNN’s in that NBC did not include Brenda Lulenar Lawrence (D-MI) and Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX). Newly added supporters are in boldface.
[1] NBC also showed Harley Rouda as a Yes in a previous iteration but has now offered a correction:
CORRECTION (May 30, 2019, 1:25 p.m. ET): An earlier version of this article misstated the position of Rep. Harley Rouda, D-Calif., on beginning an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Rouda has said he supports an impeachment inquiry only if Trump does not comply with congressional subpoenas, not before.
Nice fence sitting, Rouda, hope your pants are adequately padded. Does this include obstruction by staff/ex-staff who refuse to comply with subpoenas or no? Anybody in Rouda’s district want to call and find out which side of the fence Rouda is on today after Hope Hicks refusal to cooperate with the House?
UPDATED — 5:00 p.m. 19-JUN-2019 —
Adding Brian Higgins (D-NY) as a Yes:
Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense. The multiple instances laid out in the Mueller report necessitate that the House launch an impeachment inquiry. pic.twitter.com/Y6wERZyorS
Productive day on the Yes front. Wonder how much was because of Hope Hicks’ and White House intransigent responses to questioning. House GOP caucus is still fully behind the scofflaw-in-chief, save for Justin Amash (D-MI).
UPDATED — 7:45 a.m. 21-JUN-2019 —
I’ve made a change to the spreadsheet to indicate which members of the House Judiciary Dems support an impeachment inquiry. 13 out of 24 members currently do — that’s critical mass. Chair Jerry Nadler is a likely supporter given his submission of a resolution last year for impeachment, but as chair he may be obligated to hold back until he has reached some threshold internal to the committee. Here’s the breakdown:
If your representative is one of the House Judiciary Committee Dems who have not yet thrown their support behind an impeachment inquiry, your calls matter the most right now. With all HJC Dems on board, Nadler has the political will power aligned to begin pursuit of an inquiry.
UPDATED — 1:30 p.m. 21-JUN-2019 —
Add another Yes on the board supporting impeachment inquiry:
Two more House Dems now support an impeachment inquiry — one of them is a House Judiciary member, too. That’s 14 of 24 or 58% of the committee now behind an inquiry.
If you call your representative, please share the results of your call in comments. Thanks. If comments close here soon because the post gets knocked down by other content, I will put up a new Whip It post.
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TelephoneCall_QuinoAl-Unsplash_mod3.jpg10001500Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-06-17 15:57:172019-10-18 11:26:35Whip It Good: Impeachment Inquiry Edition [UPDATED-7]
Here’s a post dedicated to the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing today at 2:00 p.m. EDT. I will add content as we go along.
Former White House counsel John Dean will testify today. You’ll recall he served under Richard M. Nixon’s administration. The right-wing media sphere has already been making noise about the HJC taking testimony from a convicted felon.
Except he’s *their* convict, a Republican who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for his role in covering up Nixon’s Watergate scandal. I’m sure he’ll have plenty to say about criminality in the White House and subsequent cover-ups.
Yeesh. This is like Watergate all over again. Back then Nixon had agreed to accommodate the HJC with access to some of the Oval Office tapes, but the person who would screen them was Senator Stennis who had a hearing disability. We won’t know if Barr truly fulfills the spirit of this agreement with Nadler or pulls a Nixonian Stennis compromise. The HJC took Nixon to court.
Minority Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) attacked Dean as expected and attacked the hearing saying the committee’s priorities are upside down. If the country had been attacked as Nadler said then committee should be focused on that.
Which we all know is bullshit since the House has already passed legislation — the very first bill of the 116th Congress, H.R. 1 For The People Act 2019 — intended to secure elections from attack by foreign influence which paid legislators to skew districts via gerrymandering, manipulated races by way of dark money donations to legislators, and hid additional financial influence through undisclosed financial statements including tax returns. That bill is sitting on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s desk, buried under ~150 other bills he’s bottlenecked. If Collins has a problem with priorities he should have a chat with McConnell and ask why McConnell is uninterested in protecting this country’s elections.
UPDATE — 2:35 p.m. —
Following John Dean’s opening statement, former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance is up. Nice to see a familiar face which will be helpful in news coverage. She’s definitely read the Special Counsel report, and she’s able to explain what she’s seen in it as a former prosecutor which would spur her to indict.
UPDATE — 2:40 p.m. —
Heritage Foundation’s John G. Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government. “Less enthusiastic” about Mueller because he didn’t make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment” for Barr, blah-blah. Followed by apologia for Trump who must surely be innocent because he was so cooperative providing “over a million pages of documents, allowed key members of his staff to be interviewed, and submitted written answers to questions.” Sure, sure, right.
You know this is what Collins will tee off, the beat down on Mueller’s job performance while disregarding SCO report Volume II, pages 1-2 in which Mueller explains why he can’t make a “traditional prosecutorial judgment.”
UPDATE — 2:45 p.m. —
Another familiar face, former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade, has also read the SCO report. She’s explaining the obstruction of justice charges she read in the report.
I’m sure the GOP will come out swinging but it’s really tough to get around this wham-wham-wham beat down ticking off the obstruction.
____
I’ll add the panelists’ statements here after the hearing. ~Rayne
Share this entry
https://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/President_Nixon_and_chief_advisers_1970.png19502934Raynehttps://www.emptywheel.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Logo-Web.pngRayne2019-06-10 14:00:432019-08-14 10:52:31Thread: House Judiciary Committee Hearing with John Dean
