Why did the House Judiciary not take the subpoena issue to court?

[tall73]

I have heard people say that courts would take too long, and they needed it by the election. However, there is a very similar precedent for this which was resolved within a reasonable time frame. In the Nixon Watergate hearings they resolved it in less than four months.

On April 11, 1974 the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for taped conversations.

On April 30 Nixon released redacted transcripts. which did not fully comply.

A request was made to the Supreme Court to resolve the issue, without going through the usual appeal processes.

The Supreme court expedited the case and the case was resolved by July 24, 1974

Nixon White House tapes - Wikipedia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...comply-fully/2012/06/04/gJQAZSw0IV_story.html


Since there is precedent for the Supreme court expediting just this sort of executive privilege claim in a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, why would they not have simply pressed for the same thing again?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, outside the claim of taking too long I believe they thought that if Trump were re-elected and then removed they still had Pence to deal with; getting him removed at this stage of the game would put the R's in a major hole as far as potential candidates, primaries, fund raising, advertising, etc. The D's need Trump out now in order to have even a shot at winning the WH so it looks like they said 'good enough' on evidence and heaved a Hail Mary into the end zone hoping some R's would switch teams just before the end of the game. I think they guessed wrong.....

 

[wing2000]

Since there is precedent for the Supreme court expediting just this sort of executive privilege claim in a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, why would they not have simply pressed for the same thing again?

I've had the same question. What "fast track provisions were available to the judiciary committee? I'll defer to those with a legal history and knowledge of the two cases.

 

[A_Thinker]

I have heard people say that courts would take too long, and they needed it by the election. However, there is a very similar precedent for this which was resolved within a reasonable time frame. In the Nixon Watergate hearings they resolved it in less than four months.

On April 11, 1974 the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for taped conversations.

On April 30 Nixon released redacted transcripts. which did not fully comply.

A request was made to the Supreme Court to resolve the issue, without going through the usual appeal processes.

The Supreme court expedited the case and the case was resolved by July 24, 1974

Nixon White House tapes - Wikipedia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...comply-fully/2012/06/04/gJQAZSw0IV_story.html


Since there is precedent for the Supreme court expediting just this sort of executive privilege claim in a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, why would they not have simply pressed for the same thing again?

I can understand that the House wished to progress the process to the point where Trump might be dissuaded from further questionable action to ensure his reelection.

Now that may have been achieved with his impeachment, the timing for the trial may be a little more flexible ...

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now that may have been achieved with his impeachment, the timing for the trial may be a little more flexible ...

IOW drag it out?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Same reason the Republican senators are giving.

Senate GOP uses Trump's executive privilege threat as rallying cry against subpoenas

From CNN's Manu Raju, Jeremy Herb and Ted Barrett

A growing number of Republicans are pointing to President Trump's threat to invoke executive privilege to make their case against subpoenas sought by Democrats for key witnesses and documents, a development that could bolster Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's goal for a swift end to the impeachment trial.

GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve to drag out the proceedings. Plus, many say there's little appetite for such a time-consuming fight, given that legal battles may ultimately not be successful and could force the courts to rule on hugely consequential constitutional issues about the separation of powers between the branches of government.

 

[civilwarbuff]

GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve to drag out the proceedings.

And they are right. It is just that the house democrats got their timing wrong. Had they fully done their investigation they would be presenting the articles to the Senate about Apr/May and it would have taken up a lot of TV time. However they miscaculated and jumped the gun and now their only hope is the Senate will do their job for them and get this dragged out until May/June and disrupt the R's campaign by being in the news. Sorry boys and girls.....ain't gonna happen.

 

[Basil the Great]

The House probably made a mistake. We will soon know in a matter of days whether or not this is the case.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I have heard people say that courts would take too long, and they needed it by the election. However, there is a very similar precedent for this which was resolved within a reasonable time frame. In the Nixon Watergate hearings they resolved it in less than four months.

On April 11, 1974 the Judiciary Committee issued a subpoena for taped conversations.

On April 30 Nixon released redacted transcripts. which did not fully comply.

A request was made to the Supreme Court to resolve the issue, without going through the usual appeal processes.

The Supreme court expedited the case and the case was resolved by July 24, 1974

Nixon White House tapes - Wikipedia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...comply-fully/2012/06/04/gJQAZSw0IV_story.html


Since there is precedent for the Supreme court expediting just this sort of executive privilege claim in a Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing, why would they not have simply pressed for the same thing again?

Because dealing with Trumps lawyers would further degrade the office of the President of the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...491346-ef6e-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

 

[tall73]

Same reason the Republican senators are giving.

Senate GOP uses Trump's executive privilege threat as rallying cry against subpoenas

From CNN's Manu Raju, Jeremy Herb and Ted Barrett

A growing number of Republicans are pointing to President Trump's threat to invoke executive privilege to make their case against subpoenas sought by Democrats for key witnesses and documents, a development that could bolster Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's goal for a swift end to the impeachment trial.

GOP senators are privately and publicly raising concerns that issuing subpoenas — to top officials like acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton and for documents blocked by the White House — will only serve to drag out the proceedings. Plus, many say there's little appetite for such a time-consuming fight, given that legal battles may ultimately not be successful and could force the courts to rule on hugely consequential constitutional issues about the separation of powers between the branches of government.

So failure to send it to the courts means we never see the evidence, and Trump will keep using the same claim of privilege again and again.

How does that help?

 

[tall73]

Because dealing with Trumps lawyers would further degrade the office of the President of the United States.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...491346-ef6e-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html

So your argument is Trump is so bad we have to let him continue to be bad so we don't degrade the presidency by talking about it?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

So failure to send it to the courts means we never see the evidence, and Trump will keep using the same claim of privilege again and again.

How does that help?

You've asked for reasons. You've gotten reasons. That doesn't mean that the reasons are good - the fact is that none of us really knows why the Hose Democrats are doing things the way they're doing them, so all we can do is speculate, and they're far from flawless people. There's definitely the capacity to make mistakes. They may well have made the wrong decisions on this matter, no matter how good the intent. Only time will tell.

 

[Hank77]

And they are right. It is just that the house democrats got their timing wrong. Had they fully done their investigation they would be presenting the articles to the Senate about Apr/May and it would have taken up a lot of TV time. However they miscaculated and jumped the gun and now their only hope is the Senate will do their job for them and get this dragged out until May/June and disrupt the R's campaign by being in the news. Sorry boys and girls.....ain't gonna happen.

Correct me if I'm wrong but...
The Supreme Court only had to rule on one thing the Nixon tapes because he turned over documents and didn't fight witness testimony. And it wasn't a Presidential election year.

If they had fought everything in court that Trump is fighting it would have been at least April/May when the primaries are running from Feb. 11 - June 2 and 4 Senators are campaigning.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So your argument is Trump is so bad we have to let him continue to be bad so we don't degrade the presidency by talking about it?

To avoid further degradation, congress has circumvented the courts and used his defiance as one of the articles, "obstruction of congress".

 

[tall73]

Correct me if I'm wrong but...
The Supreme Court only had to rule on one thing the Nixon tapes because he turned over documents and didn't fight witness testimony. And it wasn't a Presidential election year.

If they had fought everything in court that Trump is fighting it would have been at least April/May when the primaries are running from Feb. 11 - June 2 and 4 Senators are campaigning.

However they could decide to hear all the complaints at once if requested to do so. And even if he failed to comply on one they could then have the evidence of obstruction even after it was handled by the courts.

 

[tall73]

To avoid further degradation, congress has circumvented the courts and used his defiance as one of the articles, "obstruction of congress".

The house did, but they knew full well that the Senate would not go along with that.

 

[tall73]

You've asked for reasons. You've gotten reasons. That doesn't mean that the reasons are good - the fact is that none of us really knows why the Hose Democrats are doing things the way they're doing them, so all we can do is speculate, and they're far from flawless people. There's definitely the capacity to make mistakes. They may well have made the wrong decisions on this matter, no matter how good the intent. Only time will tell.

I think this about sums it up.

It gets really old with both parties playing political games. And who knows how many real stories are happening while we are all fixated on the political theater.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The house did, but they knew full well that the Senate would not go along with that.

The house did, but they knew full well that the Senate would not go along with that.

I'm confused. But that's Ok. Things are moving along.

 

[tall73]

I'm confused. But that's Ok. Things are moving along.

The House formed the articles, not the Senate. The House leadership also suspected the Republican Senate would not in fact find him guilty of obstructing congress.

 

[NotreDame]

And they are right. It is just that the house democrats got their timing wrong. Had they fully done their investigation they would be presenting the articles to the Senate about Apr/May and it would have taken up a lot of TV time. However they miscaculated and jumped the gun and now their only hope is the Senate will do their job for them and get this dragged out until May/June and disrupt the R's campaign by being in the news. Sorry boys and girls.....ain't gonna happen.

only hope is the Senate will do their job for them

That’s rather impossible. The House completed their job by impeaching the President. The Senate is to have a trial. The Senate’s obligation to have a trial is separate and distinct from the House’s power of impeachment.

The American concept of a trial is, among other things, a forum in which the truth, or as much of it, is discovered by evidence and testimony. The Senate, if it so desires, can make every effort to discover the truth by conducting a thorough trial, which includes witnesses, exhibits, tangible evidence, etcetera. The Senate’s ability to have a trial with witnesses is not impeded by how the House conducted its investigation.